[Senate Hearing 111-362]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-362
NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, FIRST SESSION,
111TH CONGRESS
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
NOMINATIONS OF
WILLIAM J. LYNN; ROBERT F. HALE; MICHELE FLOURNOY; JEH CHARLES JOHNSON;
DR. ASHTON B. CARTER; DR. JAMES N. MILLER, JR.; AMBASSADOR ALEXANDER R.
VERSHBOW; RAYMOND E. MABUS, JR.; ROBERT O. WORK; ELIZABETH L. KING;
DONALD M. REMY; DR. MICHAEL NACHT; WALLACE C. GREGSON; JO-ELLEN DARCY;
DR. INES R. TRIAY; ANDREW C. WEBER; DR. PAUL N. STOCKTON; THOMAS R.
LAMONT; CHARLES A. BLANCHARD; ADM JAMES G. STAVRIDIS, USN; LT. GEN.
DOUGLAS M. FRASER, USAF; LTG STANLEY A. McCHRYSTAL, USA; GORDON S.
HEDDELL; DR. J. MICHAEL GILMORE; ZACHARY J. LEMNIOS; LT. GEN. DENNIS M.
McCARTHY, USMC (RET.); DR. JAMES M. MORIN; DANIEL G. GINSBERG; GEN.
JAMES E. CARTWRIGHT, USMC; ADM ROBERT F. WILLARD, USN; HON. JOHN M.
McHUGH; DR. JOSEPH W. WESTPHAL; JUAN M. GARCIA III; ADM MICHAEL G.
MULLEN, USN; CHRISTINE H. FOX; FRANK KENDALL III; GLADYS COMMONS; TERRY
A. YONKERS; DR. CLIFFORD L. STANLEY; ERIN C. CONATON; LAWRENCE G. ROMO;
DOUGLAS B. WILSON; DR. MALCOLM ROSS O'NEILL; MARY SALLY MATIELLA; PAUL
LUIS OOSTBURG SANZ; JACKALYNE PFANNENSTIEL; AND DR. DONALD L. COOK
__________
JANUARY 15; MARCH 26; APRIL 28; MAY 12; JUNE 2, 11; JULY 9, 30;
SEPTEMBER 15; OCTOBER 22; NOVEMBER 19; DECEMBER 17, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-953 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
(From January through August 2009)
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
JACK REED, Rhode Island SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
EVAN BAYH, Indiana ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
JIM WEBB, Virginia RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
MARK UDALL, Colorado SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director
Joseph W. Bowab, Republican Staff Director
______
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
(From August through December 2009)
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JACK REED, Rhode Island JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
BILL NELSON, Florida LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
EVAN BAYH, Indiana ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
JIM WEBB, Virginia GEORGE S. LeMIEUX, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARK UDALL, Colorado DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
PAUL G. KIRK, JR, Massachusetts
Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director
Joseph W. Bowab, Republican Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Page
january 15, 2009
Nominations of William J. Lynn III to be Deputy Secretary of
Defense; Robert F. Hale to be Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer; Michele Flournoy to
be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and Jeh Charles
Johnson to be General Counsel, Department of Defense........... 1
Statements of:
Reed, Hon. Jack, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island..... 6
Skelton, Hon. Ike, U.S. Representative from the State of Missouri 8
Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey. 9
Lynn, William J., III, Nominee to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. 10
Hale, Robert F., Nominee to be Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer...................... 12
Flournoy, Michele, Nominee to be Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy......................................................... 14
Johnson, Jeh Charles, Nominee to be General Counsel, Department
of Defense..................................................... 15
march 26, 2009
Nominations of Dr. Ashton B. Carter to be Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; Dr. James
N. Miller, Jr., to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy; and Ambassador Alexander R. Vershbow to be Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs........ 181
Statements of:
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 183
Carter, Ashton B., Ph.D., Nominee to be Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics............. 186
Reed, Hon. Jack, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island..... 188
Miller, James N., Jr., Ph.D., Nominee to be Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy................................ 189
Vershbow, Hon. Alexander D., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Security Affairs..................... 190
april 28, 2009
Nominations of Raymond E. Mabus, Jr., to be Secretary of the
Navy; Robert O. Work to be Under Secretary of the Navy;
Elizabeth L. King to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Legislative Affairs; Donald M. Remy to be General Counsel of
the Department of the Army; Dr. Michael Nacht to be Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs; Wallace C.
Gregson to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and
Pacific Security Affairs; Jo-Ellen Darcy to be Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; and Dr. Ines R. Triay to
be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management.. 321
iii
Statements of:
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 323
Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi... 324
Wicker, Hon. Roger F., U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi 325
Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana. 326
Reed, Hon. Jack, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island..... 327
Mabus, Raymond E. Jr., Nominee to be Secretary of the Navy....... 329
Work, Robert O., Nominee to be Under Secretary of the Navy....... 331
King, Elizabeth L., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Legislative Affairs........................................ 333
Remy, Donald M., Nominee to be General Counsel of the Department
of the Army.................................................... 333
Webb, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia.......... 428
Nacht, Dr. Michael, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Global Strategic Affairs................................... 432
Gregson, Wallace C., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs......................... 433
Darcy, Jo-Ellen, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works................................................ 433
Triay, Dr. Ines R., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Energy
for Environmental Management................................... 434
may 12, 2009
Nominations of Andrew C. Weber to be Assistant to the Secretary
of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense
Programs; Dr. Paul N. Stockton to be Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs;
Thomas R. Lamont to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs; and Charles A. Blanchard to be
General Counsel of the Department of the Air Force............. 615
Statements of:
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from the State of Indiana... 618
Durbin, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois.... 619
Farr, Hon. Sam, U.S. Representative from the State of California. 620
Weber, Andrew C., Nominee to be Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense
Programs....................................................... 622
Stockton, Dr. Paul N., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs.... 623
Lamont, Thomas R., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Manpower and Reserve Affairs............................... 623
Blanchard, Charles A., Nominee to be General Counsel of the
Department of the Air Force.................................... 624
june 2, 2009
Nominations of ADM James G. Stavridis, USN, for Reappointment to
the Grade of Admiral and to be Commander, U.S. European Command
and Supreme Allied Commander, Europe; Lt. Gen. Douglas M.
Fraser, USAF, to be General and Commander, U.S. Southern
Command; and LTG Stanley A. McChrystal, USA, to be General and
Commander, International Security Assistance Force and
Commander, U.S. Forces, Afghanistan............................ 717
Statements of:
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska...... 721
Stavridis, ADM James G., USN, Nominee for Reappointment to the
Grade of Admiral and to be Commander, U.S. European Command and
Supreme Allied Commander, Europe............................... 723
Fraser, Lt. Gen. Douglas M., USAF, Nominee to be General and
Commander, U.S. Southern Command............................... 724
McChrystal, LTG Stanley A., USA, Nominee to be General and
Commander, International Security Assistance Force and
Commander, U.S. Forces, Afghanistan............................ 725
june 11, 2009
Nominations of Gordon S. Heddell to be Inspector General,
Department of Defense; Dr. J. Michael Gilmore to be Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation, Department of Defense; Zachary
J. Lemnios to be Director of Defense Research and Engineering;
Lt. Gen. Dennis M. McCarthy, USMC (Ret.), to be Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs; Dr. James M. Morin to
be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial
Management and Comptroller; and Daniel B. Ginsberg to be
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs........................................................ 837
Statements of:
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont... 841
Conrad, Hon. Kent, U.S. Senator from the State of North Dakota... 843
Heddell, Gordon S., Nominee to be Inspector General, Department
of Defense..................................................... 845
Gilmore, Dr. J. Michael, Nominee to be Director of Operation Test
and Evaluation, Department of Defense.......................... 845
Lemnios, Zachary J., Nominee to be Director of Defense Research
and Engineering................................................ 846
McCarthy, Lt. Gen. Dennis M., USMC (Ret.), Nominee to be
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs............. 859
Morin, Dr. James M., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Financial Management and Comptroller................. 860
Ginsberg, Daniel B., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs......................... 861
july 9, 2009
Nominations of Gen. James E. Cartwright, USMC, for Reappointment
to the Grade of General and Reappointment as the Vice Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and ADM Robert F. Willard, USN,
for Reappointment to the Grade of Admiral and to be Commander,
U.S. Pacific Command........................................... 975
Statements of:
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from the State of Hawaii.... 976
Cartwright, Gen. James E., USMC, Nominee for the Position of Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.......................... 980
Willard, ADM Robert F., USN, Nominee to be Commander, U.S.
Pacific Command................................................ 981
july 30, 2009
Nominations of Hon. John M. McHugh to be Secretary of the Army;
Dr. Joseph W. Westphal to be the Under Secretary of the Army;
and Juan M. Garcia III to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy
for Manpower and Reserve Affairs............................... 1073
Statements of:
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 1076
Schumer, Hon. Charles E., U.S. Senator from the State of New York 1076
Collins, Hon. Susan, U.S. Senator from the State of Maine........ l079
Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas. 1081
Cornyn, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas.......... 1082
McHugh, Hon. John M., Nominee to be Secretary of the Army........ 1083
Westphal, Dr. Joseph W., Nominee to be Under Secretary of the
Army........................................................... 1085
Garcia, Juan M., III, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.......................... 1086
september 15, 2009
Nomination of ADM Michael G. Mullen, USN, for Reappointment to
the Grade of Admiral and Reappointment as the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.......................................... 1225
Statement of:
Mullen, ADM Michael G., USN, Nominee for Reappointment to be
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff................................ 1231
october 22, 2009
Nominations of Christine H. Fox to be Director of Cost Assessment
and Program Evaluation, Department of Defense; Frank Kendall
III to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology; Gladys Commons to be Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Financial Management and Comptroller; and Terry A.
Yonkers to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Installations and Environment.................................. 1333
Statements of:
Reed, Hon. Jack, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island..... 1336
Fox, Christine H., Nominee to be Director of Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation, Department of Defense...................... 1338
Kendall, Frank, III, Nominee to be Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology......................... 1339
Commons, Gladys, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy
for Financial Management and Comptroller....................... 1340
Yonkers, Terry A., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Installations and Environment........................ 1341
november 19, 2009
Nominations of Dr. Clifford L. Stanley to be Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Erin C. Conaton to be
Under Secretary of the Air Force; and Lawrence G. Romo to be
Director of the Selective Service System....................... 1443
Statements of:
Skelton, Hon. Ike, U.S. Representative from the State of Missouri 1446
Stanley, Dr. Clifford L., Nominee to be Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness............................ 1448
Conaton, Erin C., Nominee to be Under Secretary of the Air Force. 1449
Romo, Lawrence G., Nominee to be Director of the Selective
Service........................................................ 1450
december 17, 2009
Nominations of Douglas B. Wilson to be Assistant Secretary of
Defense of Public Affairs; Dr. Malcolm Ross O'Neill to be
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology; Mary Sally Matiella to be Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller; Paul Luis
Oostburg Sanz to be General Counsel of the Department of the
Navy; Jackalyne Pfannenstiel to be Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Installations and Environment; and Dr. Donald L. Cook
to be Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, National
Nuclear Security Administration................................ 1535
Statements of:
Skelton, Hon. Ike, U.S. Representative from the State of Missouri 1538
Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, U.S. Senator from the State of New
Hampshire...................................................... 1539
Wilson, Douglas B., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Public Affairs............................................. 1542
O'Neill, Dr. Malcolm Ross, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology............ 1543
Matiella, Mary Sally, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Financial Management and Comptroller.................. 1544
Sanz, Paul Luis Oostburg, Nominee to be General Counsel of the
Department of the Navy......................................... 1545
Pfannenstiel, Jackalyne, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Installations and Environment......................... 1546
Cook, Dr. Donald L., Nominee to be Deputy Administrator for
Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration..... 1547
APPENDIX......................................................... 1667
NOMINATIONS OF WILLIAM J. LYNN III TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE;
ROBERT F. HALE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER) AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER; MICHELE FLOURNOY TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
FOR POLICY; AND JEH CHARLES JOHNSON TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE
----------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Reed, Akaka, E.
Benjamin Nelson, Webb, McCaskill, McCain, Inhofe, Chambliss,
Graham, Thune, and Wicker.
Other Senators present: Senators Hagan, Begich, Menendez,
and Udall.
Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Jonathan D. Clark, counsel;
Gabriella Eisen, counsel; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional
staff member; Creighton Greene, professional staff member;
Michael J. Kuiken, professional staff member; Peter K. Levine,
general counsel; William G.P. Monahan, counsel; John H. Quirk
V, professional staff member; Arun A. Seraphin, professional
staff member; Russell L. Shaffer, counsel; and William K.
Sutey, professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Joseph W. Bowab, Republican
staff director; William M. Caniano, professional staff member;
Richard H. Fontaine, Jr., deputy Republican staff director;
David M. Morriss, minority counsel; Lucian L. Niemeyer,
professional staff member; Diana G. Tabler, professional staff
member; Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel; and Dana W. White,
professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Kevin A. Cronin, Jessica L.
Kingston, and Christine G. Lang.
Committee members' assistants present: Bethany Bassett and
Jay Maroney, assistants to Senator Kennedy; James Tuite,
assistant to Senator Byrd; Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator
Reed; Bonnie Berge, assistant to Senator Akaka; Christopher
Caple, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Christiana Gallagher,
assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Jon Davey, assistant to
Senator Bayh; Jennifer Park and Gordon I. Peterson, assistants
to Senator Webb; Stephen C. Hedger and Elizabeth McDermott,
assistants to Senator McCaskill; Anthony J. Lazarski and Nathan
Reese, assistants to Senator Inhofe; Clyde A. Taylor IV,
assistant to Senator Chambliss; Adam G. Brake, assistant to
Senator Graham; Jason Van Beek, assistant to Senator Thune;
Brian W. Walsh, assistant to Senator Martinez; and Erskine W.
Wells III, assistant to Senator Wicker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody.
The committee meets today to consider the nominations of
Bill Lynn to be Deputy Secretary of Defense; Robert Hale to be
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); Michele Flournoy to
be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and Jeh Charles
Johnson to be General Counsel of the Department of Defense
(DOD).
This is the first meeting of the 111th Congress, so I want
to begin by welcoming back all of our members, starting with
our ranking member--although he's not here at the moment, he
can't be here until a little later in the hearing. We all know
that Senator McCain had hoped to be serving in a somewhat
different position, but we're delighted to have him back, and
we welcome the huge contribution that he has made, and will
continue to make, to this committee, to Congress, and to the
Nation.
I also want to extend a special welcome to our new members:
Senator Hagan, who is here, Senator Begich who is here--I did
not see Senator Udall, he's not here yet. They--although
technically not members yet of the committee--are going to be
members both technically and in reality, in a few days. So
we've invited them to join us at today's hearing and they'll be
free to ask questions if they'd like, later on. We're delighted
to have you both here.
The Senate Armed Services Committee has, I think, and our
new members particularly will find out, a real determination to
act on a bipartisan basis. We are a committee that historically
has acted that way, it's been our hallmark. It's been something
we've been very proud of, it's something we protect.
The commitment to national defense is not a partisan
commitment on the part of any Member of Congress, and it is
surely something which we feel very strongly about, this common
commitment to the security of our Nation, and to the men and
women in uniform who put themselves in harm's way for our good.
We look forward to working with you. I know every member of
the committee feels that way, regardless of party affiliation.
This year our committee is in a unique position because we have
a new administration, but we do not have a new nominee for
Secretary of Defense.
We asked Secretary Gates to return to the committee on
January 27, to provide us with his views, and the views of the
incoming administration on challenges facing DOD. That hearing
is going to give us the opportunity to ask many of the
questions that we might have asked a new nominee.
Today we're going to hear from nominees for four of the
most senior positions at DOD who serve directly under the
Secretary. We welcome our nominees and their families to
today's hearing. We will tell our nominees' families something
that many of them already know from previous experience. That
is that senior DOD officials put in long hours, and they make
sacrifices for the Nation's good, and their families make
sacrifices, as well, to make it possible for the officials to
serve our country, and to take out the kind of time that is
necessary from their lives, and that will also come from your
lives.
So we thank the families for their service, as well as our
nominees for their willingness to serve our Nation. We'll ask
the nominees to introduce their families as we call upon them
later, for their opening statements.
Each of our nominees has a distinguished career of public
service, and a strong commitment to the Nation's defense. They
are exceptionally well-qualified, and the committee looks
forward to working with them, and hopefully a swift
confirmation.
Mr. Lynn served in DOD from 1993 to 2001, first as Director
of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) and then as DOD
Comptroller.
Mr. Hale served in the Department as Air Force Comptroller
from 1994 to 2001. Before that, he spent 12 years as the head
of the Defense Unit of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
Ms. Flournoy served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Strategy in the 1990s, and helped prepare the
2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
Mr. Johnson has served as General Counsel of the Air Force
from 1998 to 2001.
Mr. Lynn also gained, we think, his most important
experience before he went to the Pentagon, and that is when he
spent 6 years working with this committee as Senator Kennedy's
military legislative assistant. We look forward to having
Senator Kennedy back with us, he is looking very good, and
sounding good. We look forward to his coming back.
But in the meantime, Bill, we want to make reference to the
fact that you cut some of your teeth here, with this committee,
and that will serve you in good stead, we believe, in your new
position.
If confirmed, our nominees will resume substantial
responsibility for leading DOD at a critical time. Almost
200,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are
deployed far from home. As we meet here, they're in Iraq and
Afghanistan and Kuwait and other theaters around the world.
After more than 7 years of war, our military--particularly
our ground forces--are stressed. Many of our troops have been
worn out, their families have been faced--as they have--with
repeated deployments. Our equipment is being used up.
At the same time, DOD spends hundreds of billions of
dollars every year on the acquisition of products and services.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported last year
that cost overruns on the Department's 95 largest acquisition
programs now total almost $300 billion over the original
program estimates, even though the Department has cut unit
quantities and reduced performance expectations on many
programs to reduce costs.
At a time when the Federal budget is under extraordinary
strain, as a result of the economic crisis we face, we cannot
afford this kind of continued inefficiency.
Our Nation faces a host of challenges at home and abroad.
Our witnesses today are going to help the Department and this
country face those challenges. I'm confident that our
nominees--working with the President-elect, Secretary Gates,
others in the incoming administration, and with this
committee--will do everything in their power to ensure that our
Nation meets the challenges that face us. We look forward to
hearing their views.
As I indicated, Senator McCain has informed us that he will
be here later in the morning, and we will then give him an
opportunity to make an opening statement. But in his absence we
will call upon Senator Inhofe to make whatever statement that
he might wish to make before we call upon those that are going
to be introducing our nominees.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I am sitting in for Senator McCain until he
arrives, and he has a statement I'd like to enter into the
record at this point.
Chairman Levin. It will be made part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John McCain
Thank you, Senator Levin.
I join you in welcoming our nominees. I thank them for their
willingness to serve in the new administration, and I look forward to
working with Secretary Gates and the new members of his leadership team
on the numerous challenges facing the Department of Defense (DOD).
Mr. Lynn, Ms. Flournoy, Mr. Hale, and Mr. Johnson have each
previously served in important positions in the Department. I
appreciate their previous contributions, and I particularly want to
acknowledge the support provided by their spouses and family members,
several of whom are in attendance today, and thank them as well.
If confirmed for your new positions, you will be responsible for
the achievement of vital national security objectives. I'd like to
underscore some of these objectives.
iraq
We must continue our success in Iraq. Supporting our military
leaders as they implement the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement
needs to be among our highest priorities--even as we turn our attention
increasingly to the war in Afghanistan. Ensuring the final defeat of al
Qaeda in Iraq, continuing to improve security for the Iraqi people in
cooperation with the Iraqi Army and police, and supporting conditions
that will guarantee the success of Iraq's fragile democracy are
essential.
As we draw down forces in Iraq, we must not create opportunities
for al Qaeda and sectarian extremists to re-emerge. I was pleased to
read reports yesterday of Senator Biden's pledge that the incoming
administration will not withdraw troops in a manner that will threaten
Iraqi security.
afghanistan
Afghanistan poses a central challenge to the United States and our
allies. I believe we need a comprehensive civil-military plan, backed
by the troops and resources necessary to implement it, in order to
prevail in Afghanistan. Our strategy and tactics must be reviewed and
modified to respond to the growing threat posed by the Taliban. A
holding action in that troubled nation has not succeeded and will not
succeed. I believe our allies in NATO can be persuaded to increase
their contributions, and I intend to do all I can to achieve this goal.
I look forward to hearing the witnesses' plans in this regard.
guantanamo bay
The President-elect has clearly stated his intent to direct the
closure of the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. I agree wholeheartedly
with this decision, but recognize that carrying it out will raise
difficult questions about the transfer of the detainees and the
procedures that will be used to determine their status and culpability.
I look forward to working with the administration as they address these
issues, and I would invite the nominees to comment on the way forward.
acquisition reform
I continue to believe that acquisition reform at DOD is critical.
Especially in these turbulent economic times, America cannot afford the
costly weapons procurement failures and mismanagement of the past. We
must have personnel, procedures, and systems in place which ensure
decisionmaking that is responsive to our national security imperatives
in a fiscally responsible manner. While we have made some progress in
reforming the system over the last few years, we need to do much more.
To this end, I call for a comprehensive audit of the DOD budget aimed
at identifying the unnecessary, wasteful programs and procurements that
should be terminated or suspended immediately; changes to the Nunn-
McCurdy law designed to reinforce the process by which cost estimates
are independently assessed and to strengthen congressional oversight
over chronically poor performing weapons programs; and the
establishment and adequate resourcing of an Office of Independent
Assessment to provide the Department and Congress independent
assessments of cost, technological maturity, and performance.
earmarks
Fully consistent with acquisition reform, we must continue to
demand complete elimination of earmarks, and transparency into
congressionally-directed changes. I am pleased at the comments of the
President-elect in this regard.
readiness and personnel
Continued support for the men and women of the Armed Forces and
their families remains my highest priority. Every effort must be made
to recognize and respond to the sacrifices of the families of our
deployed servicemembers, and we must continue to find ways to help our
heroic wounded warriors recover and move on to new challenges in
service and in life. The Army and Marine Corps need more Active-Duty
personnel, and, despite budgetary pressures, I expect the new
administration to support this critical requirement.
I am also concerned about the ability of our combat units to be
trained and ready for the next fight. Army leadership testified last
year about the deteriorating condition of our current unit readiness,
which has affected the strategic depth of our combat units to be able
to respond to threats against U.S. national security interests in areas
other than Iraq and Afghanistan. The Navy and Air Force also have
expressed concerns about reduced current unit readiness rates due to
aging and worn out equipment and systems. Congress has provided over
$25 billion in the past 3 years towards the reset of equipment and
material for Active and Guard forces returning from deployments. Even
with these resources, we still are faced with a serious strategic risk.
Again, I appreciate our nominees' service, and, Senator Levin, I
thank you for your many courtesies over the years, and I look forward
to working together with you and all the members of the committee as we
begin the 111th Congress.
Senator Inhofe. Also, I've had a chance to get to know--not
as well as I hope to later on--our new members, Kay Hagan and
Mark Udall.
Mark, you have baggage. One of the things we always do when
we have new members coming on the committee, you read about
them, and I'm very pleased that you made the decision to get on
this committee. All three of you are going to be great
additions. I look forward to working with you.
I see my friend, Ike Skelton, here. I worked under his
leadership for many years. We were on the House Armed Services
Committee and I'm glad you're here to lend your support as I am
doing at this time.
Let me just make one comment, and that is that most of
you--all of you, I guess--had experience back when things were
really different, back in the 1990s. Sometimes I look back,
somewhat wistfully, at the days of the Cold War. Things were
predictable then. We had an enemy out there, we knew who the
enemy was, we knew how the enemy thought.
Now everything is asymmetrical, we have threats that are
totally different than the threats that existed in the 1990s. I
know that you all have been keeping up with that.
I had a very good conversation between flights, a few days
ago, with President-elect Obama. He called--I was actually in
Memphis, between flights, and we had a chance to talk. I was
complimentary of him on what he's done with the defense and
other appointments and nominations, and the fact that Secretary
Gates is going to be staying on. General Jim Jones, I just
think that was a great idea to do that. Of course, Eric
Shinseki--we've all served with him, and think so much of him.
You folks will be working with these people, and I'm
looking forward to supporting you. I'm looking forward to
working with you. As we get into the problems that are there, I
think we'll have debate from time to time, disagreement, right
up here around this table. But we all respect each other, we
all want one ultimate goal, and that is to defend this country
and everybody in it.
With that, I'll turn it back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator Inhofe. We're
delighted today to have with us colleagues to introduce our
nominees. The first colleague who I'll call on is a member of
the committee, and an incredibly valuable member of the
committee and the Senate.
Senator Reed, do you want to make your introduction first?
Then I think we'll call upon Representative Skelton, and then
Senator Menendez in terms of your schedule, if that's all
right. We'll call upon you third in terms of the order of the
witnesses will be appearing. But also to accommodate
Representative Skelton who I know has to get back to the House.
Senator Reed.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACK REED, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
RHODE ISLAND
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's an
honor to be here today. I'm particularly pleased with the
appointments that the President-elect has made, beginning with
Secretary Gates. The gentlemen and the lady that are here
today, are representative of the superb quality, patriotism,
and commitment that has been evidenced by all of the
appointments, to date, at DOD.
I want to join Chairman Skelton in recognizing Michele
Flournoy. We've had an opportunity over many years to work
together, she is superbly prepared for this job, and someone
that I admire immensely.
But my great task, and indeed a great honor, is to
introduce Bill Lynn. As you've indicated, Mr. Chairman, Bill
has a superb career, embracing service here, on Senator
Kennedy's staff, as a military legislative assistant. Service
in the Pentagon, in the Program Analysis and Evaluation Office,
as the Director, and as Comptroller. I don't think anyone knows
more about the intricacies of the budget and the institutional
culture of the Pentagon than Bill Lynn. He certainly knows a
bit about Congress.
He also is someone who, over the last several years, has
been a significant participant with Raytheon Company, and their
major operations with respect to supporting DOD. Bill combines
the three pillars, I think, of someone who has to be successful
in this job as Deputy Secretary--knowledge of Congress,
intricate knowledge of the Pentagon, and knowledge of the
contractors who support the operations at the Pentagon.
He is, besides being experienced, a man of great character
and integrity. Bill graduated from Dartmouth College, with a
law degree from Cornell Law School, and a Masters in Public
Affairs from the Woodrow Wilson School. He is a superb choice.
Today, he is joined by his wife, Mary Murphy. Their young
daughter, Catherine, is at home--supposedly watching on TV. I--
from practical experience--suggest it's probably not C-SPAN,
it's Sprout. But, nevertheless, they have shouldered the
challenge, not only of service to the Nation, but parenthood,
and I commend them for both.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator Reed.
We will make part of the record a statement of Senator
Kennedy, welcoming Bill Lynn here. We will put that statement
in the record in the same place, right next to the introduction
by Senator Reed.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kennedy follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
It's an honor to join in welcoming Bill back to the Senate Armed
Services Committee, and I look forward to his confirmation. The
Department of Defense and the Nation will benefit from Bill's
extraordinary level of experience, expertise, and integrity on matters
of vital importance to our Armed Forces and our national security at
this critical time in our history. The brave men and women of our
Nation's armed services and their families will have a devoted servant
and outstanding advocate in Bill.
I've known Bill for many years. He did an outstanding job as my
legislative assistant on committee issues from 1987 to 1993. Since
then, he has excelled in a number of challenging and demanding
positions in both the public and private sectors and his knowledge,
background and command of Defense Department policy, procedure, and
budget are broad and deep.
From 1993 to 1997, Bill served as Director of Programs Analysis and
Evaluation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, steering and
overseeing all aspects of the Department's strategic planning process
and going on to become Comptroller of the Department in charge of the
budget and fiscal planning. He then furthered his experience with
comprehensive departmental budget and fiscal planning and assumed the
position of Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
In the private sector, Bill's leadership has contributed to the
continued strength of America's vital defense and homeland security
capabilities during an unprecedented period of challenge and crisis.
This compelling array of defense skills across government,
industry, and the national security community and commitment, will
greatly benefit the Obama administration, and I strongly support his
nomination.
Chairman Levin. Ike Skelton, our dear friend, chairman of
the House Armed Services Committee, it's one of the great
pleasures of being chairman of this committee, is the
opportunity to work with my counterpart over at the House.
Ike, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF MISSOURI
Representative Skelton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
Senator Inhofe. It's good to be with you today, and it's a
thrill to be here, especially to see my friend and colleague
from Missouri, Claire McCaskill, who's distinguished herself so
well back home, as well as here.
It's also interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, that there are
four members from the House on the committee, if I'm correct,
three former members of our committee--the House Armed Services
Committee--and I know that speaks very well for their continued
service for the national security.
Mr. Chairman, I couldn't be more delighted today than I am
in support of the nomination of Michele Flournoy to be the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. She and I have spent
many hours together. I could talk long about her professional
qualifications and excellent personal qualities. But, in
deference to your preference for brevity, I will not do so.
I've gotten in the habit, Mr. Chairman, of asking each of
the Service Chiefs from time to time, whether their war
colleges are producing graduates who are capable of engaging in
high-level discussion of strategy with someone at the level of
George C. Marshall. In truth, the question is a little bit
unfair, because very few of its civilians are capable of such a
discussion ourselves. We're entrusted as much--or really more
so--with decisions about overall strategy.
However, the Senate has the opportunity to confirm just
such an individual as Michele Flournoy. She is nominated for
exactly the job within DOD for which her remarkable skills are
uniquely suited.
Michele developed a sterling reputation during her highly
decorated service in the Department during the 1990s, she
served as both Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Strategy, as well as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction.
Among many other accomplishments, Michele was a leading
figure in the development and performance of the first two QDRs
in 1997 and 2001. Her hallmark in these efforts was an
insistence on rigorous analysis and reliance on hard data and
modeling at a time when the use of these tools on issues of
planning and strategy were poorly understood.
She continued her public service in recent years by serving
on the Defense Policy Board and the Defense Science Board Task
Force for Transformation. She also served as Professor at the
National Defense University, where she led its QDR Working
Group in 2001.
Not least among her contributions during this time was her
work in educating Members of Congress--including me--and I
know, also, Senator Reed, in the deep nuances of military
readiness, and the best way to restore it.
In 2007, Michele cofounded the Center for a New American
Security, to provide analysis and advocacy for a strong,
pragmatic, national security strategy for our country. This
group has quickly become known as that rare animal--a think-
tank focused on developing pragmatic solutions to difficult
national security problems.
Her leadership on their Project Solarium which took the
name from President Eisenhower's attempt to put together a
strategy--is examining new approaches to our national security
strategy has been extremely important. I know that I need not
remind anyone on this committee about the pressing need we face
for a pressing and balanced review of our global strategy, as
well as those in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
The President-elect has chosen exactly the right person to
assist him, as well as Secretary Gates, in this effort in
ensuring that this Nation is focused on the challenges around
the corner that we don't yet have a clear view of.
Finally, I would say that Michele understands the
significant personnel and readiness issues facing our military.
She understands that the senior leaders at the Pentagon have to
be more than just policy wonks, but also responsible stewards,
serving the needs of the military families as well as the
taxpayers of our country.
She's married to Scott Gould, a 26-year veteran of the
United States Navy, thereby a military spouse herself, of many
years' standing. Her ability to put policy decisions in this
context will serve her, the Secretary, and our Nation, well.
Michele's qualifications are exemplary. Her judgment, her
knowledge, her character all are first-rate. Confirming her
will bring credit to this committee, as well as to DOD, and Mr.
Chairman, to our Nation.
I urge you to confirm as expeditiously as possible, this
lady for this very high-level position. Thank you so much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Representative Skelton. We very
much appreciate your coming by this morning, as I know Ms.
Flournoy does.
Now, another good friend of ours, a good friend of the men
and women in the military, Senator Menendez.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Menendez. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman--to
you and all of the distinguished members of the committee. I'm
honored to appear before you today to introduce Jeh Johnson on
his nomination hearing to serve as the next General Counsel of
DOD. I am confident that the committee--and the full Senate--
will conclude that he is exceptionally well-qualified to serve
in this important position with great distinction.
Jeh Johnson's distinguished legal career has included both
public service as well as private practice; his private
practice with a prominent New York-based law firm of Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, he is a graduate of
Morehouse College and Columbia University Law School.
In 1989 and 1991, he was a Federal prosecutor in the
Southern District of New York, where he was responsible for
investigating and prosecuting cases involving public
corruption. He then resumed a successful private practice in
the litigation department of Paul, Weiss, which included being
elected a fellow in the prestigious American College of Trial
Lawyers.
But he is not a stranger to the Defense Department. In
1998, he left private practice at Paul, Weiss to take the
position of General Counsel at the Department of the Air Force.
He served as Air Force General Counsel for over 2 years, and
during that time, gained a solid understanding of the unique
challenges and demands of being one of the top attorneys within
our largest government agency. He is, without a doubt, ready
now to serve as the senior legal authority at the Defense
Department.
The lawyers at DOD will have to deal with some very complex
and difficult issues in the months ahead. No doubt, there are
other equally difficult issues than those that we see now, and
those will lie over the horizon.
In remarks that he made to a conference of Air Force Judge
Advocates General in 2007, Jeh Johnson said that, ``In the
absence of a Constitutional amendment, an act of Congress, or
some new interpretation of the constitution of the laws by the
courts, the rule of law does not change. It remains consistent
throughout changing times.'' As legal advisor in DOD, your
challenge is to provide consistent advice and guidance to
policymakers and commanders about what the rule of law means.
I am confident that Jeh Johnson will provide just such
advice and guidance to policymakers and commanders, as General
Counsel to DOD, for them to be able to--not only pursue the
rule of law--but meet their challenge in defending and
protecting our Nation. He will do so with intellect and
integrity that have been the hallmarks of his life, and I'm
pleased to present such a distinguished individual from the
State of New Jersey to this committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator Menendez.
Let me now call on our witnesses for their opening
statements, and when I call on you, perhaps you would introduce
those who accompany you here today.
First, Bill Lynn. Let me call on you for any opening
statement you might wish to give us, and introduce your family.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. LYNN III, NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Mr. Lynn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin, Senator Inhofe, and members of the
committee, it's a privilege to appear before this committee.
I'm particularly honored to return to the committee where I--as
the chairman noted--spent so many years.
I'm also honored that President-elect Obama has nominated
me for the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense. I
appreciate the confidence that he and Secretary Gates have
placed in me, and if confirmed, I look forward to the
opportunity to serve again with the dedicated men and women of
our Armed Forces, particularly those serving in combat
operations, including more than 140,000 in Iraq, and more than
30,000 in Afghanistan.
Mr. Chairman, I'm particularly grateful to you, and to
Senator McCain, for your exceptional efforts to act on our
nominations so expeditiously. This is our first war-time
transition in many years, and reducing any gaps in civilian
leadership at the Pentagon is critical.
I also want to thank Senator Reed for the kind
introduction. The Senator's leadership on issues of national
security is inspiring. I look forward to working with Senator
Reed and all of the members of the committee on the great
challenges facing us.
Let me express my gratitude to Senator Kennedy who--as the
chairman noted--is unable to attend this hearing. Senator
Kennedy has been a superb boss, a great mentor, and a loyal
friend. His leadership and courage are unsurpassed, and I--with
the chairman--look forward to seeing him, again, back here very
soon.
Finally, I want to thank my wife, Mary, who's here in the
audience, and my daughter, Catherine, who Senator Reed noted is
not here, to avoid disruption for the committee. They're
embarking on this journey with me. They don't know where it
will take us, precisely, but they do know--as the chairman
noted--there will be numerous sacrifices, and I greatly
appreciate their support.
This committee is noted for its bipartisan commitment to
national security, and for its attention to the needs of our
men and women in uniform, particularly at a time we're engaged
in two wars. I appreciate the decades of experience on defense
matters that are resident on this committee, and I commit to
continuing in supporting Secretary Gates' effort to engage
Congress, and this committee in particular, in constructive and
candid discussions.
I approach this confirmation hearing, and if confirmed,
this position, with humility. Serving as the chief management
officer of an organization as large and diverse as DOD is a
task that no one is truly qualified to perform. If the Senate
confirms me in this position, I have two co-equal
responsibilities. On one hand, I'll work alongside the
Secretary to advance our national security strategy. On the
other hand, as the chief management officer, I will have
primary responsibility for ensuring the smooth functioning of a
vast, and sometimes unwieldy, bureaucracy.
There are serious challenges facing the Department today,
and the next Deputy Secretary will have the responsibility to
assist the Secretary in a myriad of critical tasks.
If confirmed for this important position, I would focus on
three initial challenges. First, during a transition in a time
of war, it is essential that the Department execute a smooth
transition of leadership as quickly as possible. To that end, I
would work with the Secretary and Congress to assemble a top-
quality cadre of civilian leaders. As part of that effort, I
would also place a high priority on strengthening the
capabilities of the career staff who are essential to address
the many near-term challenges, as well as the longer-term tasks
of the Department.
A second challenge will be to conduct at least three sets
of major program and budget reviews in the first few months of
the new administration. These include a review of the 2009
supplemental appropriation, revisions to the draft fiscal year
2010 budget, and its timely submission to Congress, and
finally, the expeditious completion of the QDR.
In the QDR, a key task will be to lay the foundation for an
effective force for the 21st century that establishes the right
balance among capabilities for addressing irregular and
counterinsurgent warfare, potential longer-term threats from a
high-end, or a near-term competitor, and the proliferation of
threats from rogue states, or terrorist organizations.
A third challenge will be to pursue an active reform agenda
for the management of the Department as a whole. If confirmed,
I would devote considerable time and energy to improving the
Department's processes for strategic planning, program and
budget development, and acquisition oversight.
At a time when we face a wide range of national security
challenges and unprecedented budget pressures, acquisition
reform is not an option, it is an imperative. It is time to
improve all aspects of the Department's acquisition and budget
processes, so that every dollar we spend at the Pentagon is
used wisely and effectively to enhance our national security.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for
the honor of appearing before your committee, and for your
efforts to schedule such a prompt hearing. I look forward to
answering your questions, and if you see fit to confirm me for
this position, I stand ready to serve to the best of my
ability.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much. Our next nominee is
Robert Hale, nominated to be Under Secretary of Defense and
Chief Financial Officer.
Mr. Hale.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. HALE, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER) AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Mr. Hale. Thank you Chairman Levin, Senator Inhofe, and all
of the members of the committee. I want to thank the committee
for having this hearing, and again, express my appreciation--
joining Mr. Lynn--in thanking you for the expedited nature of
it.
I'm very grateful to the confidence President-elect Obama
has placed in me by indicating his intent to nominate me for
this position, and then also the support of Secretary Gates. If
confirmed, I'll be honored to serve as the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller), and the Chief Financial Officer of the
Department of Defense.
I especially want to thank my family, as you said, Mr.
Chairman. This is a journey that will take a considerable
amount of their time, as well, or take me away from them.
Particularly Susan Hale, my wife of 35 years, who's right back
here.
I thank Sue in advance for putting up with all of the long
hours that I know are coming. I have two grown sons, Scott and
Michael, who live and work in California, and unfortunately
were not able to be here at the hearing, but I certainly want
to acknowledge them, they are very much important parts of my
life.
Mr. Chairman, the responsibilities of the DOD Comptroller
are many and varied. I served for 7 years as the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management and
Comptroller, 12 years before that--as the chairman mentioned--
as head of the National Security Division at CBO. I am well-
aware of the challenges that the DOD Comptroller faces.
I also had the honor early in my career of spending a
couple of years as an Active-Duty officer in the United States
Navy, several more years in the drilling Reserve, so I have a
sense, I think, of the culture of the brave men and women who
serve in uniform.
With that as background, and if confirmed, my top priority
will be to help DOD obtain the necessary resources, so that the
men and women of the Department can meet our national security
objectives.
As Mr. Lynn indicated, an early high priority will be an
expedited review of the second portion of the fiscal year 2009
supplemental, and an expedited review of the fiscal year 2010
budget request.
I understand the importance of working with this committee,
as with the appropriating committees in all of Congress, as we
seek to accomplish these critical goals. At a time when we have
tens of thousands of Americans serving overseas and in harm's
way, we all need to work together to be sure they have the
resources that they need.
The committee and Congress have also charged the DOD
comptroller with the authority and responsibility for
overseeing defense financial management, financial operations
in the Department. We need to make continued improvements in
how we pay our people, how we pay our vendors. We need to
improve financial systems, and approve the way we account for
funds in the Department. These latter two items are fundamental
to the goal of continued progress toward auditable financial
statements. This, overall, will be another high priority for
me.
The Department also needs better financial information in
order to spend the dollars that are appropriated to it
efficiently and effectively, and I think wise spending of
defense dollars is always important, but it's especially
important right now, as the Nation weathers this really serious
economic crisis.
I'm well aware of the daunting and longstanding challenges
associated with improving financial operations and financial
management in the Department, but if confirmed, I will
certainly pledge my best efforts with this committee and many
others, to accomplish these goals.
Another priority, Mr. Chairman, the Department must have a
capable and well-trained workforce in order to accomplish
defense financial management. We have the best systems in the
world, we can have the best accounting practices, if we don't
have the people out there that are well-trained, and in
adequate numbers, it's not going to work.
I'm familiar with this workforce through my current job as
the Executive Director of the American Society of Military
Comptrollers, a nonprofit professional association. If
confirmed, I plan to spend some time supporting DOD, the
military departments, and the agencies as they seek to recruit,
train, and retain the right defense financial management
workforce so that we can do this job well into the 21st
century.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I'd again like to thank
President-elect Obama and Secretary Gates for selecting me as
the nominee for this position. If the Senate confirms me as the
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), I will make every
effort to live up to the confidence that you will have placed
in me.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Mr. Hale.
We notice now another of our new Senators, Senator Udall,
has joined us. We're delighted to have you as a Member of the
Senate, and a member of this committee, welcome.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Our next nominee is Michele Flournoy, to be
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Ms. Flournoy, welcome.
STATEMENT OF MICHELE FLOURNOY, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR POLICY
Ms. Flournoy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Inhofe,
members of the committee, it is truly an honor to appear before
you today as President-elect Obama's nominee for the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy. Serving our Nation in this
capacity would be a great privilege, and I'm grateful both to
President-elect Obama, and to Secretary Gates, for choosing me
for this position.
I'm also very grateful to Representative Skelton for that
kind introduction, and for being such a wonderful colleague and
mentor to me over the years. I was very honored by his presence
here today.
I also, particularly, want to thank my family for being
here, my husband and partner in all things, Scott Gould, and my
children, Alec, Victoria, and Aidan--they are my foundation and
my joy, and I could not even contemplate public service without
their steadfast love and support.
If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with this
committee in shaping our Nation's defense policy. Over the
years, the Senate Armed Services Committee has shown a strong,
consistent--and as you said, Mr. Chairman--a bipartisan
commitment to advancing our Nation's security, and to caring
for the men and women in uniform. I appreciate Congress'
critical role under our Constitution in providing for the
common defense, and I also appreciate this committee's
willingness to expedite the confirmation process, when more
than 200,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are
deployed in harm's way, supporting operations in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
At this time of war we owe them--and we owe the American
people--the smoothest transition possible between
administrations.
At this moment in our history, the United States--as you
all know--faces a daunting number of national security
challenges, but also some very hopeful opportunities. We can,
and we must, restore our Nation's global standing, and protect
America, our interests, and our allies from attack.
We can, and must, craft whole of government, integrated
strategies to deal more effectively to defeat threats like
violent extremism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD).
We can, and must, rebalance our efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and ultimately achieve successful outcomes in
both.
We can, and must, work to reduce the strains on our forces,
the brave men and women in uniform, and their families who have
rendered such extraordinary service--and tireless service--to
this Nation.
We can, and must, restore the economic power that
underwrites our military strength, and prepare for a very
complex and uncertain future. This is a critical time for our
country, the stakes are high, the resources are tight, and the
need to make hard choices is pressing.
If I am confirmed by this committee, and by the Senate, as
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, I promise you that I
will work diligently to help the President-elect and Secretary
Gates responsibly conclude the war in Iraq, and continue the
fight against al Qaeda and its associated movement. I will work
closely with inter-agency partners, and international partners,
to support the stabilization of Afghanistan.
Working with our colleagues at the State Department, I will
engage with our allies and our partners, to advance common
security interests, and help build their capacity to move
forward. I will do my best to help the U.S. military adapt to
the challenges of the 21st century. I will also do my best to
ensure that our brave men and women in uniform have what they
need to be successful in the field, and that they have the
peace of mind, knowing that their families are receiving the
support that they deserve.
Over the course of my career, I have been truly blessed,
with remarkable opportunities to contribute to U.S. national
security and defense policy, in government, and in the think-
tank world.
If confirmed, I assure you that I will work very hard to
ensure that DOD implements the President-elect's national
security strategy in a way that is both principled and
pragmatic. I pledge to listen to the best available civilian
and military advice, and to offer my own best advice and
counsel to the Secretary of Defense and the President-elect.
In closing, I just, again, want to thank President-elect
Obama for nominating me for this position, Secretary Gates for
supporting my nomination, and my family and my friends for
their love and support. I am both honored and humbled to be
before you today, and if the Senate chooses to confirm me in
this position, I hope to fully justify your trust, and I look
forward to working closely with all of you and your staff,
going forward.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Ms. Flournoy.
Now we have the nominee to be General Counsel of the
Department of Defense, Jeh Charles Johnson.
Mr. Johnson.
STATEMENT OF JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, NOMINEE TO BE GENERAL
COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe.
I want to thank the members of the committee and the staff
for expediting the review of our nominations. I want to
obviously acknowledge and thank the President-elect for
designating me to be the nominee for General Counsel of DOD,
and for the support of Secretary Gates. I've gotten to know him
a little bit over the last several weeks, and I am as impressed
as everyone else seems to be with Secretary Gates and his
leadership of the Department.
Obviously, I want to thank my family. My wife, Susan, is
here behind me--my wife of 15 years--my sister and brother-in-
law from Alabama are here, my two children could not be here
today. My son's obligations to his World Civ class overrode his
desire to appear before this committee. [Laughter.]
I also want to note some friends of mine from the Air Force
from when I was General Counsel of the Air Force. Retired Major
General Bill Morman, former Judge Advocate General of the Air
Force, is here today. I also want to note the presence of Judge
Stucky from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, former
counsel to this committee.
I appeared here for confirmation 10 years ago, in front of
Chairman Strom Thurmond. I first worked for the United States
Senate in 1978 as an intern for Pat Moynihan, and so my respect
for the United States Senate is enormous. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with the Senate, with this committee, and I
look forward to supporting the men and women in uniform who
sacrifice so much.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Mr. Johnson.
Now there are some standard questions which we ask of all
of our nominees. I'll ask you all to answer together on these
questions.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest? [All four witnesses answered
in the affirmative.]
Have you assumed any duties, or undertaken any actions
which would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation
process? [All four witnesses answered in the negative.]
Will you ensure that your staff complies with deadlines
established for requested communications, including questions
for the record in hearings? [All four witnesses answered in the
affirmative.]
Will you cooperate in providing witnesses, and brief
written response to congressional requests? [All four witnesses
answered in the affirmative.]
Will those witnesses be protected from reprisal for their
testimony or briefings? [All four witnesses answered in the
affirmative.]
Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and testify, upon
request, before this committee? [All four witnesses answered in
the affirmative.]
Do you agree to provide documents, including copies of
electronic forms and 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? [All four witnesses
answered in the affirmative.]
Thank you. I think we'll try an 8-minute first round. We
have four witnesses, so there will likely be a second round,
but in order to give everybody an opportunity to ask questions,
we'll start with an 8-minute first round.
Mr. Lynn, you've made reference to the cost growth and
other problems on DOD's major acquisition programs, and those
problems have reached crisis proportions. Last spring, as I
mentioned, GAO reported that the cost overruns on the
Department's 95 largest system acquisition programs now total
roughly $300 billion over original program estimates, even
though we have cut unit quantities and reduced performance
expectations on many programs, in an effort to hold down costs.
In response to a pre-hearing question, you note that some
of this cost growth is a result of ``a reluctance'' to balance
performance demands, particularly in the early stages of
programs, when decisions have a major impact on subsequent cost
and schedule outcomes. The Department recently instituted an
organization, which is called the ``tri-chair'' committee,
bringing together senior officials that are responsible for
acquisition, budget, and requirements, in an effort to better
balance cost, schedule, and performance early in the
acquisition cycle.
My question to you is, if confirmed, do you anticipate
continuing that process, or a similar process, to ensure the
tradeoffs between cost, schedule, and performance of a major
weapons system are fully considered, before it's too late?
Mr. Lynn. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the thrust
of your comments, that the key to getting a handle on programs
costs is to ensure that we are able to establish the
requirements upfront, and adhere to those requirements, unless
there is some overriding need, but not to regularly change
those. It's critical to do that upfront.
I'm aware of the tri-chair process, I haven't had time to
study it, but I think the direction that goes--the setting of
requirements--is done at the highest level, and that any
changes later in the program be also approved at the highest
levels, is the right principle.
Chairman Levin. A year ago, Mr. Lynn, we established an
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund, to ensure that the
Department will have the workforce that it needs to ensure that
the billions we spend on acquisition programs every year get
the planning, management, and oversight they need.
Over the last 8 years, the Department's spending on
acquisition programs has more than doubled, but the acquisition
workforce has remained essentially unchanged in numbers and in
skills. If confirmed, will you ensure that the Acquisition
Workforce Development Fund is fully implemented, and used for
the intended purpose of rebuilding the acquisition workforce?
Mr. Lynn. I agree with the Chairman that rebuilding the
acquisition workforce is a critical tenant in improving our
overall acquisition process. As you've noted, Mr. Chairman,
we've had an increase in the program costs and not a
corresponding increase in the acquisition workforce.
I'd add to that, there's also a bubble of retirement. Many
of the current workforce is eligible for retirement, they're
going to need to be replaced with expert personnel, and I think
the mechanism that the committee has put in place for the
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund is going to be an
important part of improving and developing the future cadres of
our acquisition workforce.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Hale, will you agree to keep that
mechanism in place, or a similar mechanism?
Mr. Hale. Mr. Chairman, we will definitely work with the
committee to make sure that we support from the Comptroller's
shop, the Acquisition Fund, and more generally, the improvement
in acquisition planning.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Lynn, Ms. Flournoy, and Mr. Johnson, this question is
for all three of you. I've spoken to each of you about my
concerns regarding the use of contractors in Iraq and
Afghanistan, to perform functions that have historically been
performed by government personnel.
I think you're aware of recently enacted legislation with
regard to private security contractors, and contract
interrogators. Now, I have a few short questions for each of
you. Would you agree that the Department needs to undertake a
comprehensive review of whether, and to what extent, it is
appropriate for contractors to perform functions like
performing private security in high-threat environments, and
interrogation of detainees, and that the congressional views
expressed in two sections of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 should be fully considered in the
course of that review?
First, would you agree with the need to undertake that
review, Mr. Lynn?
Mr. Lynn. I do agree, Mr. Chairman, that we do need a
baseline to understand what the appropriate roles are for the
military, for civilian personnel, and for contractors, and we
ought to base our judgments on the size of each of those forces
on those judgments.
Chairman Levin. Will you undertake that review?
Mr. Lynn. I will certainly work on that review. My
understanding is Secretary Gates has asked Admiral Mullin to
begin, at least, a piece of that, and we'll be working--
together with Admiral Mullin, under the direction of Secretary
Gates--on that matter.
Chairman Levin. Okay.
Ms. Flournoy, do you agree with the need for that review?
Ms. Flournoy. I do, sir. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, Senator, I do. I know from our
conversations with Secretary Gates that he is concerned about
increased accountability of private contractors in the field.
Chairman Levin. Now, for each of you, would you agree that
long-term policy decisions about the roles that may or may not
be performed by contractors should guide our future force
structure, rather than being driven by limitations on our
existing forces?
Mr. Lynn?
Mr. Lynn. That was the thrust of my earlier comment, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Ms. Flournoy.
Ms. Flournoy. Yes, sir, I agree with that.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Would each of you agree that while policy
decisions on these issues should be informed by the views of
our uniformed military, that they must ultimately be made by
Congress, the President, and the civilian leadership of DOD?
Mr. Lynn.
Mr. Lynn. I agree with that.
Chairman Levin. Ms. Flournoy.
Ms. Flournoy. I do, as well, sir.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Chairman Levin. This is for you, Ms. Flournoy.
President-elect Obama has called for additional combat
troops for Afghanistan. The Defense Department has plans for
sending up to four combat brigades and support units, or 30,000
additional U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan, potentially doubling
the nearly 32,000 soldiers currently serving there.
Secretary Gates has said that most of these combat brigades
will not be available for deployment to Afghanistan until late
spring or early summer, in part due to continuing deployments
in Iraq. It's now been reported that the Department is saying
that the additional troops for Afghanistan will not be fully
deployed by the end of the summer. Do you support a proposal,
first of all, to nearly double the U.S. troop presence in
Afghanistan?
Ms. Flournoy. Senator, I do believe that we need to
substantially plus-up the size of our forces in Afghanistan to
secure and stabilize the environment there, yes.
Chairman Levin. How aggressive should we be in our efforts
to get the additional U.S. combat troops to Afghanistan faster?
Ms. Flournoy. I actually think the intent of both
President-elect Obama and Secretary Gates is to move as quickly
as possible. I have not yet been briefed on the details in
terms of what would be required to do that, but I do believe
that in principle, we should be moving as quickly as possible.
Chairman Levin. What would you think about drawing down
U.S. forces in Iraq faster, in order to accelerate the
deployment of additional forces in Afghanistan?
Ms. Flournoy. Again, Senator, I think the key principle is
to shift the emphasis, but to do so in a very responsible
manner. I, again, have not been briefed on the details of
what's possible there, but I do look forward to looking into
that, and getting back to discussing that with this committee.
Chairman Levin. Okay, thank you.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, as we were having opening remarks, I wrote
down a couple of things that were said.
Mr. Hale, having the necessary resources--I was glad to
hear that because--and I think Ms. Flournoy, you said
essentially the same thing--restore economic power to the
military. I think that's a recognition that there's no cheap
way out of this thing. I know a lot of people used to talk
about a percentage of gross domestic product that should go
toward military, but it won't serve any useful purpose to talk
about that.
I think there are some areas where we just have to
recognize that we are faced--as I said in my opening
statement--with, in my opinion, greater threats than we have
been in the past, because of the asymmetrical nature of the
enemy.
Each of us up here on this committee has programs that we
have watched work in the field. Rather than just to hear
testimony from various committees here in Washington, see how
they work on the ground. I have some that I think work very
well, and I would like to ask Mr. Lynn and Ms. Flournoy your
opinions of these.
First of all, the International Military Education and
Training (IMET) program is an education program, I'm sure
you're familiar with that. Ironically, back in the beginning of
that program, we were doing the IMET program as if we were
doing a favor to them--I'm talking about other countries--who
would be sending their officer material to be trained in the
United States.
The more I served--was in the field, and observed this
program--the more I felt that this was something that really,
we're doing for ourselves. There's no better relationship than
one that comes from training. I've seen some of the officers go
back to their countries--whether it's in Africa or elsewhere--
and they have an allegiance that is there.
Second, if we don't do it, either China is going to do it,
or somebody else is going to do it. That's one of the programs
that I have strong feelings about.
Next are the train-and-equip programs--the section 1206,
1207, and 1208 programs. It's been my opinion, as we go around,
that by doing this, we can avoid having our own troops have to
do a lot of the things that they otherwise can be trained to do
for us.
The third one is the Commander's Emergency Response Program
(CERP). I think they've changed the name of that, they always
do that to confuse us, I think. But nonetheless, this allows
the commanders in the field to have a greater latitude of what
they can do. Some of the experiences that I had, early on, in
Baghdad when it appeared that if the commander were in a
position to take care of some of the transmitting problems, of
electricity into some of the neighborhoods--they could do it,
and do it cheaper--a lot cheaper--than going through the
lengthy process of acquisition to get these things done.
These are three of the programs that I feel personally very
strongly about, and I'd like to know if you have any comments
about your feelings toward IMET, train-and-equip, and CERPs.
Mr. Lynn. Let me respond, first, Senator Inhofe, and then
turn to Ms. Flournoy.
I agree with you, Senator, overall, the military exchanges,
the military training programs, should be seen in the light of
a benefit to the United States, not as a favor to someone else.
They develop relationships that we build on over decades, they
provide an understanding for us of other country's militaries
and how they operate, and equally importantly, they provide
these other countries senior leadership when these individuals
rise to the senior leaders, as many of them do. It provides
them with an understanding of how we operate, and the strengths
of this Nation.
Just one comment on CERP. I agree it's a very important
program, Senator. I think we have to be conscious that we have
to balance the importance of knowledge at the front end that
those commanders on the ground understand, I think, best the
needs that are right in front of them.
On the other hand, we have to have appropriate controls of
taxpayer dollars. We have to ensure that we have a process that
both gives the flexibility that's needed on the ground and
assurance that the money is spent in an appropriate manner.
Ms. Flournoy. Senator, thank you for that.
I believe that all three of the programs--well, the two
programs that you mentioned, IMET and the train-and-equip
authorities--are very critical to our engagement with other
militaries, and to building partner capacity--helping them to
be able to do more alongside us, where we have common
interests.
On CERP, in particular, I think the intention of that
program was originally for force protection and also to assist
affected populations in counterinsurgency and stability
operations, and so forth. I think it's a very critical tool for
our military in the field. I would also say that all of these,
really, are most effective when they're part of an integrated,
sort of whole of government approach to a particular country,
or to a particular region. So, I would hope that we would view
and use them in the future in that context.
Senator Inhofe. I think I would agree with your response to
this. I would only ask that you get into this, look at some of
the examples where, Mr. Lynn, we've actually saved a lot of
money, on the example that I used on the transmission
situation. It was about 10 percent of what it would have cost,
having to go through the whole thing.
Second, another program that I have been very interested
in. The African continent is so important. When we had that
divided up into three commands, it wasn't working very well. Of
course, we had the Pacific Command, the European Command, and
the Central Command. They're doing a great job with that
program right now. But it is really suffering in terms of
getting the resources necessary for it.
It is my hope when we established the Africa Command
(AFRICOM), that we would actually have the headquarters in
Africa someplace, thinking, perhaps in Ethiopia or some of the
other places where it would have worked better.
Unfortunately, even though it's my experience talking to
the presidents, and I'm talking about including Yoweri Museveni
(President of Uganda), Meles Zenawi (Prime Minister of
Ethiopia), Paul Kagame (President of Rwanda), and all of the
rest of them, that they think it would work better, but they
can't sell the idea.
It's going to require, I think, more resources for AFRICOM
than they have had before, and I'd just like to ask Mr. Lynn
and Mr. Hale if you would be willing to get into that, and to
see how well it's working, and perhaps they have transportation
needs, and other needs to make that program work better.
Mr. Lynn. Thank you, Senator. We certainly will look at
AFRICOM. I certainly agree that it's a far better situation to
have a unified command, have responsibility for the continent,
rather than divide it up under three different commands. This
is an important initiative. We need, certainly, to look at the
resources, and I'd undertake to do that.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, sir?
Mr. Hale. We'll certainly support him from the
Comptroller's standpoint.
Senator Inhofe. All right. Finally, my time is about to
expire, we have had discussions in this committee, and we've
had a lot of discussions--some pretty lively--on the floor,
about the Future Combat System (FCS). My goal has always been
that we give our kids that are out there the best resources
that are available and all of these resources that are better
than our prospective opponents.
Things like the non-line of sight cannon. It happened that
we're still relying on the old Paladin, which is World War II
technology. There are five countries, including South Africa,
that have a better artillery piece than we do.
I would hope that you would look very carefully on all of
the elements--some 12 to 15 elements of a FCS--that you could
bring me into your discussion, your thinking process. Because
some of us have a greater interest than others do in those
programs. Any thoughts on the FCS that you'd like to share? Any
of you?
Mr. Lynn. Senator, I think the fundamental premise that you
stated is absolutely right, that the elements that are in the
FCS are going to be essential to the modernization of the Army
towards the next generation of equipment. We will want to do, I
think, a complete review of that program, and the underlying
technologies need to be part of the future force, and we'll
certainly work with you and with the other Members of Congress,
as we undertake that review.
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate it very much. My time is
expired.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for
allowing me to make just a few comments. I was over at the
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
introducing Governor Janet Napolitano to the committee. She's
been nominated for Secretary of Homeland Security.
I would like to congratulate the nominees. We look forward
to a rapid confirmation.
Mr. Lynn and Ms. Flournoy, we've had other encounters in
the past, and welcome Mr. Hale and Mr. Johnson. We look forward
to your rapid confirmation and movement to the floor of the
Senate, so you can get to work.
I'd also like to say welcome to the new members of the
committee, and we look forward to working with them.
Mr. Chairman, I've forgotten how many years now this makes
that you and I have worked together, I look forward to a very
productive year--or two--in very challenging times. Thank you
for all of the cooperation that you have displayed, which is a
long tradition of this committee of bipartisanship. I look
forward to working with you.
Gentleman, and Ms. Flournoy, we have very great challenges
over in DOD. Some very tough decisions are going to have to be
made, whether it be the F-22, or whether it be the larger issue
of our engagement--disengagement--in Iraq, or further
engagement in Afghanistan, as well as all of the myriad of
other challenges that we face.
I look forward to working with you. I congratulate you and
your families, and I appreciate your willingness to serve.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator McCain. You and
your staff, as always, are playing an instrumental role in the
success of this committee, and we are grateful for that, and
all that you do.
It's the rule of the committee, here, the tradition that we
call on members, we go back and forth between Democrats and
Republicans, but for the new members, we do that on the basis
of an ``early bird'' rule.
Senator Reed has just arrived in time to ace out Senator
Webb. [Laughter.]
He didn't want any questions. I already had asked Senator
McCain. Thank you so much.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. This is the first and last time I'll ace out
Senator Webb. Forgive me.
Senator Webb. I doubt that. [Laughter.]
Senator Reed. Again, I think the President-elect has chosen
a superb team.
Let me address a general question to both Mr. Lynn and Ms.
Flournoy. Secretary Gates has written his fundamental concern
is that there's not commensurate institutional support,
including in the Pentagon for the capabilities needed to win
today's wars, and some of their likely successors, which raises
a host of issues that the tradeoff for preparing for
conventional warfare against near peer competitors, versus
irregular asymmetrical warfare.
It also raises the issue of the integration of private
contractors into the operations of DOD, and it raises the issue
of the intergovernmental activities necessary--particularly to
conduct irregular warfare, asymmetrical warfare. I'm sure my
colleagues have touched on some of these issues.
But I wonder if--first Mr. Lynn, and then Ms. Flournoy--you
could give us an idea of your views at the moment on these
complex issues?
Mr. Lynn. Thank you, Senator.
I think Secretary Gates has it right, I think the
fundamental challenge in doing the next QDR which will start,
if confirmed, as soon as we get there, is to balance between
the near-term needs of the force in the field, and the longer-
term threats that are perhaps beyond the horizon, but still out
there.
That's complicated by what you mentioned, Senator, that
there's a tension between the potential for a high-end, near-
peer threat, as well as a lower-end counterinsurgency, and the
types of equipment, types of forces, types of training, types
of doctrine that you would use for one, don't necessarily apply
fully to the other. Establishing that balance, I think, is
going to be critical in the next QDR.
Ms. Flournoy. Senator, I would agree. I think looking at
the initial review that the Department will undertake, I think
the first question is going to be how do we strike the right
balance, set the right priorities, allocate risk in current
operations between Iraq, Afghanistan, larger operations around
the world to combat terrorism.
But then as we look forward, in the QDR, thinking about
what kinds of warfare do we really need? As we want the force
as a whole to be full-spectrum, we're going to have to make
choices that essentially allocate risk along that spectrum.
I really am looking forward, if confirmed, to working with
members of this committee to try to frame and form those
judgments going forward, so that we have a force that is robust
across the spectrum.
Senator Reed. Let me raise another issue, Mr. Lynn, which
touches on almost everything we do today. That is the issue of
energy. First of all, internal to your responsibilities to run
the Department efficiently, you have to have a much more
energy-efficient approach not just in simply management, but
also in terms of the strategic challenges that poses.
I saw, yesterday, where the Army took delivery of about
several thousand vehicles, I believe, electric vehicles for use
on various forts around the country. That might be an example
of forward thinking. But, can you comment at all about the two
issues, here. Internally--how to be more energy effective--is
that going to be one of your priorities? Then, internationally,
if any comments you would want to make.
Mr. Lynn. I think the President-elect has made a new energy
policy one of his priorities, so it will certainly be one of
mine. The Department is, I think, a critical component of the
President-elect's direction in this area, not just that we can
make progress in terms of energy efficiency, the threat of
global warming, but as, I think, you were alluding to, the
potential cost savings for the Department of moving away from
an oil-based dependency are huge. Whether it's fuel cells or
synthetic fuels or other mechanisms, the potential in a time of
real budget stress for the Department to make that kind of
savings makes it an essential initiative on that basis, as
well.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Just let me ask Mr. Johnson, and then Mr. Hale a question.
Mr. Johnson, over the last several years, many of the
uniformed lawyers in DOD--and some of their civilian
counterparts--had serious misgivings about policies that were
being pursued. As much as a comment, but also assurance that
you will, one, listen to these uniformed officers, that you'll
make sure that their opinions are respected, and at least
passed along, and that you, yourself, will be actively engaged,
and seeking out--particularly when there are tough questions--
both sides of the argument. Is that something you can assure
us?
Mr. Johnson. Senator, when I was General Counsel of the Air
Force I think that we had, between the civilian and military
lawyers in the Department, as good a working relationship as
ever existed in the Department. I'd like to think that the
Judge Advocates General (JAGs) would say the same thing.
My style of legal analysis, decisionmaking, putting
together recommendations for the Secretary is collaboration. I
want all points of view. I'd want to hear from the two-star,
now three-star Judge Advocate, as well as the major who works
the issue, who understands it better than anybody.
If I know that the military lawyers in the Department have
a strong view about something, have an opinion about something,
that the Secretary is considering, I had no problem with
bringing the JAG in with me to the Secretary's Office, so that
I would express my General Counsel's view, and he had an
opportunity to express his view, and the Secretary would make
up his own mind about what to do.
From a practical point of view, if you're wrestling with
tough legal issues, you have every interest in wanting to get
the input of the cross-section of lawyers across the
Department. We have many excellent military lawyers who,
frankly, have experiences and viewpoints that, as a civilian, I
don't share. I want to know what they think.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Finally, Mr. Hale, one of the realities of the last several
years has been robust supplemental appropriations. I think that
is not something that you're going to enjoy as Comptroller.
Have you given any thought as to how you rebalance the budget
system, given the fact that we have to get away from these big
supplementals?
Mr. Hale. Senator, we need to move away from supplementals,
I think the Secretary has said that, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs has said that--I certainly agree. We're going to need a
supplemental in fiscal year 2009 for the second portion,
without question. I think after that, and if confirmed, I need
to look at how quickly we can make that happen, obviously,
working with Mr. Lynn if he's confirmed and others in the
Department. But we do need to move away from supplementals.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Chambliss.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me welcome each of you, and thank you for your
willingness to serve. All of you are making a real commitment
to America, and for that we appreciate it very much. We look
forward to moving you into position in a hurry, so as Senator
McCain said, you can get to work.
Particularly, I want to welcome Mr. Johnson. As has been
stated, he is a graduate of Morehouse College, one of the
premiere institutions in the country. I'm not prejudiced just
because it's in Atlanta, but we certainly know that he is well-
educated, and we look forward to working with you, Mr. Johnson.
To Mr. Lynn, Ms. Flournoy, Mr. Hale--one of the things that
I think is a very smart decision of the Department over the
last several years is to purchase major weapons systems on
multi-year contracts. It's saved, literally, millions and
millions of dollars for the Government and allowed us to buy
more weapons systems then we would have been able to do
otherwise within the budget constraints that we've had.
The F-22 has been a success in that standpoint, as well as
the C-17 and the C-130. I'm not sure what else we could include
down the road, but I would simply say to you, I hope as you go
through the budget process--which is going to be extremely
difficult, we all know that--that we give great consideration
to trying to figure out, at least lots of weapons systems that
we know we're going to have to buy. Let's look at moving into
multi-year contracts on as many of these different lots of
weapons systems as we can.
If any of you have any comment one way or the other,
relative to multi-years, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Lynn. Senator, I think multi-year contracting does
offer an opportunity to get savings. I think you have to look
at it on a case-by-case basis and see if the economic order
quantities, and the up-front justify the commitment over a
multi-year period, but I think when we find cases that occurs,
the savings to the Department are certainly well-needed, as you
suggested.
Mr. Hale. I certainly share that view. I'm mindful that we
have a tough challenge to make ends meet in DOD, so I encourage
the components to look where it's appropriate, at things like
multi-year contracting.
Senator Chambliss. Mr. Lynn, you and I talked the other day
about depot maintenance, and the issue of modifications being
an issue that may be revisited by the Department, with respect
to whether or not modifications are going to be included within
the definition of depot maintenance, and how that's going to
affect 50/50. I would simply ask you for the record, if this
discussion does come up, and there is any consideration of
changing current statutes relative to the definition of
modifications within depot maintenance, that you commit that
you're going to come back and discuss this with us before any
kind of major shift in that is done.
Mr. Lynn. I do commit, Senator, that we'll discuss any
major changes in depot policy with members of this committee,
as well as other appropriate Members of Congress.
Senator Chambliss. Ms. Flournoy, I--along with Senator
Levin--serve on the Board of the Western Hemisphere Institute
for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), which has been a very
effective entity in dealing with our neighbors to the south.
We've obviously had some controversy with respect to WHINSEC,
but with the changes that have been made, we now are providing
a valuable service to our country because of the relationship
that's been developed with Central and South American
neighbors, particularly as it regards the emerging threats.
I think this has the potential to be--if not the next hot
spot--certainly one of the hot spots relative to WMD, drug
trafficking, weapons trafficking, as well as other issues. As
this policy with respect to WHINSEC is reviewed, I would simply
ask that you, number one, keep an open mind, listen to the
commanders at Northern Command and Southern Command who are
openly, very much in support of what we're doing at WHINSEC
right now, and I don't know how familiar you are with it, but
if you have any comments relative to that, I would appreciate
it.
Ms. Flournoy. Sir, I have not had the opportunity yet to be
briefed on details. I am generally familiar, but I would
certainly pledge to keep an open mind, and hear all views going
forward, and I do share your belief--fundamentally--that
engagement with WHINSEC--not only because of the transnational
threats, but because of all kinds of opportunities that exist
for our country in relations with our neighbors. But that's a
critical strategic issue and I will, if confirmed, give it
strong attention.
Thank you.
Senator Chambliss. Again, to all of you, thank you for your
willingness to serve, we look forward to a very strong working
relationship with the Department, as we've always had.
Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Chambliss.
Senator Webb.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I fully understand the time constraints on
this process. I would say that it's also a bit difficult to
prepare for nominations each of which has such
responsibilities. Having gone through two confirmations in this
committee, each time sitting there for several hours by myself
while you, actually, and others had your way with me.
It's a pretty short time period to be able to do all of
this. I would hope that all of you would pledge to us to remain
available over the next several months, if we have follow-up
questions to clarify some of these matters.
Chairman Levin. If I can interrupt you----
Senator Webb. Yes.
Chairman Levin. That's a very important point. We are going
to keep the record open for questions. In addition to your
request, which I would expect that they would honor, that they
always be available to us, but they be particularly available
to us in the next few months because of the way in which we
have compacted these hearings, it's an important point.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A minor point, but Mr. Johnson, a counsel on my staff has
some specific questions with respect to your replies to written
questions. I think he wants some further clarification. You
were very lawyerly and precise in your responses, he may want
just a little more information on a couple of areas. If you
could contact our office at some point today, I don't want to
take up my time during the hearing on it. They're probably
small points.
Mr. Johnson. I would be happy to do that, Senator.
Senator Webb. Great, thank you.
Mr. Johnson. I apologize for being lawyerly.
Senator Webb. We would expect that, and we will always
follow up.
Mr. Lynn, we had, I think, a very fruitful meeting with
you, yesterday. I appreciate your time, and listening to your
comments today, the second and the third points that you made
about your goals, I think, are very relevant to where we need
to go. When you speak of the need to really get into proactive
reform measures, I want to work with you on that. We had a long
conversation about this whole notion of independent
contractors.
There is, I think, a fallacy right now when people start
talking about ``the total force'' as Active, Reserve, and
independent contractors. Having spent a great deal of my life,
early on, working on the total force, when something fell into
long-term, semi-permanent independent contractors, that was
essentially viewed as a flaw in the total force, not a part of
it.
We have a situation now where we probably have more
independent contractors in Iraq than we do military people, and
I don't think that's healthy for the country.
Your second point about making a commitment to really scrub
the budget--this year's, next year's--and to bring the type of
tightness to this budget that we haven't seen in awhile, is
very important to me, and actually, Ms. Flournoy, you have
written about this. There's an article here from the Washington
Quarterly, where you went into your own views about the
environment that we're now going to be in, and how important it
is to really put a new sense of responsibility and
accountability into this process.
In that regard, I'm going to ask you about this Mayport
issue, both of you. This decision by the Navy to relocate a
nuclear carrier to Mayport, FL, with the additional requirement
that it has to refix the process down there in order to enable
it to handle nuclear carrier facilities--they haven't done this
in 47 years. Forty-seven years ago, we started having nuclear
carriers here in Norfolk. There was never a decision--at the
height of the Cold War--to do something like this.
The United States Navy, right now, has put forward a budget
that is $4.6 billion in unfunded priorities--unfunded
requirements. They have a shipbuilding program that is behind
schedule. They have about 276, I think, ships. They had 568
when I was Secretary of the Navy. They're trying to get to 313.
They have, in my view, a lamentable record over the past
several years in terms of their aircraft procurement programs,
and they want to take $1 billion--which is what it's going to
end up being, if you look at history--above these amounts in
order to create a redundant facility in Mayport, FL.
I'm not asking for an answer from you today, but what I
would like from you is a commitment to examine this at the
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) level.
You and I talked yesterday a good bit about the processes
of the Defense Resources Board--which I sat on for 4 years--and
I certainly think this is an item--whether I was representing
Virginia or not, if I were in the Pentagon today, I would be
saying the same thing. We have $4.6 billion in unfunded
requirements? We're going to put this on top of it? How are we
going to build the aircraft fleet back where it needs to be? We
have empty squadrons out there--how are we going to get to 313
ships--which is a floor?
Ms. Flournoy, you've mentioned in a lot of the stuff you've
written about, how important it is now for us to re-engage in
terms of our maritime strategy around the world.
I'm asking for your commitment to take a look at this at
the OSD level, in terms of strategy and budget priorities.
Mr. Lynn. Senator, we're going to have to look at the
entire Navy program as well as the other Services. As you
suggest, this is a major budget item. We'll commit to you that
we will review it with you and Congress, about where we think
we need to go on this program.
Senator Webb. All right.
Ms. Flournoy. Senator, I would just add that from a policy
or strategy perspective, I think we need to take a look at our
global posture, including our home porting and basing structure
is going to be, certainly, on the table in the QDR, going
forward. I would hope that it would be.
Senator Webb. We're entering a period where DOD, and I
think the people at this table understand it--other people in
DOD have to realize that these budgets are going to get a lot
tighter, these programs are going to have to be justified. We
haven't even seen a clear strategic justification for this. All
we've seen is a little bit of rhetoric. We have the briefings
from the Navy--it's not there.
I appreciate your saying you will look at this, and we will
continue to discuss it.
Ms. Flournoy, you suffer from the same problem that I do,
in that you are a rather prolific writer, so you have a large
paper trail behind you on a lot of these different issues. But
I would like a few clarifications, and if my time runs out, I
may stay for a second round.
You have written in the past, that you believe that there
should be a residual force in Iraq of approximately 60,000
American military, do you still believe that?
Ms. Flournoy. Sir, I'm not willing to stand behind that
number at this time, given that when I wrote that, we were in a
somewhat different circumstance. There was no Status of Forces
Agreement (SOFA) commitment, for example, the security
environment was somewhat different.
What I do believe is that I think there's a very strong
commitment to implementing the SOFA, to bringing U.S. forces
out of the combat role.
I don't know what the long-term support for Iraqi forces in
our long-term relationship is going to look like. I don't know
if the Iraqi Government will want any U.S. forces in Iraq, once
we reach the end of the SOFA. So, I think it's an open
question.
I would not want to be digging my heels on any particular
number or posture at that point in time. I think the key thing
is to implement the SOFA, and to reduce our role and our
numbers there. I think a little bit down the road, we will have
a better sense of what a security cooperation relationship with
Iraq, going forward, looks like.
Senator Webb. My time is up in this round--but I want to
make sure I fully understand what you're saying. Do you believe
that the U.S. strategy for that region requires a long-term
presence of the U.S. military in Iraq?
Ms. Flournoy. Not necessarily.
Senator Webb. So, you don't believe it's a requirement?
Ms. Flournoy. I don't think we know, yet. I don't think we
know where we'll be at the end of 2011. The honest answer is, I
don't know. But what I can say is if I am in this position, I
would welcome the opportunity to continue to look at this, to
discuss it with you, and other members of the committee----
Senator Webb. This needs to be clarified.
Ms. Flournoy. Yes.
Senator Webb. You don't see--and I'm not trying to put
words in your mouth--from what I'm hearing, you would not
analogize the situation in Iraq to, for instance, the basing
system that we have in Korea, in that----
Ms. Flournoy. No, sir, I would not.
Senator Webb. American military presence in Iraq is a
regional requirement----
Ms. Flournoy. I do not think Korea provides the right
metaphor for what our relationship, long-term, with Iraq may,
or should, be.
Senator Webb. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Webb.
Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Continuing along Senator Webb's line of thought, do you
believe our relationship, militarily, with Kuwait, has been
beneficial?
Ms. Flournoy. Yes, I do, sir.
Senator Graham. What about the United Arab Emirates?
Ms. Flournoy. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. The point is, whatever relationship we have
with Iraq is yet to be determined, I think that's a fair
answer. The SOFA has a 2011 date on it with the ability to
renegotiate a long-term agreement. As I understand it, their
navy and air force are almost nonexistent, so I encourage you
to keep that line of thinking up. Let's evaluate each year
where we are with Iraq, and make a good decision that when we
leave that we have a stable partner behind, that like Kuwait
and other partners in the region, has been very beneficial in
terms of our long-term strategic interests.
I applaud you for that kind of thinking, and nobody here
expects you to make a decision 3 years out until we look at the
information.
Now, one of the things that we're going to be dealing with
in this new administration is the closing of Guantanamo Bay. I
can assure you in this regard, a fresh start at the Pentagon is
welcome.
Where I stand, in terms of looking at detainee policy, Mr.
Johnson, you come with great recommendation and high opinion by
the military lawyers. The chairman hit on a very important
point, along with Senator Reed, we need to make sure we do not
make the mistakes of the past.
I look forward to working with you, as well as the
uniformed lawyers, to make sure that as we go forward, and when
we close Guantanamo Bay--which I think we will--that we make
some very wise decisions as a Nation. To make sure we humanely
treat detainees, regardless of who they are, and what their
ideology may be. That we have a transparent justice system, and
that we also protect the Nation against people who are
committed to our destruction.
In that regard, Mr. Lynn, one thing I would ask from you--
there's been a report in the media that 61 of the detainees who
have been released have gone back to the fight in some form. I
don't know if that's accurate or not, but if you play the role
of Gordon England, it will be up to you, really, under the
current system--and I think we want to maybe change that, quite
frankly--as to who stays and who goes.
Two things--see if you can confirm how many people have
gone back to the fight. Define what the fight is. Also, see if
you can tell us, of the detainees that have been captures, how
many of them were inappropriately detained? So that we can make
a logical decision, going forward, about what kind of system to
employ.
There's two things we want to be sensitive of. We don't
want to put someone in custody, long-term, who's in the wrong
place at the wrong time. We don't want to let people go who
present a military threat in the future. We have to do that
based on a system that's competent, that's transparent, and
that has checks and balances.
Now, as we go forward, Mr. Lynn, what is your view of long-
term detention policy when it comes to people that we have
captured that may not be subject to the normal criminal
process? Have you thought about that much?
Mr. Lynn. Thank you, Senator. I'm aware of the role that,
at least, the current Deputy Secretary plays, in terms of the
detention release policy. I think the new administration will
be looking at that, and I can't tell you right now whether I
would be continuing that role or not. You're correct--I think
that's going to be reevaluated.
In answer to your specific question, clearly where
possible, we want to prosecute. There are going to be
circumstances where that's not going to be possible, and we're
going to have to evaluate those individually. There's clear
authority to hold enemy combatants. There's discussion as to
what actually constitutes an enemy combatant, but we have that
authority, and----
Senator Graham. Would you think a member of al Qaeda should
be classified as an enemy combatant?
Mr. Lynn. I'd have to know more circumstances than simply
that, Senator, really, to fully answer the question.
Senator Graham. Okay, well, if I gave you a situation where
the evidence was conclusive that this person was a part of an
organization called al Qaeda that was actively involved with
activity with al Qaeda, would they be a good candidate to be
considered an enemy combatant?
Mr. Lynn. Without quite going down the line of your
hypothetical, Senator, I think there are certainly cases that
al Qaeda operatives would be considered enemy combatants.
Senator Graham. Okay.
Mr. Johnson, when it comes to the criminal law--domestic
criminal law and military law--do you see a difference between
what the military justice system can do, and traditional
domestic criminal law regarding detaining enemy combatants?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, Senator, I believe I do.
First, let me preface my remarks by saying, I'm pretty much
a traditionalist when it comes to the essential mission of the
military. I believe that implicit in the ability of the
military to do its job is the inherent ability to detain an
enemy combatant captured on the battlefield. I think that's
implicit in the job. I believe that the Supreme Court would say
the same thing, and, in fact, it did, in the Hamdan decision.
When Congress passed the authorization for the use of
military force, the Supreme Court determined that, implicit in
that was the authority to detain an enemy combatant----
Senator Graham. If I could interrupt you right there. If a
person is, in fact, detained as an enemy combatant, as I
understand the law of armed conflict, once that decision has
been properly made, there is no requirement to release them
back to the fight if they still present a military threat.
Mr. Johnson. If, in fact, Senator, that person was properly
captured, and the circumstances suggest in your hypothetical
that you posed is, in fact, a member of al Qaeda----
Senator Graham. Right.
Mr. Johnson. The al Qaeda that Congress had in mind in
2001.
Senator Graham. Right.
Mr. Johnson. Then, I think the answer to your question is
yes.
Senator Graham. I look forward to working with you to clean
up what is, quite frankly, a mess. The Military Commissions Act
that was originally passed by our committee that enjoyed
complete Democratic support, and three Republicans, may be a
good document to look at in terms of how you would try somebody
who is alleged of committing a war crime against the United
States. This idea, how you detain someone that we believe to be
an enemy combatant, indefinitely, is a thorny issue. But I
think we can get there.
My goal would be to tell the world that the reason this
person is in prison, under military control, is not because we
say so, but because there's competent evidence to suggest
they're part of an enemy force that's been reviewed by an
independent court, outside of DOD, and that more than one
person reached that conclusion.
If we could accomplish that goal, I think we'll improve our
image and keep America safe. Just as sure as we're sitting
here, we're going to pick somebody up in Afghanistan, and there
are 900 people imprisoned in Afghanistan, that's going to have
high intelligence value, may not be subject to trial in the
United States, but presents a very serious threat to our
national security and our troops in the field. Let's get ahead
of that in a bipartisan manner, and I think this team can
deliver. I think you're outstanding nominees, and I look
forward to supporting you all.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Graham.
Senator Ben Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to add
my appreciation for your decision to serve, and certainly I am
impressed with the comments that you've all made this morning,
as well as your written statements.
We're fighting two wars, and we're preparing for threats
that emerge in the future, and are emerging right now. So the
challenges that you're going to face are, needless to say,
daunting. But I believe that you have the capacity to help us
all deal with those emerging, as well as continuing, threats
that we face today. I have a question regarding--and as
chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee in the past--I certainly
have a question regarding dwell time, as it might relate not
only to the current circumstances, but to the future
circumstances with the reduction of forces in Iraq, and an
increase in Afghanistan.
Mr. Lynn, we've already had challenges, meeting the goals
for dwell time between deployments for troops with certain
specialties. What do you consider a minimum for dwell time,
under the circumstances we face today, and will that--in some
respects--change as this transition goes forth?
Mr. Lynn. Senator, I don't have a specific minimum at this
point, prior to review, but I agree with the thrust of your
question--deploying forces on repeated tours with 3, 6, 9
months only, between those tours is a long-term detriment to
the quality of the force. I think it's often been said that you
recruit individuals and you retain families. I believe strongly
that's the case.
I think we have to be true to our military families and
increase the dwell time to a level that reduces the burden on
those families.
Senator Ben Nelson. I know that Secretary Gates is
committed to increasing it, and we all are. I guess the
practicalities that we're going to face in terms of that
transition are certainly going to have to be dealt with. I'm
assuming that both you and Ms. Flournoy will do everything
within your power to get the dwell time as generous as
possible, under all circumstances.
Mr. Lynn. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Ben Nelson. Mr. Hale, you said something about
working diligently to get to the point of an audit. Do you
honestly think that it's possible to get an audit of DOD?
Mr. Hale. Senator, the Department has a plan. You're
probably familiar with it, the Financial Improvement and Audit
Readiness Plan, and I think the Department is working toward
it. I'm mindful that the hardest things have been put to the
end, and that there are enormous challenges remaining. I think
at this point I'm not prepared to answer, definitively, your
question, but I'd take your point, and if I'm confirmed, that's
certainly something I want to look at.
We may need to look at some priorities. What do we do first
that would be most helpful? The goal of the audit, in my view,
is just not simply to have an unqualified opinion, but to
verify that we have good financial information. There may be
some priorities we can impose on the audit, that lead most
quickly to getting verification that we have good data.
Senator Ben Nelson. In response to your answer, would it be
possible to have, let's say, the equivalent of a partial audit
in certain areas, that could be stairstepped? In other words,
there are some high priority areas where probably the
challenges are the greatest, in terms of getting an audit.
There are going to be other areas where the necessity of an
audit is stronger than, perhaps, some others. Are you going to
look at trying to do this in some rational, stairstepping
process?
Mr. Hale. I think the answer is yes. There are some limits
on partial audits, and the degree to which they can be done,
but consistent with those limits--or abiding by those limits--I
think we do need to look at priorities.
Senator Ben Nelson. But your goal is to, essentially, at
some point, get an unqualified audit?
Mr. Hale. That is the law, and we are trying to pursue it.
So, yes, it remains a goal. If confirmed, I certainly want to
look at this issue. I'm mindful of the challenges.
Senator Ben Nelson. It's Herculean.
To increase public support for crucial nuclear security
programs, and to achieve effective allocation of resources, Mr.
Hale, what is your opinion on the possible recommendation for
the executive branch to submit--as part of the annual budget
request--both an unclassified, and a classified accounting of
all nuclear weapons-related spending?
Mr. Hale. Senator, that's a good question. I have to
confess, I know about it only in general terms. I think that's
one where borrowers learn more if I'm confirmed, and get back
to you with a specific answer to the committee.
Senator Ben Nelson. Because generally what we get is fairly
sketchy, if it's related to something that's classified.
Perhaps it is sketchy, in total, as well. But I'm hopeful that
you'll look at that very carefully. I think it's a great
recommendation, I hope we can see it followed.
Ms. Flournoy, as we've talked in the past, the shortages of
mid-level officers is continuing to be a problem for our
military. The mid-level, because many of those mid-career
warfighters are opting out of the military, because of the
high-demand, high-stress deployment tempo, which puts this in
connection with the previous question about dwell time. Do you
have any thoughts about whether we can continue to have
incentives? Or have we reached the point where incentives are
not going to be sufficient to help us retain those mid-level
career officers?
Ms. Flournoy. Senator, I think you've put your finger on
something that's very important to the long-term health of the
All-Volunteer Force. I would hope that, going forward, the
Department would take a close look at this issue.
I think when you think about incentives, we have to define
that broadly, not just financial incentives, but educational
opportunities, career development opportunities, flexibility,
and so forth. I think we are asking so much of the people who
serve, and particularly our officer corps--our field-grade
officer corps today--that if we're going to retain these
incredibly skilled, experienced people, we're going to have to
look anew at their career paths, at their incentives, and so
forth. I would hope, if confirmed, to have an opportunity to be
part of that examination.
Senator Ben Nelson. I would assume that would apply, as
well, to the professional ranks, with physicians, dentists, and
other professional areas? The challenge there is both
recruiting in the professional ranks, officers, but the
retention is true in both cases--of our warfighters as well as
those who provide the backup services.
Ms. Flournoy. Yes.
Senator Ben Nelson. I see that my time is expired. Thank
you very much, all of you, and we look forward to working with
you in the days ahead.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator Nelson.
Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our
nominees for their willingness to serve their country, and many
of you have had careers in public service, and it's a great
calling. We appreciate your willingness to answer that call
again.
Thank you for being here, thank you for the opportunity to
meet with you individually, as well, and pull some of these
questions.
I do want to expand upon some of these issues that perhaps,
have been covered, at least at some level already. But I'd like
to get Mr. Lynn's and Ms. Flournoy's response to some questions
relating to energy issues. Like I said, I think some of that
ground has perhaps been covered. But, as we all know, we spend
an awful lot of money every single year, sending that money to
unfriendly foreign nations to purchase oil, some of which ends
up in terrorist hands, and perhaps then is used by those
organizations to destroy us, and to attack Americans.
Our military is, of course, one of the biggest consumers of
energy and of oil. The Air Force, alone, is the Federal
Government's largest energy buyer, and spent $5.6 billion for
aviation fuel in fiscal year 2007.
As we all know, too, in 2007, 2008, oil prices reached
record highs, which had a direct impact on the Air Force's
readiness. Now we have oil prices that have come down, compared
to what they were only a few months ago, and we tend to put
those issues on the back burner, and get a little bit
complacent, which I think is a big mistake.
I think it's important that we look at ways that we can
prevent that sort of crisis in the future, when those fuel
prices go up again--which we know they will. That's why I've
been pleased that the Secretary of the Air Force, Mike Donley,
has signed an Air Force Energy Program Policy Memorandum last
month which, among other things, establishes the goals of
certifying the entire Air Force fleet, to use synthetic fuel
blends by early 2011, and to acquire 50 percent of the Air
Force domestic aviation fuel requirement be an alternative fuel
blend by 2016.
My question is, do you think that the Air Force's energy
initiatives regarding synthetic and alternative fuels is worthy
of Department-wide consideration?
Mr. Lynn. Thank you, Senator. Let me come back to your
specific question, just make a couple of general points that--I
agree with your emphasis on the energy area. The President-
elect, as a general policy, extending well beyond the
Department, is committed to reducing the oil dependency, given
the foreign sources of supply, given the global warming
implications, and so on. The Department will certainly be a
critical part as the largest government consumer of energy.
As you suggest, there's a second reason, beyond those broad
policy reasons. The financial implications to the Department of
relying on oil are severe and have the potential to get much
worse. There's an enormous savings out there if we can move
away from that, as you indicated.
Finally, I'd add one thing to yours. There's an operational
benefit if we can move away from oil-based products, in that a
huge part of the logistics strain of the United States military
is just providing fuel to the forward forces. To the extent
that we can find other, more efficient ways of supplying
energy, whether they're fuel cells or other means, I think it
will allow the military to perform the mission in a more
effective way.
For all of those reasons, I agree with the thrust of your
comments. I'm not completely familiar with Secretary Donley's
initiative, but your description is certainly compelling, and
we'll take a close look at it--and what kind of broader
application it might have, if confirmed.
Senator Thune. Ms. Flournoy?
Ms. Flournoy. Senator, I would agree that, given the size
of the enterprise, DOD has an opportunity to be a leader in
areas of conservation and efficiencies, alternative fuels, and
so forth. I have not had the opportunity to look at the
specific proposal you put on the table, but I look forward to
having that opportunity.
I would also just underscore the importance of thinking
about energy security and climate change together, and as key
elements of the future that DOD has to grapple with in its
military planning. I think this goes beyond current practices
in how we use energy, but also to understanding how some of
these energy trends are going to change the security
environment that the U.S. military operates in 10, 15, 20 years
out.
Senator Thune. The RAND Corporation recently issued a study
that estimates that synthetic fuel would reduce the U.S.'s
reliance on foreign oil by as much a 15 percent, while possibly
generating up to $60 billion in domestic revenue each year.
One of the things that I've been advocating, and we've
worked with my colleagues on the committee the last couple of
years in the defense authorization bill, is to try to and get
some procurement authority, multi-year procurement authority
for purchasing synthetic fuel. The question I have is, would
the Defense Department be supportive of efforts by Congress to
provide incentives to promote private sector investment in
synthetic fuel production, such as expanding the military's
multi-year procurement authority for purchasing domestically-
produced synthetic and alternative fuels? I would direct the
question, again, to Mr. Lynn and Ms. Flournoy.
Mr. Lynn. Senator, I would have to look at the question,
and I pledge to you that I would do so, but I can't make a
commitment prior to that kind of review.
Senator Thune. Okay.
Ms. Flournoy. I'm afraid I'm going to say the same thing.
Senator Thune. I expected that response. But I do look
forward to working with you, and hope we can find a way to make
that happen. I think it will incentivize a lot greater
participation by the private sector in expanding synthetic fuel
production, if we have that type of multi-year procurement
authority.
As you probably know--and again, I would direct this to Mr.
Lynn and Ms. Flournoy--the 2006 QDR stated the Department plans
to develop a new land base penetrating long-range strike
capability that would be fielded by 2018. Secretary Gates
recently discussed that new national defense strategy in an
article that was published in this month's edition of Foreign
Affairs Journal, and it stated the U.S.'s ability to strike
from over the horizon will be at a premium, and will require
shifts from short-range to long-range systems, such as the
next-generation bomber.
In your view, will the next-generation bomber be vital to
our national defense strategy, and what steps would the
Department take to ensure that the next-generation bomber is
able to achieve initial operational capability by 2018, which
is currently the goal?
Mr. Lynn. Senator, the review of the next-generation bomber
program, and the underlying strategic premises that led to it,
is going to be one of the central parts of the QDR that we'll
undertake, if confirmed.
The general trend, I think you're right, as we've moved
towards more of an expanded view to look at Pacific scenarios,
as well as European scenarios, the range of aircraft has
certainly become a more important variable. The proliferation
and the sophistication of air defenses have made stand-off
almost essential to survivability. Both those strategic trends,
I think, continue, but we're going to have to evaluate each
program within those trends in this QDR that's coming forward.
Senator Thune. Yes.
Ms. Flournoy, anything to add to that?
Ms. Flournoy. I would agree with that. I think the need for
a long-range precision strike that can penetrate the most
sophisticated enemy air defenses is absolutely critical.
Hopefully the Department will use the QDR to examine the range
of possible capabilities that will actually get us to meeting
that need. Certainly the long-range bomber will be part of that
discussion, a central part of that discussion.
Senator Thune. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is expired, so I
want to thank our nominees for their service. We look forward
to your speedy confirmation, thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Thune.
After Senator McCaskill, I'm going to have to leave for a
few minutes, and then Senator Webb is kindly going to take over
for that period of time.
Senator McCaskill.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to begin with Mr. Johnson, if I could. Procurement
fraud in DOD--in the 1990s, between 130 and 391 cases per year
were referred for criminal prosecution. In 2007, that number
was a whopping 11. Now, at the same time, you had the same
drop-off in civil fraud cases. This defies common sense. We've
had a massive explosion of procurement during the conflict in
Iraq, and I would like to get a commitment from you today that
this would be one of your highest priorities, as we strive to
tell the taxpayers of this country that we get it, that they
have been fleeced, in many instances, and our military has been
shortchanged as a result of some of the procurement fraud that
has gone on during the Iraq conflict, and that what is rumored
to be a backlog of these cases that exist right now, would be
immediately forwarded to the Department of Justice for
appropriate prosecution.
Mr. Johnson. Senator, I agree, given the growth of
procurement dollars, that a dramatic fall-off like that--I'm an
optimist in life, but I tend to doubt that it's because there's
so much less procurement fraud out there in 2007.
My recollection is, I actually prosecuted procurement fraud
when I was a prosecutor, and this is obviously a very important
area and I certainly would make that a priority. Yes.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hale, you and I had a chance to visit about the scandal
at the Defense Contracting Audit Agency (DCAA). Obviously, the
credibility of contracting is split apart at its core, if the
very agency that's supposed to be looking over everyone's
shoulder has the kind of problems that were documented by GAO,
I mean, nothing's worse than an audit agency being found not to
be compliance with auditing standards in government. It doesn't
get any worse than that.
Part of the examination of that scandal disclosed the
lawyer for the audit agency wrote a letter to the
whistleblower. I want to make sure that I share it with both
you and Mr. Johnson, because it is the most egregious example I
have ever seen of an unethical and completely inappropriate
memo, saying to this person, ``Be quiet. You are not supposed
to talk about this stuff to anyone, Congress or anyone else.''
It is enough to make your blood boil, when you read this memo.
At the time, I asked what kind of action had been taken
against the lawyer that wrote this memo? I got two excuses.
One, the Special Counsel's investigation was still open, making
any action inappropriate. Then, unfortunately for you Mr.
Johnson, they passed the buck to you. That, in fact, the lawyer
at the DCAA is in your chain of command, rather than the DCAA's
chain of command.
I would like your comment, Mr. Hale, about what you intend
to do about the lawyer--I'm sure that lawyer is still there--
and I would like some comment about what will happen to this
lawyer, who basically said to someone who was trying to right a
wrong, ``Be quiet or you're going to pay.''
Mr. Hale. Senator, I am concerned about the issues at DCAA,
as we talked about yesterday. It is also an ongoing
investigation, I want to see that investigation completed, and
if I'm confirmed, I will commit to you that I'll be sure to
review it, to solicit help from the Department's lawyers, and
figure out what the right strategy is. But at the moment, I
can't say what that is, but you have my attention, the issue is
important, and we, if I'm confirmed, will certainly seek a
resolution.
Senator McCaskill. I certainly understand that employees
within DOD have a standard of conduct. But I also understand,
we can't do our job in oversight, if they are all stifled. I
wanted to make sure that they understand that there are certain
times, an obligation to come forward, and talk about what is
happening internally.
Mr. Johnson, I didn't mean to cut you off. Did you have
anything to add?
Mr. Johnson. I obviously am not familiar with the
particular circumstances here. I agree with Mr. Hale, this is
something important to look into.
Just as a practical matter, my experience in life is, if
you tell somebody to be quiet and go sit in a corner, it's
probably going to come back and bite you, at some point.
Senator McCaskill. It did.
Mr. Johnson. Right.
Senator McCaskill. Yes, in this instance, it did.
Finally, Mr. Lynn, first of all, all of you, I appreciate
your service. All of you are not coming back for the glory or
the money, you're coming back because you want to serve, and I
thank all four of you for that. I don't mean, by directing this
question to you, to any way impugn your integrity.
But the revolving door is an important issue for us to talk
about, between the Pentagon, and the defense contracting
community. You went directly from the Pentagon to a defense
contractor. You are coming back directly from a defense
contractor--one of the largest defense contractors--into DOD.
In that role, you have a major responsibility over acquisition
and procurement. This is troubling to a lot of people who are
just looking at this situation.
We have gone a long way in Congress to try to begin to stop
the revolving door. We haven't done as well as we'd like to,
but there's a whole lot of attention in the public about the
revolving door between working in Congress and lobbying in
Congress. Frankly, there isn't as much attention in the defense
sector. It's an incestuous business, what's going on, in terms
of the defense contractors, and the Pentagon, and the highest
levels of our military.
I'd like to give you an opportunity to speak to it, since
you're an example of it. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lynn. Senator, when I left the Department, I followed
the strict ethics procedures, and didn't have any contact with
the Department for the period that's set by law. On coming back
into the Department, there are equally strict ethics procedures
on what issues I can handle, and what issues I can't. I will be
working with the General Counsel's Office to ensure I follow
those ethics procedures completely.
Senator McCaskill. Do you feel like you could be somebody
who could be a reformer, in this regard? Do you sense that
there's something else that we need to do? Do you sense that
there may not be a problem that there is, maybe, too much
short-cutting of picking up the phone, and dialing into the
Pentagon from a defense contract agency because of former
friends that are there, and vice versa? I mean, do you have any
sense that reform is needed here?
Mr. Lynn. Well, I----
Senator McCaskill. Do you hear the hopeful tone in my
voice?
Mr. Lynn. I do hear the tone, Senator.
I'm not aware whether the DCAA case, you probably have more
familiarity with the details as to whether that was people
leaving DCAA and contacting back to DCAA, I hadn't heard that,
but perhaps you know more. I think we need to keep----
Senator McCaskill. The best example I can give you is the
Thunderbird scandal. That was somebody who had left the
military and was working for a contractor, and reached back in
the get a contract, a sweetheart contract, no bid,
noncompetitive contract for some public relations work for the
Air Force Thunderbirds--that's one example, I can give you some
other examples.
Mr. Lynn. Senator, I certainly believe that we need to
maintain the highest ethical standards. I pledge to you that I
will do that personally.
In terms of your hopefulness that we can reform, I will
work to not only ensure that we follow the highest ethical
standards, but that we have the transparency that provides the
public with the belief, the understanding that indeed those
standards are being followed. It's not just the reality, it's
the perception, and I understand that, and we plan to work on
both.
Senator McCaskill. Okay. Thank you all very much. I look
forward to working with you.
Senator Webb [presiding]. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
Senator Hagan.
Senator Hagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the absence of Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain,
I am definitely honored to be on this committee, and I am
excited about being here and working with all of you.
North Carolina has one of the largest military footprints
of any State in the country, and we're very proud that in North
Carolina, our long-term support of the military--and as a
member of this Armed Services Committee--I truly hope to be
able to provide the support and advocacy that the many North
Carolina men and women in our Armed Forces deserve.
To the nominees, I want to offer you my congratulations.
None of you would be here before this committee, if not for
your competence, and your records of service. Should you all be
confirmed, I am confident that you will serve our Armed Forces
with distinction. So, thank you on that regard.
As I mentioned, and I hope you know that the military is
very important to North Carolina, and North Carolina is
important to the military. It's my hope that, should you be
confirmed, we can work closely together in the year to come.
The people of North Carolina are very pleased about the
results of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission,
and the Army and Marine Corps ``Grow the Force'' initiative.
Both Fort Bragg and Camp LeJeune are slated to receive a large
influx of personnel. The Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base
BRAC Regional Task Force are ultimately expecting total gains
of about 40,000 military and civilian personnel in and around
the city of Fayetteville. I think that those changes are
ultimately going to be a great thing for the military and the
State of North Carolina.
But in the meantime, there is a lot to be done in the
surrounding communities to get ready for that increase in
personnel that we're going to be seeing in the next few years.
Obviously, it's a welcome challenge.
We, in fact, are likely to see a large increase in funding
for State and local construction projects, as a part of the
economic recovery package that will be considered soon. I hope
that in North Carolina some of that funding can be devoted to
school construction for the added military personnel and
people, and the infrastructure upgrades around the bases.
In the case of Fort Bragg, some of these projects will be
essential to ensuring the security of the Nation's largest Army
post. But it's very important that BRAC be implemented as
smoothly and efficiently as possible.
Mr. Lynn, let me ask you a question. Do you foresee any
significant barriers to an efficient and timely implementation
of BRAC? I would ask that you would work with me and the
committee to ensure as smooth and orderly a transition as
possible.
Mr. Lynn. Thank you, Senator. I agree with the Senator that
the BRAC process has been an incredibly important process for
the Department as it right-sizes its infrastructure to the new
size of the force over a couple of decades, and that's been
something that's gone through, I think, five iterations now,
and we wouldn't have been able to get anywhere close to the
right-sized infrastructure without that.
I would pledge to you that we would want to protect the
integrity of that process. I can't get into specific
commitments on individual programs or projects, but it's
certainly something we would want to work with you and ensure
that the process remains as strong as it has been.
Senator Hagan. Thank you.
Again, congratulations to all of you. I certainly do look
forward to working very closely with you in the years to come.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Senator Hagan.
Senator Begich.
Senator Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There's good and bad being last. The good is, everyone
knows there's only about 8 minutes left.
Senator Webb. Just for the record, Senator, there will be a
second round.
Senator Begich. I know, I'm saying from this round.
Senator Webb. Don't think it's going to be over in 8
minutes.
Senator Begich. This round, and the bad is, lots of the
questions have been asked.
I'm going to give a couple, very parochial, but before I do
that--Mr. Lynn, your earlier comment about your child, I
clearly understand that. If my son were here, it would be
totally disruptive, and I'm not sure how it would all go.
To you, your family, I'm watching your son, here--I'm going
to get some lessons of how you do this for 2 hours--very good,
I give you great credit, there.
I'm going to ask two very parochial questions, but then
I'll ask a couple of general questions. I'll leave them to you,
Mr. Lynn, and you can direct them to whoever would like to
answer them.
Contrary to popular belief, we really don't see Russia from
most of Alaska, just for the record. [Laughter.]
But Russian military jets often push the envelope and make
flyovers along the Alaska border, prompting intercepts to
launch from Elmendorf Air Force Base and other Alaskan military
installations.
Alaska also finds itself the closest American State to
North Korea, and Alaskans often get nervous when China and
Taiwan start arguing, because of our proximity to the Pacific
Rim.
Anchorage, Alaska's port has been deemed one of the
Nation's top 16 strategic ports because of its vital mission of
launching the Stryker Brigade from Fort Richardson and Fort
Wainwright in Fairbanks. In short, Alaska truly, in my belief,
is on the front-line of the national defense. What is your
assessment of the strategic importance of Alaska when it comes
to America's interest on the Northern Pacific Rim?
Mr. Lynn. Clearly, as the Senator stated, Alaska plays a
very important role in terms of the U.S. military posture in
the Pacific Region, both in terms of the ballistic missile
defense capabilities that are resident there, as well as the
forces from all of the Services that are in Alaska. I don't
want to say one State is more important than another, but
clearly, Alaska's size and position makes it a critical element
of our national security.
Senator Begich. Let me ask you another question, again,
very specific to Alaska, but yet to the national defense. We're
very proud, in this Nation, to be the first fully-deployed in
operational defense against ballistic missile attack, at Fort
Greeley, the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system.
First conceived under the Clinton administration, in a very
strong, bipartisan approach here in Congress, including members
of this committee, the GMD is an important element in homeland
security, providing a deterrent, and if necessary, active
defense against threats around the globe.
This past December, the program completed another
successful intercept test by detecting, intercepting, and
destroying a target warhead over the Pacific.
I remain, and continue to be, very supportive of this
testing of the GMD system against a wide range of targets, and
I strongly encourage the Pentagon to adequately fund the GMD,
including testing, operations, maintenance at Fort Greeley and
other Alaska sites, and expansion of the Fort Greeley
interceptor inventory, especially if we do not immediately
deploy interceptors in Europe.
For either one of you, or whoever would like to answer
this--can you give me your opinion and thought of how you would
support this type of system?
Mr. Lynn. Why don't I start and ask Ms. Flournoy to follow?
Senator Begich. Very good.
Mr. Lynn. Senator, I think missile defense programs should
be treated like all defense programs, and that is that one,
they should be based, fundamentally, on a judgment of the
threat that we face. Then they need to do the best that we have
to meet that threat, and diffuse it.
Second, they need to be cost-effective. We need to follow a
program that's going to get the best return for the taxpayers,
and then finally, we need to follow a strong testing regime to
make sure that, in fact, they will work to do the mission that
they've been intended to you.
I think the missile defense program, as you've said, the
GMD program in Alaska is proceeding down those paths. Without
making any specific commitments on that, that would be the
approach that we would take to that program, as well as the
other missile defense programs.
Senator Begich. Thank you.
Ms. Flournoy. Senator, I would agree with Mr. Lynn's
remarks. I would only just add that I think there are some
imminent vehicles for looking at a broad review of missile
defense, not only for long-range systems, but medium- and
shorter-range systems. I think that will be an important
element of both the QDR and the upcoming budget and program
reviews.
I would just underscore the need to look at these things
holistically, and to look across the board to try to look at
how best we can prioritize. So, I look forward to discussing
the Alaska system in that context with you, going forward.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I don't know how the timing works, this is my
first time. So, I'm going to keep rapping until someone tells
me, or a hook comes, right? Okay. [Laughter.]
I didn't hear any discussion, as I'm a former mayor of
Anchorage, AK, and we do a lot of work, we have--in the State
population, 11 percent of our population are veterans, another
4 percent are Active military. A very large percent of our
population is related--indirect and directly--to the military.
The program we worked a lot on was family support. I'd be
interested--and you don't have to go into the detail here, but
this is my opinion from a mayor's perspective, looking in, that
there is good support, but not enough.
An example I would give you, in Anchorage, we have our
Women, Infant, and Children program satellite office on the
base, because of the needs. I have personal opinions about why
that should not be that case. But, can you tell me, as you
mentioned, about reform and some of the activities you're going
to take, where are you going to include the support for
families on base, off base, and those kind of necessary
elements, that I truly believe from a mayor's perspective, as a
former mayor, were there, but not as aggressive as they could
have been?
I know, as a mayor, we did a lot with the military, great
relationship, and actually started with the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, a new committee to get other mayors to do the same
thing, because we think mayors have a great role in supporting
the military that connects to them. But how do you see support
and resources to support those families?
Mr. Lynn. Senator, we're well aware that we've recruited,
we've trained, we've equipped the best military force the
world's ever seen. We're equally well aware that we're not
going to retain that force, and we're not going to retain that
capability, unless we treat our military families right. So, we
will provide the resources that military families need to be
able to sustain the kinds of activities, the wars that we're
fighting and that we know that the families at home are at
least as burdened by these deployments as the men and women who
deploy themselves, so we need to find and support the programs
that support those families.
Senator Begich. Will you have, in your process, some sort
of strategic plan on how you'll do that?
Mr. Lynn. It will certainly be a critical element as we
develop the budgets and programs, starting with the fiscal year
2010 program, and anything else, actually, that's needed in the
fiscal year 2009 supplemental.
Senator Begich. Another question, kind of broader, as the
Arctic continues to be a new frontier in a lot of ways, Alaska
is going to be right up there. Have you, or do you have any
commentary regarding how the military will engage in Arctic
policy?
Mr. Lynn. I'm afraid I don't, but maybe Ms. Flourney?
Ms. Flournoy. I don't have a comment on current policy, but
what I can tell you is that's a great example of what I was
referring to when I talked about thinking about energy security
and climate change in our military planning, in our scenario
development, and so forth. As things change in the high north,
then you're going to see implications for the U.S. military
that we need to try to anticipate and plan for. I would hope
that some of our longer-range planning and thinking would take
that and other energy developments into account.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
I have my cue card, my time is up.
Chairman Levin [presiding]. Senator Webb will start our
second round.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I would like to express my appreciation that Senator
Nelson raised this issue of dwell time. I would like to give
you another group of thoughts on this. I hope you'll keep in
mind, as someone who wrote and introduced the dwell-time
amendment in 2007, and someone who also wrote and introduced
the GI bill.
We have a tendency inside the Pentagon--I spent 5 years in
the Pentagon--of looking at these issues simply in terms of
retention. Specifically, as the dialogue went back and forth,
we talked about how important it is to retain field-grade
officers. In the Pentagon, you're hanging around generals,
admirals, and captains, and you get a lieutenant colonel in
front of you, and you tend to think he's a lower-ranking
officer. In a rifle company, a lieutenant colonel is God. We
tend to forget, in this environment--and I say that as someone
whose son and son-in-law both are enlisted in the Marines right
now--we tend to forget that 70 percent of those who enlist in
the Marine Corps, and 75 percent of those who enlist in the
Army, leave the Service at or before the end of their first
enlistment.
We have a stewardship to those people, that's quite a bit
different than the way we address the career force. These
multiple deployments, with very short time periods in between,
have an emotional impact that stay with people to the end of
their lives. I say that as someone whose first job in
Government was working as a counsel on the House Veterans
Committee, 32 years ago, dealing with the problems of people
who served in Vietnam.
So, part of it's a retention issue, part of it is how we
deploy the force, but the traditional dwell-time ratio has
always been two to one, until we hit this period. Two years
here for 1 year gone. One year here for 6 months gone. We got
all the way down to below 1 to 1. The Commandant of the Marine
Corps has been very specific about trying to get it back to 2
to 1, we tried to pass an amendment just saying it ought to be
1 to 1.
Whatever your political thoughts are about the wars we're
fighting, or anything else, we need a safety net under these
people for their long-term emotional health.
So, when you're getting the visits of all of these high
rankers, and we're talking about retention, and we tend to do
it constantly on this committee, please do not forget that the
issue is much larger than retention. It is the long-term
welfare of our citizen soldiers who step forward to serve.
Ms. Flournoy, I waited for a second round, because I think
it's very important to hear from you on two other issues with
respect to your views on where the Department should be going.
I say this with a little bit of a sense of history of what
happened in the last administration with the first occupant of
the position that you're about to move into.
We'll need to understand clearly what your views are on
these issues as we move forward. The first is Afghanistan. You
mentioned that you support the notion of an immediate and
fairly large-scale increase of the American military into
Afghanistan. Can you please articulate your view of this
strategy in military terms, and what the endpoint is, where we
will see that our mission is complete?
Ms. Flournoy. That is the question, Senator. What I would
say is that I think our objective in Afghanistan has to be to
create a more stable and secure environment that allows longer-
term stabilization, and prevents Afghanistan from returning to
being a safe haven for terrorism.
I think job number one, or one of the top jobs for this new
administration, is going to be crafting the strategy that
you're asking for. In doing so, not just for the military
piece, and how many troops we're going to deploy, but for the
U.S. Government as a whole, working with our North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) allies, working with the Afghan
Government, working with international donors. We need a
comprehensive strategy that articulates the end-state we're
trying to achieve, and then bring all of the elements of
national power--not just the military--to bear on trying to
achieve it.
I can't tell you what that strategy is, yet. But I do know
that President-elect Obama and Secretary Gates have both been
very clear that they're committed to developing that as an
early priority going forward.
Senator Webb. I would hope that in this process, we can end
up with a clearly articulated end-point. I think that was the
great failure in Iraq. If you cannot clearly articulate when
the commitment will be ended, then we tend to move sort of in
an ad hoc way, based on the situation of the moment, and all
around the world, we tend to end up staying in different
places, and not necessarily resolving problems in a way that
fits our national interest.
My second question regards NATO expansion. I spent a good
bit of time working in NATO, when I was Assistant Secretary of
Defense. This is not the NATO that I was working with in the
1980s. In my view, NATO was kind of broken down into three
pieces. This is my concern, anyway, and I would like to hear
you views on this.
We have the United States having moved into position--even
more so than in the 1980s--of being the military guarantor. We
have the traditional countries of NATO moving into their
historic relationships with Central and Eastern Europe--there's
nothing wrong with that, it's to be expected, and it's healthy
for Germany, particularly--and then we have, in my view, picked
up a worrisome set of dependencies, for lack of a better term.
Not allies, in the traditional sense of the word. What do you
think about that? What do you think about the further expansion
that's on the table?
Ms. Flournoy. Senator, I think this is one of those issues
where the upcoming NATO summit's going to offer a great
opportunity to sort of elevate the discussion between the
United States and our allies, on what is the alliance and what
is our purpose, here?
I think that NATO expansion originally started out as being
very much about creating a Europe that's whole and free. I
think that's still a worthwhile objective. But, I think going
forward, there's a sense of, we need to have some clear
criteria for membership, and also evaluate it on a case-by-case
basis.
I'm not prepared to go country-by-country and give you that
evaluation from where I sit now, given that I haven't been
deeply involved in these issues for awhile. But I do think that
the question you're raising of the purpose and nature of
expansion going forward is important to inform case-by-case
judgments going forward on which additional members would make
sense, and which would not.
Senator Webb. Obviously, stability is one issue. But being
mandatorily committed to coming to the defense of a country
that has been allowed into the NATO alliance, as in the
situation last year with Georgia--is very troublesome. Europe
has a very tangled history when it comes to this, if you go
back and examine the period leading up to World War I. There's
a lot of resonance in terms of the tangled commitments that
were made. I would hope that we could proceed forward in a very
careful way, in terms of making any more mandatory obligations
as to where our military would be used.
I thank all of you for your time today, and I wish you the
best, and I obviously am going to support your nominations, and
I look forward to working with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Webb.
I have a number of additional questions that I want to ask
right now, but I want to join my voice with that of Senator
Webb on the NATO expansion issue, the caution that is
essential.
For the reason that he gives, which is the requirement that
we come to the assistance of all members, but also because of
the veto that every member has on any military activity--it's a
very serious matter. There's no easy way to address it. We've
gone into this in prior years, as to whether that ought to be
modified in some way. But it's really important that any member
meet all of the requirements of NATO, to reduce the likelihood
that there will be such a veto, if all but one member of NATO
wants to take action, and one member refuses--that's it.
But there's also, of course, the issue that Senator Webb
raises, about the requirement of using military action to come
to the support of any nation that feels it's been attacked. The
complication and complexity of that kind of a decision, it
seems to me, was highlighted by the recent activity of Russia
and Georgia.
I want to add my voice to the caution that Senator Webb, I
believe, expressed on that.
With the time remaining--we have votes in 10 minutes, and
even if I'm alone here, I have more than 10 minutes of
questions. But let me start off, first, on Iraq. You have
addressed, Ms. Flournoy, one aspect of the Iraq issue, and the
difficulty of knowing what the facts will look like down the
line, in terms of what our future commitments, if any, ought to
be to Iraq.
But one of the issues, of course, would be whether or not
the Iraqi people ratify the SOFA. What happens if public
opinion comes out in opposition to the referendum? I would just
ask you whether you agree that would also be a fact, which
complicating complexity, which would need to be thrown into the
mix here?
Ms. Flournoy. Absolutely, Senator.
Chairman Levin. On Afghanistan, and I think all of us have
a lot of questions relative to Afghanistan, and some have
already been asked, but here are a few additional ones.
I have believed for a long time that the Afghan National
Army ought to be placed in the position where it's most needed.
Where it's most needed is where the greatest threat is, and the
greatest threat is along the border. Yet, we don't see--as far
as I can tell--the Afghan Army being located along that border.
On top of that, there was a commitment made to President
Bush that the Afghan Border Police would be put under the
jurisdiction of DOD. The Afghan Army is an army that is very
highly motivated, highly professional. Their fierce dislike of
the Taliban comes from a long history, and they have the
willpower to take on that issue along the border. There's a
contrast there with the Border Police, and I won't go into too
many details, but the Border Police does not have that kind of
professionalism, or willpower.
I'm just asking you and urging you to look into the
question, Ms. Flournoy, of the location of the Afghan Army,
whether we should ask the Afghans to locate more of their army
along the border. That border is a threat, not only to
Afghanistan, but the areas in Pakistan which harbor the
terrorists, Taliban leaders, and extremists are a threat
directly to this country.
I would ask you to take on, as one of your early policy
issues, the question of not just the border, which is obviously
high-up on your radar already, but the question, specifically,
of the Afghan Army, where we should urge that it be located,
whether the Border Police should be part of the Ministry of
Defense, or the Ministry of Interior--and there's a huge
different in Afghanistan, in terms of the professionalism of
those ministries.
Whether, indeed, a commitment was made to President Bush,
relative to that Border Police. Whether that commitment's been
kept, because those cross-border incursions from Pakistan,
again, not only represent a huge threat to Afghanistan, but the
presence of that safe haven in Pakistan, I know, is now
allegedly being addressed more by the Pakistanis, and that's
great.
But I have my skepticism as to whether their heart is
totally in it, and whether or not they're going to succeed, and
that means that either if the Pakistan heart is not in it,
whether there's any ambiguity there, or whether they're
unsuccessful even with the willpower, puts a great onus on the
Afghans to control their own border, and to stop that
incursion.
I would ask you, and to the extent you're going to be
interested and involved--I know you're interested, Mr. Lynn,
but involved in this issue--I would ask both of you to put some
real specific focus on those issues, would you do that?
Mr. Lynn. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Flournoy. Absolutely.
Chairman Levin. Missile defense, I think Senator Begich
asked one part of that question, but I come at it from a
similar angle, I think to the one that was discussed by Mr.
Lynn. Let me just ask this question of you, Mr. Lynn. Do you
agree that the Missile Defense Agency, and the missile defense
programs of the Department, should be subject to regular
processes for budgetary, acquisition, testing, and policy
oversight, rather than being managed outside of ordinary
management channels?
Mr. Lynn. Mr. Chairman, I think that all of our military
programs should be managed through those regular programs, that
would include missile defense. I would think any exceptions
should be rare, and fully justified.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Ms. Flournoy, on the European missile defense issue--do you
believe it would be important to review the proposed European
missile defense deployment in the broader security context of
Europe, including our relations with Russia, the Middle East,
and to consider that deployment, as part of a larger
consideration of ways in which to enhance ours and European
security?
Ms. Flournoy. Yes, I do, sir. I think it's an important
candidate issue for the upcoming QDR.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Lynn, the Air Force and the Navy have been reducing
their end strengths in recent years, but have announced that
they are halting the reductions, short of previously stated
goals. Can you give us your thoughts on the current size of the
Active Force, both the Air Force and Navy size, but also the
Army and Marine Corps who have been steadily increasing under
the requirements established by this Congress, that have pushed
very hard for increases in the size of the Army and Marines?
But comment, if you will, specifically on the stated goals of
the Air Force and the Navy, and whether they should be kept, or
whether they ought to be modified?
Mr. Lynn. Mr. Chairman, I think that's going to be a
central part of the review in the next QDR. I think any
strategic review has to include within it a thorough review of
the force structure, because it's the first element in terms of
how we address the threat, is the force structure that we
develop. Most of the budget implications, at least the initial
budget implications, flow from those judgments. So, we need to
start with those judgments. But, I couldn't pre-judge at this
point, the results.
Chairman Levin. That's fine.
Over the past 2 years, we've spend a huge amount of time
working with DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to
improve the care and treatment of our wounded warriors. We've
adopted Wounded Warrior legislation which was comprehensive, to
try to address some of the problems which were very visible and
dramatically disclosed by the Washington Post series of
articles that related to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. But
it was a much deeper problem that we addressed, in terms of the
relationship between the Departments--DOD and the VA--to try to
make sure there were seamless transition, that there were
common standards and criteria for assessments, including
disability ratings, and we made some major reforms in that
area.
Mr. Lynn, if confirmed, will you ensure that the Department
continues to work with the VA to make sure that the wounded
servicemembers and their families receive the treatment that
they need and deserve? Will you assure us that this issue is
going to remain at a high visibility level in the Department
throughout the period of transition, and beyond?
Mr. Lynn. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Let me address this question to both of
you, Mr. Lynn, Ms. Flournoy, about U.S.-Russia relations, and
what steps you believe should be taken to improve the
relationship in the near-term, mid-term, and long-term. What
issues face the Department now, which can affect that U.S.-
Russia relationship, and how important is it that we try to
improve that relationship?
Why don't you start, Mr. Lynn, and then I'll go to Ms.
Flournoy.
Mr. Lynn. Mr. Chairman, the Russians still have the largest
nuclear arsenal, and in that context alone, we need to pay
attention to that critical relationship. We need to develop
that relationship as far as we can, we have a Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty renewal to evaluate, as to whether that's the
right way forward. We have ongoing relationships in terms of
the Nunn-Lugar program. That's an important way that we've been
able to reduce the threat of the proliferation of those nuclear
weapons.
At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the
most critical relationships, both for defense and foreign
policy reasons, that the Nation has.
Chairman Levin. Ms. Flournoy?
Ms. Flournoy. Some of our most vital interests--preventing
further nuclear proliferation, preventing the use of nuclear
weapons by terrorists--it's very difficult for the United
States to safeguard those interests without very deep, and
broad, international cooperation. When you look at the nature
of some of the tasks, getting Russia to help police nuclear
materials, ensure the safety of nuclear weapons arsenals, and
so forth, they're a very critical partner in that regard.
I guess I would start from the premise that we do have some
very important common interests, and although recent Russian
behavior--particularly with regard to Georgia, with regard to
energy supplies in Europe and so forth, have been great cause
for concern.
I would hope that going forward, the new administration
would reopen a strategic dialogue with Russia that would seek
to identify areas--both of cooperation, and areas where we
would like to see more constructive behavior, from Russia,
going forward. But, I think it's an absolutely critical
relationship that we need to be working actively, going
forward.
Chairman Levin. Ms. Flournoy, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs recently spoke about the need for a whole of government
approach, and the limits of the use of military power as a tool
of U.S. foreign policy. Admiral Mullin stated that our Armed
Forces ought to be willing to say when it believes that the
military is not the best choice to take the lead, in place of
our civilian department, and agencies of government. He
emphasized the need to provide our civilian departments--
including State Department, U.S. Agency for International
Development, Agriculture, and Justice, with the resource that
they need to take the lead, even if that means less resources
for DOD. I'm wondering whether you agree with that? I think
Secretary Gates has spoken, even before Chairman Mullin, very
eloquently about these issues. I'm wondering whether or not you
basically agree with that?
Ms. Flournoy. I do agree, sir. Both in the need for much
more integrated approaches using all of the elements of
national power to achieve objectives, but also in the need to
invest in building capacity of our non-military instruments, to
be able to perform alongside our military.
Chairman Levin. All right, thank you.
Mr. Lynn and Ms. Flournoy, the recovery operations in North
Korea for American prisoners of war who have been missing in
action since the Korean War is an important humanitarian
effort, and it should not be caught up, or tied to the
political and strategic issues surrounding North Korea.
Since the inception of the bilateral operations in 1996 in
North Korea, until their untimely suspension by Secretary
Rumsfeld in 2005, this program was seen by both parties as a
humanitarian program. It's incredibly important to the families
of those missing servicemembers that their remains be
recovered.
Will you seek to resume those operations in cooperation
with the North Koreans, Mr. Lynn?
Mr. Lynn. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to become more
familiar with that program, but I'll endeavor to do that, as a
high priority.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Ms. Flournoy, are you familiar with that program?
Ms. Flournoy. I'm aware that it was stopped, but I am not
too familiar with the details, but I'd be happy to look into
it, sir.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson, the convening authority for military
commissions for DOD was quoted yesterday as saying that she
declined to refer a detainee case for prosecution, because
``his treatment was torture.'' She said it was abuse of an
uncalled for and clearly coercive nature, to use her words.
Now, assuming that Ms. Crawford's statements are accurate,
would you agree that these interrogation techniques are
inconsistent with Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions,
the requirements of the Army Field Manual, and should not be
used by DOD?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe that and I also
believe that such things are inconsistent with American values.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Lynn and Ms. Flournoy, would you agree
with that?
Mr. Lynn. I certainly agree that our interrogation
techniques need to follow the Geneva Conventions and the Army
Field Manual.
Chairman Levin. Ms. Flournoy, would you agree?
Ms. Flournoy. I would agree with Mr. Lynn's statement.
Chairman Levin. With Mr. Johnson's statement?
Ms. Flournoy. Yes. I believe that torture should never be
used by the United States, under any circumstances.
Chairman Levin. But, would you agree that the description
which she gave met the legal definition of torture? Or are you
not in a position to----
Ms. Flournoy. Sir, I am not in a position, I am not
familiar with that particular case, I'm sorry.
Chairman Levin. All right.
Mr. Johnson, according to an article in yesterday's
Washington Post, the evidence against detainees at Guantanamo
Bay is ``in a state of disarray.'' Apparently, so chaotic that
it's impossible to prepare for a fair criminal trial. If
confirmed, would you personally review the evidence against the
Guantanamo detainees, for the purpose of determining--in
consultation with other appropriate administration officials--
how to proceed with those cases?
Mr. Johnson. If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I anticipate being
part of an inter-agency review with respect to the manner in
which such cases are brought, and to take a good look at the
evidence against the detainees--both with respect to potential
criminal prosecutions, and their continued detention, yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Do you have a view as to whether or not
it's preferable or appropriate to try detainees who are going
to be charged with criminal offenses before military
commissions, rather than Article III courts?
Mr. Johnson. Senator, first of all, I have predispositions.
I don't, at this point, have an informed view. If confirmed,
I'd want to get in there and learn a lot more about this
subject, and learn about the nature of the evidence that we
have on some of these detainees, so I think I know what I don't
know.
But I do have some predispositions on this subject, which I
think are similar to the President-elect's. I think that it is
preferable that we proceed in Article III civilian courts. I do
not rule out the possibility and the need for prosecutions in
some form of Uniformed Code of Military Justice court-martial
or a properly constituted military commission. Military
commissions have existed since before World War II. I have some
qualms and some issues with how they are currently constituted,
and I think the new administration will take a serious look at
that.
But I think that, if I could add this--we need to also be
mindful of the future, not just the 250 or so detainees at
Guantanamo. We are certainly going to have detainees in the
future, so we need to build a system that has credibility and
survives legal scrutiny for the future as well as the people
that are currently there.
Chairman Levin. In that review, I would recommend that you
take a look at the debates and decision of this committee and
Congress, relative to those procedures. There was some
reference to that by Senator Graham, and I would urge you to
take a look at the decisions, the debates, the issues which we
confronted, and ultimately divided on. But, for a time, we
thought, at least a pretty good majority--bipartisan majority--
to put in place.
If you would just take a look at that history, that, I
think, will inform some of your thinking as to what direction
we need to go in this area.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Can you do that?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. On access to documents, Mr. Johnson, the
Senate Armed Services Committee has conducted an extensive
investigation into the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.
For a long period of time, at least, that investigation was
impeded by objections from the Department of Defense, and
particularly by the Office of the General Counsel, to providing
requested documents and information to the committee.
There were a number of excuses that were provided to us,
for why documents and information were withheld, including
claims that the communications were ``deliberative'' or that
advice was ``pre-decisional,'' or other privileges. None of
those privileges, and a number of others that were asserted,
were recognized, or ever have been recognized, by Congress or
the Courts as a basis for withholding documents from Congress.
The objections that the Department raised delayed our
investigation and report. I would ask you this--whether you
would agree that a good working relationship between the
Department and the committees of Congress is in the interest of
everybody? It's important for the Department to cooperate to
the maximum extent practical with requests for documents and
information made in the performance of our oversight function.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I do and I will undertake this
if any member of the committee or your committee staff believes
that DOD has asserted an objection that does not have a basis
in law, I want to know about that right away.
Chairman Levin. Okay.
Mr. Johnson. I'd appreciate a phone call directly to me.
Chairman Levin. That's great. After you're confirmed, we'll
not only make certain that that happens in the future, and
hopefully is not needed, but we're going to ask you to take a
look at some of the documents that are denied us, the reasons
for them, and to see whether or not you are able to make them
available, based on prior requests.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Okay.
The President-elect has made a very strong commitment to
openness and transparency in government and you're going to be
right in the center of that when it comes to oversight, and
your decisions will be important in that regard, and we welcome
your commitment to that kind of openness and transparency.
Mr. Lynn, President-elect Obama said that it's possible for
us to keep the American people safe, while adhering to our core
values and ideals, and that's what he intends to carry forward
in the new administration. Would you agree that restoring
America's moral leadership globally is essential to our
security?
Mr. Lynn. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will you agree that sending the clear
signal that the United States does not engage in torture, or
cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, which are prohibited by
our anti-torture laws, that that clear signal will enhance our
standing globally, and enhance our security?
Mr. Lynn. I do.
Chairman Levin. Finally, I don't want to leave you too much
off the hook, Mr. Hale, because you're----
Mr. Hale. That's quite all right, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. I know your family and you would be
disappointed if that were true, so let me ask you this. Our
current defense plans and programs are extremely expensive. You
have a huge budget deficit. What we're going to need you to do
is to work, obviously, with the leadership of the Department to
work with us to find places where we can save money. We know
where we have to spend money. We're going to spend money to
support our men and women in uniform, to give them everything
they need to prevail on their missions, and we're going to give
our military families the support that they deserve. We're
going to provide the equipment that's essential, and the
healthcare that's essential.
What we cannot do is spend money either on systems we don't
need, or excesses that we've seen too much of.
I think you're familiar, are you, with some of the
Inspector General's reports on expenditures in Iraq?
Mr. Hale. Yes, in general terms.
Chairman Levin. We're talking tens of billions, maybe
hundreds of billions of unaccounted for dollars. So we're going
to need your energy to not just help us reform business
systems, which we need to do, and we need all your help, I
guess, in the area of reforming acquisition. I know a number
one priority, or one of the top priorities I guess, not quite
number one, but one of the top priorities of the new
administration is acquisition reform.
But you're going to be in a key position, Mr. Hale, we're
going to need your full energy and your passion in this area if
we're going to succeed.
We have a vote on, now, in the Senate, and you've been here
a long time.
Ms. Flournoy, I particularly want to compliment your
children.
Ms. Flournoy. Thank you, aren't they wonderful?
Chairman Levin. They're great. I want to compliment all of
you for your answers, and for your commitments in working with
this committee.
But I really want to embarrass your children, Ms. Flournoy,
because of all of the people here this morning, I think they've
been the most outstanding. [Laughter.]
With that, again, we will move these nominations as quickly
as we can. There are some things that have to be given to this
committee which are not yet available to this committee. We
expect they'll be fully routine, but nonetheless, they have to
be provided. We're just going to bring your nominations as
quickly to fruition as we can in terms of confirmation.
With that, we congratulate you, we thank you for your
service, and again, thank your families. We thank all of the
families and friends who have shown up here today in support of
these nominees, and we will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to William J. Lynn III by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense (DOD)
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They have also clarified the responsibility of the military departments
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment
to the combatant commanders.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions?
Answer. As the executive director of the Defense Organization
Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, I was
involved in developing the analytical work that served as a foundation
for the eventual Goldwater-Nichols Act. I believe that Act has yielded
enormous benefits to the Department through strengthened joint
operational commanders, better joint advice in the Pentagon, and
improved acquisition management structures. At this time, I do not see
the need for any specific changes. If confirmed, my subsequent
experience in the Deputy Secretary of Defense position could
potentially suggest needed changes and I would consult with Congress on
any such issues.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. I believe the Department's acquisition management processes
and organizations should be a high priority for review by the new
administration with the objective of improving the cost controls and
responsiveness of that system. That review could potentially suggest
changes to certain aspects of Goldwater-Nichols. I also believe it will
be important to address recommendations for interagency reform.
relationships
Question. What is your understanding of the relationship between
the Deputy Secretary of Defense and each of the following:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. I expect the Deputy to be able to perform any of the duties
of the Secretary, but to be largely focused on the daily operations of
the Department. The Secretary and the Deputy would work together to
develop defense strategy and policy, but the Deputy would serve largely
as the Department's Chief Operating Officer, responsible for the
operation of DOD and implementation of national defense policy and
strategy. This will include financial management, personnel policies,
acquisition management and integrity, oversight of military
departments' roles, base realignment and closure (BRAC), Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR) management, legislative affairs, public affairs
and the like.
Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. If confirmed, my role as Chief Operating Officer would be
to ensure collaboration across the various offices of the Under
Secretaries of Defense. I would further provide that the Secretary's
guidance and priorities are understood and implemented, and that
matters requiring the Secretary's attention are raised to his level.
Question. The Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO) of DOD.
Answer. As a direct reporting relationship, the DCMO would provide
feedback on the progress of the Department toward achieving its
management goals. The DCMO would also work closely with me, if
confirmed, to determine future changes to our strategic plan. The DCMO
would routinely interact with the Military Department Chief Management
Officers (CMOs) to ensure success.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense (ASD).
Answer. If confirmed, for direct reporting ASDs the relationship
would be the same as with the Under Secretaries. For those reporting to
an Under Secretary, I would rely primarily on that Under Secretary to
manage each area.
Question. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
Answer. The Chairman is the principal advisor to the President and
National Security Council. If confirmed, I will work closely to
coordinate any issues with the Chairman and Vice Chairman.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretaries of
the Military Departments to ensure that the policies of the President
and the Secretary of Defense are carried out in their respective
military departments.
Question. The Chief Management Officers of the Military
Departments.
Answer. If confirmed, one of my most important duties would be to
ensure that the Department can carry out its strategic plan.
Interactions with the military department CMOs would largely be through
the DCMO. This would allow for monitoring and measuring of the
Department's progress by establishing performance goals and measures
for improvement.
Question. The Service Acquisition Executives.
Answer. If confirmed, I will be actively involved in setting
acquisition policy. However, I would expect most policy coordination to
occur through the USD(AT&L). My objective would be to ensure
acquisition policy, procedures, and regulations are followed and
appropriate improvements pursued.
Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure the Service Chiefs are
aware of the Secretary's guidance and their concerns are coordinated
with the Secretary.
Question. The Director of National Intelligence (DNI).
Answer. If confirmed, I would, together with the Secretary of
Defense, routinely interact with the DNI. More detailed coordination
will occur between the DNI's staff and the USD(I).
Question. The Inspector General of DOD.
Answer. If confirmed, I would encourage the Inspector General to
carry out his/her duties in accordance with the Inspector General Act
while ensuring there are no barriers to independence or mission
accomplishment.
Question. The General Counsel of DOD.
Answer. If confirmed, I will seek advice from the General Counsel
on all relevant subjects.
Question. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau to understand all Guard-related issues and to
ensure he understands the Secretary's guidance.
Question. The Judge Advocates General of the Services.
Answer. The Services' Judge Advocates General have important roles
in their respective Services. However, the majority of Service Judge
Advocate General issues would be coordinated through the Office of the
General Counsel.
duties of the deputy secretary of defense
Question. Section 132 of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the duties
of the Deputy Secretary of Defense are to be prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense.
Assuming that you are confirmed, what duties do you expect the
Secretary to prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to function as a traditional deputy,
serving as the alter ego to the Secretary of Defense in a variety of
forums. However, I expect the Secretary would continue to focus
primarily on external aspects of the Defense Department, while I would
focus on the internal management functions of the Department, similar
to that of a Chief Operating Officer. Those functions would most likely
be particularly focused on the Department's planning, budgeting,
acquisition, personnel, and management activities.
Question. What background and expertise do you possess that you
believe qualify you to perform these duties?
Answer. My background includes service in two previous civilian
positions in the Defense Department, more recent experience in defense
industry, and previous work in support of Congress. I believe these
three bodies of experience will provide a solid foundation for
performing the duties of the Deputy Secretary of Defense, if confirmed.
I served as the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) from 1997 to
2001. In that position, I was the chief financial officer for DOD and
the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense for all budgetary and
fiscal matters. From 1993 to 1997, I was the Director of Program
Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, where I oversaw the Defense Department's strategic planning
process. I currently serve as senior vice president of Government
Operations and Strategy at Raytheon Company, leading the company's
strategic planning. Before entering DOD in 1993, I served for 6 years
on the staff of Senator Edward Kennedy as liaison to the Senate Armed
Services Committee. Earlier in my career, I worked as a Senior Fellow
at the National Defense University and on the professional staff at the
Institute for Defense Analyses, and served as the executive director of
the Defense Organization Project at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies. Although I believe my background provides a
solid foundation for the position, I also recognize that the job of
Deputy Secretary of Defense encompasses a very diverse set of
challenges and responsibilities, and I also know that the Defense
Department and its programs have undergone significant changes in the 8
years since I left government service. So I have much to learn and my
success in fulfilling the duties of the position will be dependent on
the knowledge and advice of the civilian experts and military
servicemembers in the Department.
Question. Do you believe there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Deputy Secretary of
Defense?
Answer. The Defense Department has experienced profound changes
over the 8 years since I left government service in 2001. If confirmed,
I will need to receive extensive information and advice from the
civilian and military professionals in the Department on recent
developments on operations, defense programs, and organizational and
process changes. I believe it is important to establish strong working
relationships with the senior leaders in the Joint Staff and the
military departments and to establish an atmosphere of open
communications so that I can assist the Secretary with the benefit of
the best information and advice available for decisionmaking. I also
look forward to the opportunity to spend time with Deputy Secretary
England and previous incumbents of the office to receive the benefit of
their experience and wisdom.
Question. What changes to section 132, if any, would you recommend?
Answer. Based on my previous experience in the Department, I
believe the statutory authorities for the Office of the Secretary of
Defense are appropriate for the effective performance of the assigned
duties. So at this time, I have no changes to recommend, though, if
confirmed, my view could change at a later date based on experience in
the position.
Question. Section 132 was amended by section 904 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, to provide that the
Deputy Secretary serves as the Chief Management Officer (CMO) of DOD.
The Deputy Secretary is to be assisted in this capacity by a DCMO.
What is your understanding of the duties and responsibilities of
the Deputy Secretary in his capacity as CMO of DOD?
Answer. If confirmed, my most important duty as DOD CMO will be to
ensure that the Department can carry out its strategic plan. To do
this, I will ensure the Department's core business missions are
optimally aligned to support the Department's warfighting mission. I
will develop and maintain a strategic management plan for business
reform, and will monitor and measure the Department's progress by
establishing performance goals and measures for improving and
evaluating overall economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the
Department's business operations.
Question. What background and expertise do you possess that you
believe qualify you to perform these duties and responsibilities?
Answer. My previous service as Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) included major responsibilities for the oversight and
improvement of the Department's financial management processes and
organizations, and I devoted considerable time and attention to those
aspects of my responsibilities. Although the responsibilities of the
Deputy Secretary are far broader, I believe my experience as
Comptroller provides a strong foundation for the CMO duties. In
addition, as Director of the Office of PA&E, I was responsible for the
Department's strategic planning. My experience in that area has also
been broadened over the past 6 years through my experience with
industry strategic planning.
Question. Do you believe that the CMO and DCMO have the resources
and authority needed to carry out the business transformation of the
DOD?
Answer. My understanding is that an office has been established and
funded, and a career senior executive civilian has been appointed as
Assistant DCMO to provide continuity in overseeing business
transformation initiatives. The DCMO has been added to the membership
of all of the Department's senior decision boards, and the DCMO has
been named as vice-chair of the Defense Business Systems Management
Committee (DBSMC). The charter of the Business Transformation Agency
(BTA) has been amended so that the Director of BTA reports directly to
the DCMO. Finally, the military departments have established CMO
organizations, which will oversee newly established Business
Transformation Offices. This provides a framework for ensuring
integrated information sharing and collaborative decisionmaking across
the Department. These organizational changes occurred after I left
government service, so, if confirmed, I will need to review their
effectiveness and determine, in consultation with the DCMO, whether any
additional authorities or resources are appropriate.
Question. What role do you believe the DCMO of DOD should play in
the planning, development, and implementation of specific business
systems by the military departments?
Answer. I expect the DCMO will provide integrating guidance and
liaison with the Director of the BTA and the CMOs of the military
departments. The DCMO will also work to resolve policy impediments to
implementing cross-functional solutions across the Department.
Question. Do you believe that the DCMO should have clearly defined
decisionmaking authorities, or should the DCMO serve exclusively as an
advisor to the Deputy Secretary in his capacity as CMO?
Answer. The DCMO is a new position that did not exist during my
tenure in the Department, and the position has not yet been filled and
fully implemented. I believe some time will be needed to review the
Department's experience with the operation of the new position in order
to determine the precise authorities and relationship to the Deputy
Secretary.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the
statutory provisions establishing the positions of CMO and DCMO?
Answer. I would defer any recommendations regarding potential
changes to statutory provisions pending experience with the new
position and time to review its operation within the Department.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Deputy Secretary of Defense?
Answer. See below.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. There are an enormous number of challenges facing DOD
today, and the next Deputy Secretary will have the responsibility to
assist the Secretary of Defense in addressing a large number of
critical tasks. If confirmed for this important position, I would focus
on three initial challenges. First, during a transition in a time of
war, it is essential that the Department executes a smooth transition
of the leadership as quickly as possible. To that end, I would work
with the Secretary and Congress to assemble a top-quality cadre of
civilian leaders with the expertise and experience to effectively
perform the duties of the key positions that must be filled. As part of
that effort, I would also place a high priority on strengthening the
capabilities of the career staff, which is essential to address the
many near-term tasks facing the Department as well as the longer-term
challenges. A second challenge will be to conduct at least three sets
of major program and budget reviews in the first few months of the new
administration. These include review of the second fiscal year 2009
supplemental appropriation submission, revisions to the draft fiscal
year 2010 budget and its timely submission to Congress, and the
expeditious completion of the QDR and the associated formulation of a
defense strategy and the fiscal year 2011 defense program and budget.
In the QDR, I believe a key task will be to lay the foundation for an
effective force for the 21st century and to establish the right balance
among capabilities for addressing irregular warfare and
counterinsurgent operations, potential longer-term threats from a high-
end or near-peer competitor, and proliferation threats from rogue
states or terrorist organizations. A third major challenge will be to
pursue an active reform agenda for the management of the Department. In
particular, if confirmed, I would devote a considerable portion of my
time and energies to efforts to improve the Department's processes for
strategic planning, program and budget development, and acquisition
oversight. Improving the Department's record on cost control, and the
credibility of its budget and cost forecasts, would be a priority
objective for those efforts.
priorities
Question. What broad priorities would you establish, if confirmed,
with respect to issues which must be addressed by DOD?
Answer. My first priority, if confirmed, would be to work with
Secretary Gates to provide the resources needed to support our forces
currently engaged in operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts
of the world. That includes meeting the military end strength goals
needed to support those operations while easing the deployment burdens
on our servicemembers and their families. It also includes ensuring the
effectiveness of the programs needed to support the readiness and
quality of life of those forces and the equipment they need to operate
effectively with adequate protection. While I believe the needs of the
current operations must be the highest priority, the Department's
leaders must also address the longer-term recapitalization and
modernization needs of the force. To that end, another key priority, if
confirmed, would be to provide strong leadership and management of the
QDR and the various program and budget formulation efforts that will be
needed over the next few months. The priorities in those efforts would
be to oversee the development of an integrated strategy, program, and
budget for meeting the challenges of the 21st century. Meeting the
recapitalization and modernization needs of the forces will also
require acquisition programs and processes that deliver effective
equipment in a timely manner and within cost targets so that the
Department can sustain the confidence of Congress and the taxpayers
that public funds are being used effectively.
fiscal year 2010 president's budget request
Question. What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in the
development of the President's budget request for DOD for fiscal year
2010?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to oversee the development of
the fiscal year 2010 budget request, working with Secretary Gates to
ensure that it reflects his strategic vision. I would work with the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to shape the Department's fiscal
year 2010 fiscal controls in a way that allows the Department to
achieve the Nation's national security goals.
Question. What steps do you expect the incoming administration to
take to formally review the Department's 2010 budget request and, as
necessary, make those changes required to ensure that the budget
request fully conforms with the policies of the incoming administration
and the needs of DOD?
Answer. My understanding is that the Department has prepared a
draft fiscal year 2010 budget baseline that is ready for review by the
new administration. Although that budget will eventually be submitted
by President Obama, there will be only a limited amount of time for DOD
and OMB to make revisions prior to submission to Congress in the late-
March to mid-April timeframe. This is a problem common to all new
administrations. The review of the fiscal year 2010 budget request
will, of necessity, have to be limited in scope, addressing the key
initiatives of the new administration such as ground forces end
strength, quality of life programs, and selected acquisition programs.
A broader review would be conducted as part of the QDR and the
associated formulation of the fiscal year 2011 defense program and
budget.
Question. What steps do you believe need to be taken to ensure an
appropriate 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. If confirmed, I will vigorously review the Department's
resources requirements and work to ensure that any budget request
provides sufficient resources to achieve the appropriate level of
investment in the future force to meet the Nation's national security
needs.
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.
What problems, if any, do you anticipate the Department will
encounter in complying with this budgeting requirement?
Answer. The fiscal year 2009 defense budget passed by Congress last
year did not include funding for current war operations. In addition,
the fiscal year 2009 supplemental appropriation enacted by Congress
last year provided funds for war operations for roughly half of the
fiscal year. As a result, as Secretary Gates recently indicated,
substantial additional funds will be needed for the remainder of the
fiscal year. The draft request prepared by the Department will need to
be reviewed by the new administration, and it will also need to be
updated to reflect expanded deployments to Afghanistan. For the fiscal
year 2010 budget, as indicated above, there will be limited time
available to review and revise the draft prepared by the current
administration. A key issue for that review will be the formulation of
new guidelines for what costs are appropriate for supplemental requests
and identifying items that should be funded in the base budget. An
objective should be for the Department to work with Congress to move
away from dependence on supplementals for predictable items, and any
supplemental requests should be carefully reviewed against strict and
consistent criteria and should be provided to Congress early in the
year with full explanatory information.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that the
Department complies with the requirements of this provision?
Answer. If confirmed, Secretary Gates and I will work with the
White House and OMB to comply with the requirements of this provision.
management issues
Question. If confirmed, what key management performance goals would
you want to accomplish, and what standards or metrics would you use to
judge whether you have accomplished them?
Answer. The Department has a long history of using performance
information to manage. When I last served in the Department, I oversaw
initial efforts to produce a Department-wide set of performance plans
and reports under Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
Therefore, I know first-hand the challenges of identifying key
management performance goals--and for establishing metrics supporting
those goals that capture results accurately for an entity as varied,
complex, and large as DOD. I know the Department has a suite of
established performance goals, standards, and metrics. If confirmed, I
would need to work with Secretary Gates to align the strategic outcomes
of the Department to the defense missions assigned to us by the
President before I would be in a position to select which of these I
would retain, change, or revise. In general, it is important that the
Department establish goals that focus on outcomes, not activities or
programs. Any supporting measures should account for all aspects of
performance, including but not limited to financial performance and
savings.
Question. 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. The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that DOD's initial Strategic
Management Plan, issued in July 2008, fails to meet statutory
requirements to address performance goals and key initiatives to meet
such goals.
What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that the
Department meets statutory requirements for a Strategic Management
Plan?
Answer. The Department is on record that it will provide
performance goals and key initiatives in its July 2009 update to the
Strategic Management Plan. If confirmed, a priority will be to work
with Secretary Gates to review this plan for any revisions.
Question. Section 2222 of title 10, U.S.C., requires that the
Secretary of Defense develop a comprehensive business enterprise
architecture and transition plan to guide the development of its
business systems and processes.
Do you believe that a comprehensive, integrated, enterprise-wide
architecture and transition plan is essential to the successful
transformation of DOD's business systems?
Answer. I believe that a federated enterprise-wide architecture and
transition plan can contribute significantly to the development of
business systems and processes.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
DOD's enterprise architecture and transition plan meet the requirements
of section 2222?
Answer. It is a common challenge throughout government to bring new
systems on line, while keeping legacy systems in place. Therefore, if
confirmed, I will ensure that the Department adheres to the necessary
goals and milestones. I also will work to ensure that architecture
efforts are synchronized across all the military departments and
defense agencies.
Question. What are your views on the importance and role of timely
and accurate financial and business information in managing operations
and holding managers accountable?
Answer. There is no question that financial and business
information is a primary tool in managing operations well and
establishing a fact trail that holds managers accountable for results.
The Department is a complex enterprise that requires input from many
diverse programs and activities to achieve its goals. Therefore, our
financial and business information should be viewed within the context
of overall mission performance across the Department.
Question. How would you address a situation in which you found that
reliable, useful, and timely financial and business information was not
routinely available for these purposes?
Answer. If confirmed, I would take steps to make sure that any such
gaps were filled. However, the Department cannot afford to optimize for
all information needs. If confirmed, it will be my responsibility to
set priorities for identifying what kinds of information should be
routinely available to decisionmakers, and to guide investments in new
technology and business processes accordingly.
Question. What role do you envision playing, if confirmed, in
managing or providing oversight over the improvement of the financial
and business information available to DOD managers?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to develop a refined Defense
Strategy and Strategic Management Plan. Once our priorities are
defined, I will ask the Department's senior military and civilian
leaders to identify key performance goals and measures. This is an
example of an area where I will rely on the DCMO leadership to guide
the Department in aligning financial and business information systems
and initiatives to achieve the goals of the defense strategy.
Question. The Department has chosen to implement the requirement
for an enterprise architecture and transition plan through a
``federated'' approach in which the BTA has developed the top level
architecture while leaving it to the military departments to fill in
most of the detail. The Comptroller General has testified that ``the
latest version of the [business enterprise architecture] continues to
represent the thin layer of DOD-wide corporate architectural policies,
capabilities, rules, and standards'' and ``well-defined architectures
[do] not yet exist for the military departments.''
If confirmed, would you continue the federated approach to business
enterprise architecture and transition plan?
Answer. Yes, this approach has value, as it shares the
responsibility and accountability for architectural development and
transition planning at the appropriate level of the Department. This is
an example of an area where, if confirmed, I will rely on the DCMO and
the Military Department CMOs to help continue and extend an important
business transformation initiative to all components of the Department.
Question. What is your understanding of the extent to which the
military departments have completed their share of the federated
architecture and transition plan?
Answer. My understanding is that each military department is at a
different place in the development of their component level
architectures. Accordingly, this is an area that, if I am confirmed,
will require my review, working through the DCMO.
Question. If confirmed, how would you work with the Secretaries and
Chief Management Officers of the military departments to ensure that a
federated architecture meets the requirements of section 2222 and the
GAO framework?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ask the DCMO to work with the Military
Department CMOs to ensure adherence to the DOD Federated Strategy
guidance for architecture development and implementation.
financial management
Question. You were the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
prior to 2001 and testified before the committee about financial
management issues in that capacity.
What is your understanding of the efforts and progress that have
been made in DOD since 1999 toward the goal of being able to produce a
clean audit?
Answer. My understanding is the Department has made significant
strides toward a clean audit but still has substantial work left to
achieve the objective. If confirmed, I will ensure that appropriate
actions are taken to continue progress toward meeting clean audit
goals.
Question. Do you believe that the Department can achieve a clean
audit opinion through better accounting and auditing, or is the
systematic improvement of the Department's business systems and
processes a prerequisite?
Answer. I do not believe the Department's clean opinion goals can
be met without improvements to its business systems and processes.
Question. When do you believe the Department can achieve a clean
audit?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review the Department's
current plan for clean audit, including the goals for timing. If
confirmed, I will review the plan and ensure that appropriate actions
are taken to make progress toward meeting clean audit goals.
acquisition of business systems
Question. Most of the Department's business transformation programs
are substantially over budget and behind schedule. In fact, the
Department has run into unanticipated difficulties with virtually every
new business system it has tried to field in the last 10 years.
Do you believe that unique problems in the acquisition of business
systems require different acquisition strategies or approaches?
Answer. I understand there are a myriad of reasons for the failure
to deliver these systems, some based on the way responsibilities are
divided and many based on technical complexities. Based on my
experience with financial management systems during my service as Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), many of the problems are based in
culture and the failure to fix the underlying business process before
buying the business system. Therefore, the approach to acquisition must
be tailored to the unique challenges of each business area. In many
instances, to achieve progress, it may be necessary to do more than
simply upgrade the business systems, but instead change the underlying
approach to the business processes.
Question. If confirmed, how would you work with the DCMO and the
Under Secretaries of Defense to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I would empower the DCMO to resolve the
cross-functional issues that the Department faces in fielding business
transformation programs. I believe cultural and business process
alignment is required for any business transformation effort.
business transformation agency
Question. Four years ago, the Secretary of Defense established the
BTA to ensure an organizational focus for business transformation
efforts within the Department. The Director of BTA reports to the DCMO
in his capacity as vice chairman of the DBSMC.
What role do you believe the BTA should play in improving the
business operations and business systems of the DOD?
Answer. Working with the principal staff assistants, BTA is
responsible for developing enterprise level business processes,
standards, and data elements, and ensuring that they are accurately
reflected in the Business Enterprise Architecture. BTA also has the
responsibility of delivering certain Enterprise-wide business
capabilities and working with the Combatant Commands to identify and
satisfy operational business needs of the warfighter.
Question. What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in the
supervision and management of the activities of the BTA?
Answer. The Director of BTA will report to the DCMO. However, if
confirmed, I will set key priorities for performance that business
operations and business systems must achieve, and the DCMO will be
accountable to me for ensuring that BTA demonstrates how those
priorities are reflected in the Department's enterprise architecture
and enterprise-wide system investments.
Question. Do you see the need for any changes in the BTA, or the
statutes authorizing the BTA? If so, what changes would you recommend?
Answer. I have no changes to recommend at this time.
major weapon system acquisition
Question. What are your views regarding the defense acquisition
process and the need for reform?
Answer. I believe the management of defense acquisition programs
needs to be improved substantially to achieve better outcomes with
regard to delivering effective equipment within reasonable cost and
schedule objectives. A number of studies over the years have observed
significant problems of cost growth, schedule slips, and insufficient
responsiveness to urgent warfighter needs. These problems have reached
the point where they have the potential to erode the credibility of the
Department in this area and the confidence of Congress and the
taxpayers that public funds are being used effectively. It is not clear
that reform efforts over the past several years have achieved the
desired objectives in terms of better outcomes in cost and schedule
control as well as responsiveness. If confirmed, a high priority would
be to review acquisition processes with the objective of improving
stability, realism, accountability, and effective execution.
Question. If confirmed, how would you improve all three aspects of
the acquisition process--requirements, acquisition, and budgeting?
Answer. I believe there are critical linkages among requirements,
acquisition managing, and budgeting. To achieve effective outcomes, all
three areas must be addressed in an integrated way, which requires
active involvement by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, working closely
with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics (USD(AT&L)) and other key officials in the Department. I
believe effective acquisition programs require realism and stability,
together with accountability for effective execution of program
outcomes. To promote these principles, I believe the overall defense
program needs to be realistic and balanced within the programming and
budgeting process. Within the acquisition process, realism and
stability can be fostered through greater emphasis on independent
assessments of costs, technology readiness, and testing maturity,
particularly during the early stages of programs. Successful programs
also require a careful balancing among cost, schedule, and performance
goals. From my observation, the current requirements and acquisition
processes have a reluctance to balance performance demands,
particularly in the early stages of programs when decisions have a
major impact on subsequent cost and schedule outcomes. Early cost and
technology maturity assessments of the impacts of various performance
requirements have the potential to achieve a better balance among cost,
schedule, and performance, thus leading to better outcomes in
subsequent program execution.
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, projected increases in end
strength, and asset recapitalization?
Answer. I believe this is a major challenge facing the Defense
Department and that addressing these trends should be a central theme
of the QDR conducted later this year. If current trends continue, it
will be very difficult to sustain a force large enough to meet the
demands associated with both near-term operations and the long-term
defense strategy. A key task for the QDR will be to formulate a
strategy, force structure, and overall defense program that are in
balance and are affordable within the national resources available for
defense.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to address out-
of-control cost growth on DOD's major defense acquisition programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I would assign this as a key priority for the
new USD(AT&L). Central themes would be greater competition, stability,
realism, and accountability. Close integration of the requirements,
acquisition, and resource processes is key to achieving these
objectives, as is better balancing of cost, schedule, and performance
objectives. I also believe that improvements can be made through
greater emphasis on, and attention to, independent assessments of
costs, technology readiness levels, and testing maturity.
Question. What steps do you believe that the Department should
consider taking in the case of major defense acquisition programs that
exceed the critical cost growth thresholds established in the ``Nunn-
McCurdy'' amendment?
Answer. Congress recently passed legislation revising the
methodology for establishing cost baselines used for the purposes of
establishing Nunn-McCurdy thresholds. I believe this type of approach
has the potential to change institution incentives in a way that will
promote greater realism and accountability in the management of
acquisition programs. If confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I would assess
the impact of this change on institutional behavior and examine other
measures that would promote the objective of enhancing realism and
accountability as a central theme in improving acquisition management.
contracting for services
Question. Over the past 8 years, DOD's spending on contract
services has more than doubled with the estimated number of contractor
employees working for the Department increasing from an estimated
730,000 in fiscal year 2000 to an estimated 1,550,000 in fiscal year
2007. As a result, the Department now spends more for the purchase of
services than it does for products (including major weapon systems).
Do you believe that DOD should continue to support this rate of
growth in its spending on contract services?
Answer. Service contractors provide a valuable function to DOD. But
if confirmed, I would support efforts by the USD(AT&L) and other
leaders to review the level of contracting services required in keeping
with President-elect Obama's pledge to have the Department improve its
strategy for determining when contracting makes sense.
Question. Do you believe that the current balance between
government employees (military and civilian) and contractor employees
is in the best interests of the DOD?
Answer. DOD requires some mix of Federal employees and contractors
to carry out its mission effectively. If confirmed, I would support
efforts to help ensure the appropriate balance in that mix.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to control the
Department's spending on contract services?
Answer. Service contractors provide a valuable function to DOD, but
there has been substantial growth in this area over the past decades.
If confirmed, I intend to review the Department's policies and
procedures and make any necessary adjustments.
contractor performance of critical governmental functions
Question. Over the last decade, the Department has become
progressively more reliant upon contractors to perform functions that
were once performed exclusively by government employees. As a result,
contractors now play an integral role in areas as diverse as the
management and oversight of weapons programs, the development of
personnel policies, and the collection and analysis of intelligence. In
many cases, contractor employees work in the same offices, serve on the
same projects and task forces, and perform many of the same functions
as DOD employees.
In your view, has DOD become too reliant on contractors to support
the basic functions of the Department?
Answer. Over the last several years, the Defense Department has
implemented very large reductions in the government workforce, and I
believe a careful review is needed of whether, in the process, DOD has
become too dependent on contractors to perform inherently governmental
functions. Congress has recently codified a definition of inherently
governmental functions and required a review by the Department. I
believe this review provides a mechanism to address this important
question.
Question. Do you believe that the current extensive use of personal
services contracts is in the best interest of DOD?
Answer. I am not familiar with the degree to which DOD is using
personal services contracts. I do know, however, that there are
statutory restrictions that govern the use of personal services
contracts. If confirmed, I will ensure that if personal services
contracts are being used in a manner that is inappropriate, that
practice is ended immediately.
Question. U.S. military operations in Iraq have relied on
contractor support to a greater degree than any previous U.S. military
operations. According to widely published reports, the number of U.S.
contractor employees in Iraq exceeds the number of U.S. military
deployed in that country.
Do you believe that DOD has become too dependent on contractor
support for military operations?
Answer. See below.
Question. What risks do you see in the Department's reliance on
such contractor support? What steps do you believe the Department
should take to mitigate such risk?
Answer. See below.
Question. Do you believe the Department is appropriately organized
and staffed to effectively manage contractors on the battlefield?
Answer. See below.
Question. What steps, if any, do you believe the Department should
take to improve its management of contractors on the battlefield?
Answer. It is my understanding that Secretary Gates has tasked
Admiral Mullen to personally oversee a Department-wide review of
contractor roles and missions. If confirmed, I will work with the
Secretary and Chairman Mullen in this review and implement
recommendations where appropriate, and if necessary, work with Congress
to institutionalize reforms.
private security contractors
Question. Do you believe DOD and other Federal agencies should rely
upon contractors to perform security functions that may reasonably be
expected to require the use of deadly force in highly hazardous public
areas in an area of combat operations?
Answer. As a general matter, DOD should use all elements of the
``total force'' (military forces, DOD civilians, and contractors) to
address the full spectrum of operational requirements. President-elect
Obama has cited the need to improve transparency in how private
security contractors are utilized and to establish clear standards
regarding Rules of Engagement, personnel policies, and communications
guidelines. If confirmed, I will work with the Department and
interagency process, as well as with the committee, to address these
issues.
Question. In your view, has the United States' reliance upon
private security contractors to perform such functions risked
undermining our defense and foreign policy objectives in Iraq?
Answer. I do not have a view on this matter. If confirmed, I will
review this issue and keep Congress informed.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
any private security contractors who may continue to operate in an area
of combat operations act in a responsible manner, consistent with U.S.
defense and foreign policy objectives?
Answer. I do not have any specific recommendations at this time.
But, if confirmed, I will review the question of private security
contractors and work with the committee on any needed changes.
Question. How do you believe the ongoing operations of private
security contractors in Iraq are likely to be affected by the new
Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the United States and Iraq?
Answer. It is my understanding that since January 1, U.S.
Government private security contractors no longer have immunity from
host nation law. Furthermore, they must comply with host nation
registration and licensing and, therefore, they already have been
impacted. Many contractors already have had other contractual
relationships within Iraq and already have been subject, for those
contracts, to Iraqi law and regulations. For all contractors, the SOFA
has meant substantially more liaison and coordination with Iraqi
authorities at all levels.
Question. Do you support the extension of the Military
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act to private security contractors of
all Federal agencies?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What is your view of the appropriate application of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice to employees of private security
contractors operating in an area of combat operations?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review this issue in conjunction with
the advice of the General Counsel.
contractor performance of information operations
Question. In October 2008, DOD announced a plan to award contracts
in excess of $300 million to U.S. contractors to conduct ``information
operations'' through the Iraqi media.
What is your view on the effectiveness of information operations
conducted by the United States through the Iraqi media?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to become familiar with the
details of these programs. If confirmed, I would be happy to look into
these matters and discuss them with the committee.
Question. Do you believe that it is appropriate for the United
States to pay for media campaigns to build up support for the
government and the security forces of Iraq at a time when the Iraqi
Government has a surplus of tens of billions of dollars?
Answer. See previous answer.
Question. Do you believe that the U.S. Government, or the Iraqi
Government, should be responsible for developing a message to build up
support for the government and security forces of Iraq, and for
developing media campaigns for this purpose?
Answer. See previous answer.
Question. In your view, is DOD's use of private contractors to
conduct information operations through the Iraqi media appropriate?
Answer. See previous answer.
Question. Do you see a risk that a DOD media campaign designed to
build up support for the government and security forces of Iraq could
result in the inappropriate dissemination of propaganda inside the
United States through the internet and other media that cross
international boundaries?
Answer. See previous answer.
Question. A spokesman for the Iraqi Government has been quoted as
saying that any future DOD information operations in the Iraqi media
should be a joint effort with the Iraqi government. According to a
November 7, 2008 article in the Washington Post, the spokesman stated:
``We don't have a hand in all the propaganda that is being done now. It
could be done much better when Iraqis have a word and Iraqis can
advise.''
Do you believe that DOD information operations through the Iraqi
media should be conducted jointly with the Iraqis?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to become familiar with the
details of these programs. If confirmed, I would be happy to look into
these matters and discuss them with the committee.
Question. Under what circumstances do you believe that it is
appropriate for the DOD to conduct information operations in a
sovereign country without the knowledge and support of the host
country?
Answer. See previous answer.
iraq
Question. What, in your view, are the greatest challenges facing
the Department in implementing the U.S.-Iraq SOFA and what actions, if
any, would you recommend to maximize the chances of success in meeting
the requirements for the withdrawal of U.S. forces?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review any plans
regarding the repositioning and redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq. If
confirmed, I would review such plans and make any necessary
recommendations to the Secretary of Defense.
Question. What do you believe is the appropriate role for the
United States in reconstruction activities in Iraq going forward?
Answer. I support the President-elect's views on bringing in Iraq's
neighbors to help with reconstruction efforts. I also believe American
policy should continue to be supportive in working by, with, and
through our Iraqi partners and that the U.S. role in reconstruction
should focus on capacity development and assisting our Iraqi partners
in prioritizing, planning, and executing their reconstruction projects.
afghanistan
Question. What, in your view, are the main challenges facing United
States and coalition forces in Afghanistan?
Answer. Our strategic objective is a stable and secure Afghanistan
in which Al Qaeda and the network of insurgent groups, including the
Taliban, are incapable of seriously threatening the Afghan state and
resurrecting a safe haven for terrorism.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to our current
strategy in Afghanistan?
Answer. Achieving our strategic objectives in Afghanistan will
require a more integrated and comprehensive approach to security,
economic development, and governance. All of the instruments of
national power and persuasion must be harnessed in order to be
successful. It is imperative that we improve coordination and
cooperation between Afghanistan and its neighbors and that there be
better unity of effort among our coalition partners, international
institutions, and the Government of Afghanistan.
Question. Do you support an expansion of U.S. forces in
Afghanistan? If so, would you support drawing down U.S. forces in Iraq
faster in order to increase U.S. force levels in Afghanistan sooner?
Answer. President-elect Obama consistently stated throughout the
campaign that he believed the deteriorating security conditions in
Afghanistan required additional U.S. and international forces. If
confirmed, I will work carefully with the Secretary and Congress in
balancing the demands of our Iraq and Afghanistan deployments while
ensuring the military is ready to meet other challenges.
Question. Do you believe that there is a need to develop a
comprehensive civil-military plan for Afghanistan, akin to that used in
Iraq?
Answer. Yes.
Question. How do you assess the contributions of North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) allies to the effort in Afghanistan, and how
do you believe that the United States can persuade them to increase
their efforts as the United States does so?
Answer. Afghanistan would be less secure without the contributions
and sacrifices of our NATO allies and other international security
assistance force partners. President-elect Obama and Secretary Gates
have both called for greater contributions with fewer caveats from our
NATO allies. By providing better American leadership in Afghanistan,
and by committing more of our own resources to the challenge, the
United States will be better positioned to persuade our allies to do
more.
Question. One of the main threats to U.S. and coalition forces in
Afghanistan comes from cross-border attacks by the Taliban and
extremist militants who find safe haven in Pakistan's border regions.
What in your view needs to be done to eliminate the threat posed by
Taliban and extremist militants hiding out across the Afghan-Pakistan
border?
Answer. Both President-elect Obama and Secretary Gates have cited
the need to eliminate the terrorist sanctuary in the border regions of
Pakistan, but there is no purely military solution. The United States
must have an integrated strategy to promote development and combat
terrorism across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region.
Question. The cultivation of poppies and trafficking of opium has
reached alarming proportions in Afghanistan. Some estimate that over 50
percent of Afghanistan's gross national product is associated with the
illegal opium trade and that Afghanistan is at risk of failing as a
nation state. Coalition strategies for countering the opium trade have
not been effective to date.
What should be the role of the U.S. military forces in the
counterdrug program in Afghanistan?
Answer. The international community must play a role in helping the
Afghan government to strengthen Afghan institutions, including the
judicial and law enforcement system, intelligence service, and Afghan
National Security Forces, that will increasingly take the lead in
combating narcotics in Afghanistan. While current NATO rules of
engagement restrict NATO forces from direct operations against the
narcotics industry, NATO can assist in training Afghan counternarcotics
forces.
Question. What are the main challenges facing the United States and
international community's reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review the reconstruction
effort in Afghanistan; however, if confirmed, will make this a high
priority.
Question. What would be your priorities for addressing those
challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working across the
interagency and with international partners to create a truly
comprehensive civil-military strategy to build the necessary foundation
for a stable and secure Afghanistan.
pakistan
Question. In your view, is the Pakistani Government doing enough to
combat the threat posed by militant groups along the Afghan-Pakistan
border and to fight terrorism in general? If not, what more should it
be doing?
Answer. I have not reviewed this area but, if confirmed, will
review it as a high priority.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend in the United
States approach to Pakistan on these issues?
Answer. See above.
Question. Tensions between Pakistan and India have increased as a
result of the horrific attacks in Mumbai, India.
In your view, what impact has this rise in tensions between
Pakistan and India had on the stability of the South Asia region,
generally, and on the prospects for security in Afghanistan?
Answer. India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are linked by history,
culture, language, and trade, and regional stability cannot be achieved
without the cooperation of all three countries. It is in America's
national interest to play a constructive role in helping defuse the
recent rise in tensions and to help derive from the tragic attacks in
Mumbai an opportunity for further cooperation between three of
America's crucial allies.
iran
Question. Do you believe it would be in the United States' interest
to engage Iran in a direct dialogue to promote regional stability and
security, to dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons program, or
for other purposes?
Answer. I support the President-elect's view that the United States
should be willing to engage with all nations, friend or foe, and be
willing, with careful preparation, to pursue direct diplomacy.
Furthermore, I fully support the President-elect's view that we should
not take any options off the table, but that we should employ tough,
direct diplomacy backed by real incentives and pressures, to prevent
Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and end their support of terrorist
organizations such as Hezbollah.
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. I have no recommendations in this area. But if confirmed, I
will review it as a high priority.
china
Question. What do you believe are China's political-military
objectives regarding Taiwan, the Asia-Pacific region, and globally?
Answer. Broadly, the overriding objectives of China's leaders
appear to be to ensure the continued rule of the Chinese Communist
Party, to continue China's economic development, to maintain the
country's domestic political stability, to defend China's national
sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to secure China's status as
a great power. Within this context, preventing any moves by Taipei
toward de jure independence is a key part of Beijing's strategy. Within
each dimension there lies a mix of important challenges and
opportunities for the United States that will continue to deserve
priority attention.
Question. What is your view of the U.S. policy of selling military
equipment to Taiwan, despite China's objections?
Answer. U.S. policy on arms sales to Taiwan is based on the 1979
Taiwan Relations Act, which provides that the United States will make
available to Taiwan defense articles and services in such quantities as
may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense
capability. That policy has contributed to peace and stability in the
region for nearly 30 years and is consistent with the longstanding U.S.
calls for peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue in a manner
acceptable to the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. If
confirmed, I would work closely with Congress and the interagency to
ensure the continued effective implementation of this longstanding
policy.
Question. How do you believe the United States should respond to
China's military modernization program?
Answer. The pace and scale of Chinese modernization, coupled with
the lack of transparency surrounding both capabilities and intentions,
are a source of concern for the United States as well as for its allies
and the region more broadly. An appropriate U.S. response would include
efforts to fully comprehend the future direction of China's programs,
active engagement to reduce the potential for miscalculations and to
manage unwanted competition, and, finally, defense preparedness to
ensure we retain our edge in areas that are critical to achieving
specific operational objectives. If confirmed, I would seek to ensure
that DOD places a high priority on this issue and would consult closely
with Committee members on appropriate U.S. responses.
Question. What is your assessment of the current state of U.S.-
China military-to-military relations, and do you favor increased
military-to-military contacts with China?
Answer. Much more can be done to improve the U.S.-China military-
to-military relationship, both in terms of the quality and the quantity
of exchanges between the Armed Forces of our countries. If confirmed, I
would look closely at exchanges with the Chinese armed forces at all
levels and across a range of issues, including the recently opened
dialogue on nuclear policy and strategy, which I understand is a
priority for Secretary Gates. If confirmed, I look to engage in a wide
range of areas where we can encourage China to act responsibly both
regionally and globally.
north korea
Question. What is your assessment of the threat posed to the United
States, its forward deployed forces, and its allies by North Korea's
ballistic missile and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities
and the export of those capabilities?
Answer. North Korea poses a serious threat to the United States,
the rest of Asia, and the world through its missile and WMD programs
and proliferation of associated technologies, materials and systems.
North Korea's continuing nuclear ambitions compound this situation.
Strong alliances, regional partnerships and forward military presence
remain key means to deal with these threats. U.S. national capabilities
are also an essential element in deterring the threat and defending our
interests. Additionally, in the event of a DPRK collapse, the United
States would need to work closely with the Republic of Korea (ROK) to
rapidly and safely secure loose nuclear weapons and materials.
Question. In your view, how should U.S. forces be sized, trained,
and equipped to address this threat?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, senior military commanders and members of this
committee to ensure that the U.S. military has the capabilities needed
to deal with the range of threats North Korea poses and that our
contingency planning is adaptive and responsive.
Question. In your view, what steps, if any, should be taken to
maintain or strengthen deterrence on the Korean peninsula?
Answer. Maintaining a strong alliance between the United States and
the ROK remains central to effective deterrence on the Peninsula. Our
alliance with Japan is likewise a critical factor in security and
stability in the wider Asia-Pacific region, including on the Peninsula.
If confirmed, I would work hard to continue strengthening these
alliances.
republic of south korea
Question. If confirmed, what measures, if any, would you recommend
to improve the U.S.-ROK security relationship?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with Congress to complete the
realignment of U.S. forces on the Korean peninsula and return
facilities our forces no longer require. I would also work to ensure
that our command and control relationships with Korea and our
contingency plans remain appropriate to the situations we face.
Additionally, I believe it is important to ensure the U.S. and Korean
publics continue to understand the enduring mutual benefits derived
from this alliance.
Question. What is your view regarding the timing of the transfer of
authority for wartime operational command to the ROK?
Answer. As Secretary Gates said following his meeting with the
Korean Minister of Defense last October, the ROK military forces and
U.S. forces are on track to complete the alliance agreement to
transition wartime operational control in 2012. This effort will enable
the ROK military to take the lead role in the defense of its nation. If
confirmed, I will work with the Secretary and this Committee to ensure
that the important transition in command relationships is carried out
in a manner that strengthens deterrence and maintains a fully capable
U.S.-ROK combined defense posture on the Korean Peninsula.
u.s. africa command
Question. On October 1, 2008, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) was
authorized Unified Command status.
What do you see as the role of AFRICOM in U.S. African policy, in
development assistance, and in humanitarian engagement?
Answer. The Department of State and U.S. Agency for International
Development lead U.S. foreign policy and development engagements
abroad, to include in Africa. President-elect Obama has argued that
AFRICOM should promote a more united and coordinated engagement plan
for Africa. If confirmed, I would take steps to implement that vision.
combating terrorism
Question. How can the Department best structure itself to ensure
that all forms of terrorism are effectively confronted?
Answer. I do not have enough information to recommend changes in
the Department's structure for confronting terrorism at this time. If
confirmed, I look forward to evaluating the Department's structure for
counter-terror efforts.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the Defense
Intelligence Community to ensure optimal support to combating terrorism
and other homeland security efforts?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review this area. But, if
confirmed, I will work with the USD (Intelligence) and the Intelligence
Community to review this area for any improvements.
war on drugs
Question. DOD serves as the single lead agency for the detection
and monitoring of aerial and maritime foreign shipments of drugs
flowing toward the United States.
What is your assessment of the ongoing efforts of the United States
to significantly reduce the amount of drugs illegally entering into our
Nation?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my interagency colleagues to
assess the U.S. Government's efforts to date and craft a strategic way
forward.
Question. In your view, what is the appropriate role of DOD in U.S.
counterdrug efforts?
Answer. The Department's global focus, organization, expertise, and
its ability to act as an honest broker complement law enforcement
goals, and make it an effective actor in counterdrug efforts. DOD
brings important tools and global capabilities to interagency efforts
to counter both terrorist and international criminal networks.
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,
humanitarian demining operations, and other engagement activities have
been used to achieve this goal.
Do you believe that these activities contribute positively to U.S.
national security?
Answer. Military-to-military contacts contribute to U.S. national
security in a variety of important ways. Such activities can build
capacity among partner nations to participate in coalition operations
to counter terrorism and other transnational threats, potentially
relieving stress on U.S. forces. They can help harmonize nations' views
of common security challenges. Military-to-military activities can also
help sustain investments made by other U.S. assistance programs.
Finally, when performed effectively, military-to-military activities
should show by example how military forces can act effectively while
respecting human rights and civilian oversight.
Question. If confirmed, would you support continued engagement
activities of the U.S. military?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support continued U.S. military-to-
military engagement. I believe the current and emerging security
environment will require robust engagement with the militaries of our
partners and allies around the world.
Question. What improvements, if any, would you suggest to the
interagency process for undertaking these activities?
Answer. None at this time.
building partner capacity
Question. In the past few years, Congress has provided DOD a number
of temporary authorities to provide security assistance to partner
nations. These include the global train-and-equip authority (section
1206) and the security and stabilization assistance authority (section
1207).
In your view, what should be our strategic objectives in building
the capacities of partner nations?
Answer. One of the greatest threats to international security is
the violence that is sparked when human security needs are not met by
governments. This creates space for terrorists, insurgents, and other
spoilers to operate and, as the September 11 attacks demonstrated, to
threaten the United States and its allies. The goal, therefore, is to
close this space through efforts that strengthen bilateral
relationships; increase access and influence; promote militaries that
respect human rights, civilian control of the military and the rule of
law; and build capacity for common military objectives. In addition to
promoting regional and global security, enhanced partner capacity
reduces the risk of future military interventions and reduces stress on
U.S. Armed Forces.
Question. Secretary Gates has called for an expansion of the
Government's resources devoted to instruments of nonmilitary ``soft
power''--civilian expertise in reconstruction, development, and
governance.
Do you agree with Secretary Gates that there is a need to expand
the Government's resources devoted to the ability of civilian
departments and agencies to engage, assist, and communicate with
partner nations?
Answer. Yes. The President-elect and Secretary Gates have both made
clear their strong desire to see more robust non-military instruments
of national power. If confirmed, I will certainly make it my priority
to assist in this effort.
Question. In your view, what should be the role of DOD, vis-a-vis
the civilian departments and agencies of the Government, in the
exercise of instruments of soft power?
Answer. Generally, the Department's role should be to support, not
lead, in the exercise of ``soft power.'' Where DOD plays a vital role
is in helping to promote--through the full gamut of planning,
exchanges, exercises, operations, and bilateral defense relationships--
the conditions that enable these instruments to be applied with maximum
beneficial effect.
stability 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 operations in post-conflict situations.
In your view, what are the appropriate roles and responsibilities
between DOD and other departments and agencies of the Federal
Government in the planning and conduct of stability operations?
Answer. In stabilizing post-conflict environments, success depends
upon the integrated efforts of both civilian and military organizations
in all phases of an operation, from planning through execution.
Ideally, civilian agencies should lead in areas such as building
accountable institutions of government, restoring public infrastructure
and in reviving economic activity. Military forces, in turn, are best
suited to help provide a safe and secure environment and to assist in
building accountable Armed Forces.
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. The most important lesson is that 21st century conflict is
``full spectrum.'' That is, the military cannot be prepared only for
combat. They must plan and train with their civilian counterparts and
be prepared to operate effectively in all phases of conflict. That
said, the military should also be prepared to undertake critical
nonmilitary tasks when the civilian agencies cannot operate
effectively, either due to the security environment or, more likely,
due to lack of capacity. Indeed, the need for greater capabilities and
capacity in civilian agencies has been a recurring lesson for the
entire government. Finally, we need to obtain better situational
awareness of the underlying drivers--political, cultural, and
economic--of stability and conflict so as to ensure that our actions
will meet our objectives and not trigger unintended consequences.
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 not,
and what changes would you recommend, if confirmed?
Answer. DOD SOF have been significantly strengthened in recent
years, which I believe is an entirely appropriate response to the
demands of the current national security environment. I have not had a
chance to review in detail any possible organizational issues
associated with force structure or resources required for SOF. However,
the next QDR will consider SOF capabilities.
russia
Question. What are the areas of engagement with Russia that are
most beneficial from a DOD perspective? How would you recommend
carrying out such engagement?
Answer. If confirmed, I will make it a priority to assess areas
where greater military-to-military and other exchanges with Russia
might be beneficial.
Question. Is it in the U.S. interest to extend the duration of the
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), or, alternatively, to
negotiate a new treaty that will offer similar benefits to both parties
and further reduce their nuclear forces?
Answer. If confirmed, I will make it a priority to review to
determine the best path forward with respect to START, the Moscow
Treaty, and any successor agreements.
dod's cooperative threat reduction program
Question. In your view, what are the nonproliferation and threat
reduction areas in which DOD's Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR)
program should focus in the next 4 years?
Answer. I anticipate that the President-elect will require the
State Department, Department of Energy, and DOD to much more closely
coordinate nuclear risk reduction efforts. The congressional initiative
to expand the geographic reach of the Nunn-Lugar CTR program beyond the
former Soviet Union is an important step toward reducing WMD threats
and building global partnerships. If confirmed, I will work closely
with Congress, other U.S. government agencies, and global partners to
strengthen our efforts to prevent WMD proliferation and terrorism.
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. The F-22 is the most advanced tactical fighter in the world
and, when combined with the F-35 JSF, will provide the Nation with the
most capable and lethal mix of fifth generation aircraft available for
the foreseeable future. The tremendous capability of the F-22 is a
critical element in the Department's overall tactical aircraft force
structure requirements, as it replaces our legacy F-15 fleet. The F-35
will provide the foundation for the Department's tactical air force
structure. It will replace the legacy F-16 aircraft for the Air Force
and the F/A-18 and AV-8 aircraft for the Navy and Marine Corps, as well
as numerous legacy aircraft for the international partners
participating in the F-35 program. A critical question is the
appropriate mix between the F-22 and the F-35. If confirmed, I would
expect this to be a key issue for the early strategy and program-budget
reviews that the Department will conduct over the next few months.
Question. Even if all of the current aircraft modernization
programs execute as planned, the average age of the tactical,
strategic, and tanker fleet will increase. Aging aircraft require ever-
increasing maintenance, but even with these increasing maintenance
costs, readiness levels continue to decline.
Can both the maintenance of the legacy force and the modernization
efforts be affordable at anywhere near the current budget levels?
Answer. Clearly, the operational tempo and the increased employment
of the Nation's aircraft to execute the global war on terrorism are
extracting a toll on the existing equipment and the personnel who
maintain that equipment. If confirmed, I would expect the QDR and the
associated processes to formulate the fiscal year 2011 defense program
and budget to examine the question of how best to balance the force
structure and modernization programs needed to meet the demands of the
strategy within available resources.
Question. 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. There are individual cases that can be identified to
support both sides of the debate. The Department's largest acquisition
program, the JSF, is certainly an example of how the Services have been
able to work together to procure common systems when the mission needs,
operating environments, and operational tactics are sufficiently
similar to allow common solutions. However, our Nation has evolved to a
defense structure with separate services because of the broad nature of
our defense posture, which operates across the globe in the air, land,
maritime, and space domains. In an organization as large and complex as
the U.S. DOD, there is a need for specialization among organizational
sub-elements, which in our system are structured around the traditional
military departments. This has been an effective structure, but it does
inevitably create ``seams'' among the sub-elements. In turn, there are
inevitably issues that cut across those seams. These are not
necessarily a result of parochialism, but they do require an
overarching corporate process to address those seam issues. In my
experience, this is one of the critical functions of the Office of the
Secretary of the Defense and the Joint Staff. If confirmed as Deputy
Secretary, I would regard promoting joint solutions, where appropriate,
to be one of my key functions, working in close cooperation with the
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
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 support the goal of increasing operational capability
through the expanded use of unmanned systems. I believe that
substantial progress has been made in this area in recent years and
that more will be needed in the coming years. If confirmed, I expect
this would be a focus area for the program and budget reviews that will
be conducted this year, as well as the QDR. At this time, I do not have
a view on the exact portion of capability that should be obtained
through unmanned systems, though I expect more insight on this question
would be obtained during those reviews.
Question. What is your assessment of DOD's ability to achieve this
goal?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review DOD's progress towards
achieving this goal during the QDR and other program and budget reviews
that must be conducted later this year.
Question. What steps do you believe the Department should take to
achieve this goal?
Answer. I believe this issue should be an area of focus during the
QDR and the other program and budget reviews that must be conducted
later this year.
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 to lead the Department's efforts in
fighting the improvised explosive device (IED) threat.
What are your views regarding the Department's process for
addressing the combatant commander's requirements for the fielding of
IED countermeasures?
Answer. I agree with Secretary Gates--this is a vitally important
mission that requires a level of effort beyond the business-as-usual
approach. I understand IEDs have been the most frequent cause of
casualties to our Armed Forces in Iraq that consequently has demanded a
cross-functional organization with a strong mandate from the senior
leadership to streamline acquisition, budgetary, testing, and other
processes.
Question. What else can and should be done to get this critical
capability to the warfighters?
Answer. The current approach appears to be sound, but if confirmed,
I will continually evaluate its effectiveness, seek the advice of
senior operational commanders, and remain open to options that would
improve our responsiveness and effectiveness in this crucial area.
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 disrupt operating budgets, cause lost
training opportunities, and accelerate wear and tear on equipment.
Additionally, increased tempo of operations 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. I agree with both Secretary Gates and President-elect Obama
that restoring a semblance of balance to the operational tempo of our
military forces, particularly the Army and Marine Corps, is very
important to ensure the future health of the All-Volunteer Force. If
confirmed, I look forward to balancing the necessity of contingency
deployments with readiness concerns, and working closely with the
committee on this important subject.
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.
What is your assessment of the security of the Department's
information systems?
Answer. See below.
Question. 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 that cyber infrastructure is a critical asset
to the Department. If confirmed, I will familiarize myself with ongoing
efforts to secure DOD's information systems and address cyber
challenges in the development of new capabilities.
test and evaluation
Question. What is your assessment of the appropriate balance
between the desire to reduce acquisition cycle times and the need to
perform adequate testing?
Answer. I support rigorous independent testing and evaluation to
provide accurate and objective information on the capabilities and
limitations of defense systems to both acquisition executives and the
warfighters. When systems are urgently needed in the field, the
imperative for accurate and objective test and evaluation (T&E)
assessments is just as important but should be addressed through
efforts to expedite the T&E process, as has been accomplished
successfully for such urgent efforts as the MRAP vehicle program.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe we
should procure weapon systems and equipment that has not been
demonstrated through T&E to be operationally effective, suitable, and
survivable?
Answer. In extremely rare circumstances, it might be necessary to
field a system prior to operational testing in order to address an
urgent gap in a critical capability. But even in such cases,
operational evaluation should still be conducted at the earliest
opportunity to assess the system's capabilities and limitations and
identify any deficiencies that might need to be corrected.
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 QDR and the Department's leaders have
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. If confirmed, I plan to place a high priority on
maintaining a robust science and technology program for the Department.
Basic science and technology research ensures the Department remains on
the cutting edge of combat capability and is responsive to the
warfighter.
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. Determining the suitability of the Department's science and
technology program is a complex challenge. The Department should take a
holistic approach, assessing the opportunities and threats across all
the Services, to determine where to best focus investment and energy.
technology strategy
Question. 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. See below.
Question. How should the Department proceed to implement the
National Academy's recommendations regarding basic research
investments?
Answer. While not a participant in ``Rising Above a Gathering
Storm,'' I support its foundational principles of developing knowledge-
based resources through education and research to maintain our
country's competitive edge.
ballistic missile defense
Question. Do you agree that any ballistic missile defense systems
that we deploy operationally must be operationally effective, suitable,
survivable, cost-effective, affordable, and should address a credible
threat?
Answer. The effectiveness of missile defense systems must be viewed
not as a stand alone capability, but as part of an overarching strategy
to counter the proliferation and deter the use of ballistic missiles.
The criteria to demonstrate the operational effectiveness, suitability,
and survivability should be collaboratively determined early in the
development of missile defense systems by the operational test
community and Missile Defense Agency, and independently evaluated by
the Director of for Operational Test and Evaluation. Based on
independently validated cost estimates, DOD must compare the cost and
effectiveness of missile defense systems. We then must determine the
priority of funding and timeframe to develop missile defense systems.
Question. Do you agree that U.S. missile defense efforts should be
prioritized on providing effective defenses against existing ballistic
missile threats, especially the many hundreds of short- and medium-
range ballistic missiles that are currently within range of our
forward-based forces, allies, and other friendly nations?
Answer. Our development and deployment of missile defenses is only
one component of a strategy to counter the proliferation and deter use
of ballistic missiles of all ranges. This development and deployment
should be proportional to the types and ranges of ballistic missiles
threats existing today, but should also deter today's pursuit by many
countries to acquire greater inventories, ranges, and accuracies of
ballistic missiles.
Question. Do you agree that ballistic missile defense testing needs
to be operationally realistic, and should include Operational Test and
Evaluation, in order to assess operational capabilities and limitations
of ballistic missile defense systems, prior to making decisions to
deploy such systems?
Answer. The criteria to demonstrate the operational effectiveness,
suitability, and survivability should be collaboratively determined
early in the development of missile defense systems by the operational
test community and Missile Defense Agency, and independently validated
by the Director of for Operational Test and Evaluation. DOD must
clearly understand and consider the capabilities and limitations of
ballistic missile defense systems prior to any deployment decisions.
Question. If the United States and Russia could agree on a
cooperative approach on missile defense issues, do you believe it would
be in the security interest of the United States to pursue such an
effort?
Answer. A critical step to counter the proliferation of ballistic
missile technologies and inventories is to demonstrate the ability of
the international community to observe all ballistic missile testing
and exercises around the world. Cooperative efforts to combine today's
considerable U.S. and Russian ballistic missile surveillance assets,
and link them to international organizations such as NATO, would
demonstrate the U.S. and Russia's resolve to stop proliferation.
Additionally, it would be an important confidence building step for
further cooperative development of missile defense capabilities in the
interest of the security of both the United States and Russia.
chemical weapons elimination and the chemical weapons convention
Question. Do you agree that the United States should make every
effort to meet its treaty obligations, including its obligations under
the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)?
Answer. See below.
Question. Would you take steps, if confirmed, to raise the priority
of the Department's efforts to eliminate the U.S. chemical weapons
stockpile as close to the CWC deadline as possible?
Answer. The United States has a long history and tradition of
meeting and strictly complying with international treaties. I
understand that we will have destroyed 90 percent of our stockpile by
the treaty mandated date of 2012, and will even have started to
eliminate the facilities that performed the actual destruction. Because
of a decision to use an alternative destruction technology rather than
the incineration method currently in use at each facility today, two
new destruction facilities must be built to destroy that last 10
percent of the stockpile. If confirmed, I will review the progress of
facility construction and eventual chemical weapons elimination at
those two remaining facilities to ensure that we complete destruction
of our total stockpile as rapidly and safely as possible.
nuclear weapons and stockpile stewardship
Question. 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 safety, reliability, and security of our nuclear
weapons needs to be a top priority of DOD. The greatest challenge is
not technical, but rather the restoration of a proactive, zero-defect
culture in the stewardship of nuclear weapons in the operational force.
Secretary Gates has focused a great deal of attention on this issue,
and, if confirmed, I would intend to support his efforts to address the
problems.
Question. Would you support substantial reductions in the U.S.
nuclear stockpile?
Answer. The President-elect has indicated that he believes the
United States should lead an international effort to deemphasize the
role of nuclear weapons. Toward that end, he intends to open
discussions with Russia and with other nuclear powers with an aim
toward reducing global nuclear weapons stockpiles. Such negotiations
would require close coordination with other Departments and, if
confirmed, I would intend to perform whatever role the Secretary
designates for me in that effort.
active-duty end strength
Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the existing Active-
Duty Army and Marine Corps end strength to support current missions
including combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Answer. If confirmed, I know that this is a question that will
require my immediate attention. It must, among other things, consider
both the potential contributions of our Guard and Reserve Forces, and
the adequacy of a ``rotation base'' sufficient to assure that we meet
the needs of our volunteers and their families.
Question. Do you believe the planned increases in end strength for
the Army and the Marine Corps are affordable and necessary?
Answer. The President-elect supports the expansion of our ground
forces, and I understand that the Department has made significant
progress toward those goals. If confirmed, I will review these plans,
as well as the associated housing, training, and equipment programs to
support our ground forces.
treatment of wounded warriors
Question. In November 2008, the acting Comptroller General
identified care for service members as one of the most urgent issues
facing Congress and the new administration.
If confirmed, what will you do to ensure that injured service
members receive the quality health care that they need for as long as
they need it, including diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain
injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other mental health
conditions?
Answer. Providing needed care and support for servicemembers,
veterans, and their families is a continuing and urgent priority for
Congress and the Department. If confirmed, I will make research on
prevention and treatment of traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic
stress disorder, and other mental health conditions a priority.
Question. The Wounded, Ill, and Injured Senior Oversight Committee
(SOC), co-chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Deputy
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, has improved the cooperation between the
Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, the two Federal agencies
charged with the care of our military personnel and veterans, and their
families. Because of reports that the SOC would discontinue operations
and to ensure that senior leadership of the new administration would
remain focused on this issue, Congress required the Secretaries of
Defense and Veterans Affairs to continue the operation of the SOC
through December 31, 2009.
What is your view of the value of the SOC?
Answer. As I understand it, the SOC has engaged the senior
leadership of both departments in finding joint solutions to support
the wounded warrior. This is a unique and valuable forum for addressing
the major issues confronting us.
Question. If confirmed, will you continue the operation of the SOC,
and what role do you expect to play?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the work of the committee and
our current and future challenges in coordination with the Department
of Veterans Affairs. As envisioned by Congress, the SOC will continue
to address those challenges through this year, and I anticipate that I
would continue to co-chair it with the Deputy Secretary of VA.
disability severance pay
Question. Section 1646 of the Wounded Warrior Act, included in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, enhanced
severance pay and removed a requirement that severance pay be deducted
from VA disability compensation for service members discharged for
disabilities rated less than 30 percent incurred in line of duty in a
combat zone or incurred during the performance of duty in combat-
related operation as designated by the Secretary of Defense. In
adopting this provision, Congress relied on an existing definition of a
combat-related disability (see 10 U.S.C. 1413a(e)). Rather than using
the definition intended by Congress, the DOD adopted a more limited
definition of combat related operations, requiring that the disability
be incurred during participation in armed conflict.
If confirmed, will you reconsider the Department's definition of
combat-related operations for purposes of awarding enhanced severance
pay and deduction of severance pay from VA disability compensation?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the rationale behind this
decision to ensure that all wounded warriors are treated fairly.
family support
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.
What do you consider to be the most important family readiness
issue for servicemembers and their families, and, if confirmed, what
role would you play to ensure that family readiness needs are addressed
and adequately resourced?
Answer. I will have to look into this if confirmed, but I believe
it may come down to building resiliency so that families are better
prepared to meet the challenges of frequent moves and deployments--
including psychological, social, financial, and educational.
Question. If confirmed, what would your priorities be for improving
and sustaining quality of life for military members and their families?
Answer. Maintaining robust quality of life programs for our
military servicemembers is one of the highest priorities of the
President-elect. If confirmed, I would make this one of the focus areas
for the expedited review of the fiscal year 2010 budget request, as
well as the QDR and the formulation of the fiscal year 2011 defense
program. Areas of emphasis would be medical care and child care
facilities and other programs that assist our servicemembers in
sustaining the burden of deployments.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure support for Reserve
component families and Active Duty families who do not reside near a
military installation?
Answer. I am familiar with a general pattern of much-needed
improvement here recently, through the implementation of partnerships
with State and community based services. But I know we have much to do,
and look forward to being involved in this, if confirmed.
sustaining the military health care benefit
Question. In your view, what elements of the military health care
system require reform and what steps would you take, if confirmed, to
accomplish reform?
Answer. Health care costs continue to grow nationally and DOD is
not exempt. If confirmed, I will work closely with our health care
leadership in DOD to examine every opportunity to ensure military
beneficiaries are provided the highest quality care possible in the
most cost effective manner.
Question. In light of the continuing growth of health care costs
both in the military and civilian sectors, if confirmed, how would you
address the issue of cost control?
Answer. I am told that governmental estimates indicate these costs
could rise to nearly 12 percent of the DOD budget in just a few years,
and that the congressionally-directed task force on the future of
military health care provided useful insights. If confirmed, I will
look at all these alternatives to ensure that DOD provides quality care
in an affordable manner.
Question. What is your understanding of the requirements of 10
U.S.C. section 1102(d) concerning the disclosure of medical quality
assurance information?
Answer. Section 1102 protects information about a specific provider
or patient. However, I am told that these data can be released in an
aggregate statistical manner to inform both military and non-military
medical providers in advancing the resolution of systemic health care
problems.
Question. If confirmed, do you agree to provide information
requested by the committee in order to exercise its legislative and
oversight responsibilities concerning medical quality assurance?
Answer. Yes.
national capital region medical issues
Question. The BRAC 220 decision to consolidate the Walter Reed Army
Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda is one
of the most significant realignments in the history of military
medicine. The outgoing Deputy Secretary of Defense established a joint
task force (JTF) charged with review of design, transition, staffing
and operation of the new, consolidated medical center, integration of
clinical services and medical education programs, and enhanced support
for wounded warriors and their families.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that the highest
quality care is maintained for military beneficiaries and wounded
warriors before, during, and after the transition to the new medical
facility?
Answer. Care for our wounded warriors is Secretary Gates' top
concern, next to the war. I understand that DOD has set up a JTF to
make sure high quality service is not terminated at one facility until
a successor facility is fully ready. If confirmed, I look forward to
evaluating measures to achieving that end.
Question. How would you ensure that the new facilities and medical
capabilities are achieved in the most effective and timely manner
possible?
Answer. Care for our wounded warriors is the Secretary's number one
concern next to the war itself. Wounded warriors deserve the most
current capabilities and facilities we can provide. I note that there
is a robust effort now in place to improve and expand medical care in
the NCR overseen by the JTF National Capital Region Medical (CAPMED).
If confirmed, I will oversee and support the JTF CAPMED's efforts to
ensure this effort achieves success.
national security personnel system
Question. Section 1106 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 restored the collective bargaining rights of
civilian employees included in the National Security Personnel System
(NSPS) established by the DOD pursuant to section 9902 of title 5,
U.S.C. Under section 1106, the Department retains the authority to
establish a new performance management system (including pay for
performance) and streamlined practices for hiring and promotion of
civilian employees.
What is your view of the NSPS, as currently constituted?
Answer. I am generally familiar with the purpose and goals of NSPS,
as well as the concerns expressed by Members of Congress and employee
representatives. However, I have not reviewed the details of the
system. If confirmed, I will conduct a thorough review of the program,
in coordination with leadership from the Office of Personnel Management
and other stakeholders, so I may gain a full understanding of the
system.
Question. If confirmed, how will you evaluate its success or
failure to meet its goals?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with and seek the views of the
appropriate stakeholders both within and outside the Department to gain
a full understanding of NSPS and the extent to which it is meeting
program goals and congressional intent. I am well aware of the
important role civilian employees play in supporting the Department's
critical mission, and I understand NSPS will be a priority issue for
the Department.
Question. Do you support the pay-for-performance approach adopted
for civilian employees in the NSPS?
Answer. I have not had a chance to thoroughly examine the details
of the NSPS pay-for-performance. If confirmed, I will review the entire
system, including this component. I am mindful of the importance of
good performance management in achieving organizational results, as
well as the need for fairness and transparency in any civilian
personnel system.
Question. Do you believe that the Department needs streamlined
authority for hiring and promotion of civilian employees to meet its
human capital needs?
Answer. Although I have not yet fully examined NSPS streamlined
hiring and promotion authorities, I am mindful of the challenges faced
by the Department and the Federal Government to attract and retain a
high quality civilian workforce, particularly in light of the fact that
a large portion of the Federal workforce is eligible to retire or
nearing retirement eligibility. Given the important role of the DOD
civilian workforce in supporting national security, our ability to
compete for talent will become increasingly important. If confirmed,
this will receive my early attention.
Question. In your view, is it viable in the long run for the DOD to
maintain two separate systems (NSPS and the General Schedule) for its
civilian employees?
Answer. If confirmed, I will conduct a full review of NSPS,
including the status of the Department's implementation plan. The issue
of maintaining two systems will certainly be a part of that review.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the NSPS
authorizing legislation?
Answer. I am not aware of any immediate need for legislative
changes at this time. However, if confirmed, I will fully examine the
program and confer with congressional stakeholders in assessing the
need for any statutory changes.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the NSPS
regulations?
Answer. I understand the regulations jointly issued by the
Department and the Office of Personnel Management provide much of the
detail concerning NSPS. However, I have not had a chance to fully
review those regulations or the NSPS program. If confirmed, I will make
that an early priority.
human capital planning
Question. Section 1122 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006, as amended by section 1102 of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and section 851
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008,
requires the Secretary of Defense to develop and annually update a
strategic human capital plan that specifically identifies gaps in the
Department's civilian workforce and strategies for addressing those
gaps. DOD has not yet produced a strategic human capital plan that
meets the requirements of these provisions.
Would you agree that a strategic human capital plan that identifies
gaps in the workforce and strategies for addressing those gaps is a key
step toward ensuring that the Department has the skills and
capabilities needed to meet future challenges?
Answer. See below.
Question. Do you see the need for any changes in the requirements
of sections 1122, 1102, and 851, regarding the requirement for a
strategic human capital plan?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to become familiar with this
area. If confirmed, I will solicit views of others, including
Secretaries of the Military Departments, and Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)). I will ensure that we keep the
committee abreast of our progress.
Question. If confirmed, will you ensure that DOD fully complies
with these requirements?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to support any objectives in this
area.
all-volunteer force
Question. The All-Volunteer Force came into existence over 35 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, combat terrorism
in Iraq and Afghanistan, and defend freedom around the world.
Are you committed to the All-Volunteer Force?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Under what conditions, if any, would you support
reinitiation of the draft?
Answer. The Nation should certainly preserve that option, but
whether and when to use it would be a momentous decision.
Question. What factors do you consider most significant to the
success of the All-Volunteer Force?
Answer. The focus should be on supporting military servicemembers
and their families. In addition to maintaining strong compensation
programs, efforts such as assuring quality education for children and a
meaningful career for the military spouse are high on the agenda of
today's generation of military servicemembers.
Question. What changes in pay, compensation, and benefits, if any,
are needed in your view to sustain recruiting and retention?
Answer. I will have to look into this more, if confirmed, but to
achieve success we must treat people fairly in terms of compensation,
benefits, and quality of life.
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. See below.
Question. In your view, does the Army have adequate procedures in
place to ensure recruitment of only fully qualified individuals?
Answer. I am not fully familiar with the details of the current
service standards and procedures, but if confirmed, I would work
closely with the USD(P&R) to review recruiting standards for all the
Services.
Question. What is your understanding of the status, cost (to date),
and feasibility of implementation of the Defense Integrated Military
Human Resources System (DIMHRS)?
Answer. See below.
Question. Do you believe that it is preferable to have a
consolidated approach to human capital management systems for all four
military Services, or to allow each of the Services to develop its own
systems?
Answer. I am not fully familiar with the details of DIMHRS and
efforts to consolidate the Services' human capital management systems
but, if confirmed, I plan to examine them closely.
detainee treatment policy
Question. Section 1403 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006 provides 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.
In your view, is the prohibition in the best interest of the United
States? Why or why not?
Answer. In my view, this prohibition is in the best interest of the
United States. I also 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 take steps to ensure that all
relevant DOD directives, regulations, policies, practices, and
procedures fully comply with the requirements of section 1403 and with
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 DOD
Detainee Program, dated September 5, 2006?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you believe that the United States has the legal
authority to continue holding alleged members and supporters of al
Qaeda and the Taliban as enemy combatants?
Answer. Yes. As a general matter, the United States is authorized
to detain those individuals determined to be enemy combatants. I cannot
comment on the circumstances of the detention of specific individuals,
which, in many cases, is the subject of pending litigation.
Question. Do you believe that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals
convened by DOD to provide Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO), detainees an
opportunity to contest designation as enemy combatants provide
detainees with appropriate legal standards and processes?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I expect that I and others will examine
this issue carefully.
Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in
reviewing the status of GTMO detainees and determining whether the
United States should continue to hold such detainees?
Answer. At present the Deputy Secretary of Defense is delegated the
responsibility to determine whether a GTMO detainee should be released
or transferred, upon the recommendation of an Administrative Review
Board. I anticipate that the new administration will review the current
process and may make changes to it.
Question. Do you support closing the detention facility for enemy
combatants at GTMO?
Answer. Yes. As both President-elect Obama and Secretary Gates have
stated, the detention facility at GTMO has become a liability for the
United States.
Question. In order to mitigate the risk associated with the release
of GTMO detainees, do you believe DOD should establish some form of
rehabilitation training for enemy combatants held at GTMO?
Answer. I understand that the efforts in Iraq to rehabilitate and
reconcile detainees have been fairly successful. If confirmed, I would
help explore whether such a program could be tailored appropriately and
successfully implemented for the population at GTMO.
Question. What other ways could the United States use to encourage
or entice our allies or other nations to accept detainees from GTMO?
Would monetary support or sharing of technology for monitoring
detainees be helpful inducements?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with the State
Department to seek new ways to encourage our allies and friends to
assist us in transferring those detainees from GTMO who can be safely
returned to their home countries or resettled in a third country when
that is not possible.
Question. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 authorized the trial
of ``alien unlawful enemy combatants'' by military commission and
established the procedures for such trials.
In your view, does the Military Commissions Act provide appropriate
legal standards and processes for the trial of alien unlawful enemy
combatants?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to carefully confer with the
Secretary and the OGC as to whether the Military Commissions Act
strikes the right balance between protecting U.S. national security
interests and providing appropriate legal standards and processes for a
fair and adequate hearing.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that it
would be appropriate to use coerced testimony in the criminal trial of
a detainee?
Answer. If confirmed, I anticipate looking carefully with the OGC
at whether use of coerced testimony is ever appropriate in the criminal
trial of a detainee.
Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in
determining whether GTMO detainees should be tried for war crimes, and
if so, in what forum?
Answer. As I understand the current structure under the Military
Commissions Act, the Convening Authority makes the decision on which
cases are referred to a military commission. If confirmed, I anticipate
reviewing with the OGC the current process to determine whether to
recommend any changes to it.
Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in
reviewing the Military Commissions Act and developing administration
recommendations for any changes that may be needed to that Act?
Answer. If confirmed, I anticipate reviewing the Military
Commissions Act with the OGC to determine whether to recommend any
legislative proposals to change it.
Question. In the past 2 years, significant changes have been made
in Iraq in the way detention operations have been conducted in a
counterinsurgency environment, including through the establishment of
reintegration centers at theater internment facilities.
What do you consider to be the main lessons learned from the
changes to detention operations in Iraq?
Answer. As we begin to transition detention operations and
facilities to full Iraqi control, it is vital that we do our best to
ensure that the increased quality of our facilities and our approach to
detainee operations is maintained, as this line of operation is a
critical component of successful counterinsurgency doctrine and
practice.
Question. What should be done to incorporate those lessons learned
into DOD doctrine, procedures, and training for personnel involved in
detention and interrogation operations?
Answer. I believe that a lot of these lessons are being captured
today, and are reflected in new doctrine and directives.
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 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. 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?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
defense laboratories
1. Senator Reed. Mr. Lynn, in your view, how does the quality of
the Department of Defense (DOD) laboratories compare to the quality of
the national laboratories and to industry and academic laboratories?
Mr. Lynn. I view a healthy science and technology (S&T) program,
which includes high-performing DOD laboratories, as important to the
overall national security. We should view DOD laboratories as providing
a dedicated set of capabilities for the Armed Forces; but the
Department should work with other agency and university laboratories
where it is the Nation's and Department's best interest. This includes
the Department of Energy national laboratories, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration research centers, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, as well as universities and industry. The mix
of the strengths of all laboratories is important to DOD.
2. Senator Reed. Mr. Lynn, what steps do you plan to take in terms
of infrastructure improvement, management practices, and personnel
authorities to empower laboratory directors to revitalize their
institutions and perform their designated technology development
missions?
Mr. Lynn. The ability of the DOD laboratories to support the
Department's missions through research and technology development is
important for our national security. The Department must attract and
retain a workforce that is competitive, with hiring mechanisms that
provide flexibility to recruit the best, and a workforce environment
that will retain and reward them. To this end, if confirmed, I will be
evaluating the effectiveness of the existing personnel demonstration
programs conducted at many of DOD's laboratories, the S&T Reinvention
Laboratories, to identify which authorities have proven to be effective
in addressing workforce recruitment, retention, technical
qualifications and imbalances; improving laboratory quality and
effectiveness; and assessing whether there are authorities or
management approaches that DOD may choose to implement across its
entire S&T workforce. If confirmed, I will also review other relevant
authorities available to the Department to assess their effectiveness
and identify new opportunities that may be available for the Department
to pursue.
small business research
3. Senator Reed. Mr. Lynn, do you feel the Department does an
adequate job of accessing the innovation potential of our Nation's
small advanced technology businesses?
Mr. Lynn. I believe that the Department is doing a good job of
accessing the innovation potential of small advanced technology
businesses. I am told that DOD invests a significant part of its annual
Research and Development (R&D) budget to access the innovation
potential of our Nation's small advanced technology businesses, both as
prime and subcontractors.
Small businesses make a significant contribution towards our
Nation's economic strength. The statistics on American small business
show that they represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms, employ
about half of all private sector employees, have generated 60-80
percent of all new jobs over the last decade, and produce more than
half of the nonfarm private Gross Domestic Product. In the technology
sector, small businesses produce 13 times more patents per employee
than large firms and hire 40 percent of all high tech (scientists,
engineers, computer scientist) workers. (Source: Small Business
Administration Frequently Asked Questions Sept. 2008.)
Small businesses are important to our Nation's military strength.
Small businesses offer such attributes as flexibility, agility,
responsiveness, and lower operating costs. Small businesses are also
one of the best sources of technological innovation, which the
Department uses to develop solutions to meet the needs of the
warfighter.
I understand that the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
program is the Department's premier program focused on accessing small
business innovation for the benefit of the warfighter. This program
sets aside 2.5 percent of the Department's extramural R&D budgets in
excess of $100 million for the program. In fiscal year 2007, the SBIR
program awarded 2,849 contracts with a budget of $1.2 billion. Over 60
percent of SBIR projects historically continue to receive funding from
other sources as the innovative products migrate into defense and
commercial applications. These statistics, as well as other tools for
small businesses including sample proposals are available on the SBIR/
Small Business Technology Transfer Web site.
4. Senator Reed. Mr. Lynn, what steps should the Department take to
better involve small business in DOD research and acquisition efforts?
Mr. Lynn. The Department has a good record of working with small
businesses. In addition to contracting directly with small businesses,
the Department encourages its prime contractors to offer small,
innovative firms maximum possible opportunity to compete for government
contracts.
I understand that the Department is proactive in its efforts to
involve small businesses in research and acquisition. Each military
department and defense agency has an Office of Small Business Programs
that advocates on behalf of small businesses and undertakes to ensure
all statutory and regulatory requirements relating to small business
contracting are met. These offices work with the acquisition community
and industry to provide maximum practicable opportunities to small
businesses. The Department's small business workforce sponsors and
participates in numerous outreach and training activities to make small
businesses aware of DOD research and acquisition contracting
opportunities.
If confirmed, it will be necessary for me to make an assessment of
the current situation before making any recommendations for improving
small business participation in the Department's research and
acquisition efforts. This assessment would need to consider such
matters as the long term, strategic goals to be achieved, through
better involvement of small businesses, for both the warfighter and the
taxpayer.
manufacturing and industrial base issues
5. Senator Reed. Mr. Lynn, how would you assess the health of our
Nation's defense and technology industrial bases in terms of their
ability to meet DOD near- and far-term needs?
Mr. Lynn. Generally, my viewpoint is that our Nation's defense and
technology industrial bases, while perhaps not as robust as they were
before the world-wide wave of industrial consolidation that began in
the mid-1990s, remain today and for the foreseeable future the most
innovative, reliable, and cost-effective in the world. I believe this
primarily because our defense and technology industrial bases continue
to consistently develop, produce, and support militarily-superior
defense systems that are the envy of the world. If confirmed, I would
work to better sustain and leverage those bases by ensuring that DOD
decisions and funding support the cost-effective creation and
preservation of industrial and technological capabilities essential to
defense; and increasing the Department's use of the highly-competitive
commercial marketplace by encouraging use of dual-use technologies,
processes, and materiel. Finally, I think that industrial globalization
is a reality that the Department must address. Given the
interconnectivity of supply chains, the Department's challenge is to
leverage the benefits of the global commercial industrial base, while
also recognizing and minimizing the risks in doing so.
6. Senator Reed. Mr. Lynn, what steps should the Department take to
strengthen the Nation's capacity to design, test, and manufacture
weapons systems and other defense technologies?
Mr. Lynn. In my opinion, the Department must better leverage its
buying power via an acquisition system that effectively balances
realistic requirements, stable/sufficient funding, and sufficient time
to strengthen the Nation's capacity to design, test, and manufacture
the world's most capable weapon systems and defense technologies. If
confirmed, I would support the Department's current strategy to rely on
market forces to the maximum extent possible to create, shape, and
sustain the industrial and technological capabilities needed to provide
for the Nation's defense. However, I think it is also important to
recognize that the Department (through its budget, acquisition, and
logistics processes) can create market forces capable of harnessing the
innovation potential in the industrial/technological base. In addition,
when it becomes necessary to intervene in the marketplace, the
Department has tools available--for instance, the Defense Production
Act Title III Program and the Manufacturing Technology Program--which
help to focus industry attention on critical technology development,
accelerate technology insertion into manufacturing processes, create or
expand critical production facilities, and direct production capacity
towards meeting the most urgent warfighter needs. Finally, I believe
that the acquisition initiatives recently posed by Secretary Gates hold
great promise in strengthening our Nation's defense industrial
capabilities--i.e., freezing requirements earlier for proposed systems,
improving production contracts, employing prototypes to learn more
about competing proposals, planning better, and balancing rapid and
lengthy acquisition timelines.
importance of information sharing to national security
7. Senator Reed. Mr. Lynn, the September 11 attacks illustrated a
fundamental failure by our Government to share information effectively
in order to detect and prevent the attack by ``connecting the dots.''
The 9/11 Commission identified 10 lost ``operational opportunities'' to
derail the attacks. Each involved a failure to share information
between agencies. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, major
efforts have been made to improve information-sharing. Through
legislation and Executive orders these efforts were designed to effect
a ``virtual reorganization of Government'' with communities of interest
working on common problems across agency boundaries and between
Federal, State, and local governments, and the private sector. While we
have established the necessary legal structures, I am concerned that
implementation is lacking. What is your view on the importance of
information-sharing to our national security and what steps will you
take to improve the Government's ability to share information in a
trusted environment?
Mr. Lynn. Information-sharing is an important part of a whole-of-
government approach to combating terrorism and providing for national
security. The right information must be shared at the right time not
only with Federal, State, and local governments but also with
international friends and allies. I will work to ensure the Department
is committed to the trusted sharing of information with these key
partners.
8. Senator Reed. Mr. Lynn, in the wake of September 11, Congress
and President Bush put enhanced information-sharing forward as a major
goal by passing the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004 and the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Implementation Act of
2007. The information-sharing environment established by this
legislation is designed to enable our Government to use information in
new and more powerful ways. While improved information-sharing enhances
our national security, it also presents the risk that the Government
will use these powerful new authorities to acquire vast amounts of
data. This has the potential to infringe on privacy and civil
liberties. As the 9/11 Commission said, this increase in governmental
power ``calls for an enhanced system of checks and balances.'' What
steps will you take to ensure that, as information-sharing is enhanced,
new and more powerful protections are developed to safeguard privacy
and civil liberties and how will you help make sure that the American
public trusts that the Government will respect their privacy?
Mr. Lynn. The Nation's security should not require the abandonment
of our values, privacy, or civil liberties. As Deputy Secretary of
Defense, I will work to ensure that all matters within the full range
of my authority are consistent with the Constitution and the law.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
china's military transformation
9. Senator Akaka. Mr. Lynn, our military has experienced strains
after nearly 7 years of warfare. It is imperative that we support our
forward-deployed forces engaged in current operations but we must not
overlook other important developments in the international system. For
example, China's continued investment in their military transformation
has the potential to alter the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific
region. In March 2007, Beijing announced a 19.47 percent increase in
its military budget from 2006 to approximately $45.99 billion. In light
of China's continued military modernization efforts, do you believe
that U.S. forces in the Pacific Command are fully prepared to address
any possible threats related to China's modernization, particularly
with regards to Pacific Command's forward basing requirements?
Mr. Lynn. Forward basing of U.S. forces and alliance capabilities
are important during peacetime and crisis. As such DOD has undertaken a
series of force realignments in Korea, Japan, and Guam, including the
forward-basing of the George Washington to Japan. These posture
realignments will position our forces in the Pacific to be more fully
prepared to address any military contingency in the Asia-Pacific
region, including those that may involve China. Basing, posture, and
future capabilities are important issues that DOD should address
further in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
survivor benefit plan/dependency and indemnity compensation offset
10. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Lynn, for 8 years I have worked to
eliminate the unjust offset between the DOD Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)
and the Department of Veterans Affairs Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation (DIC). Under current law, if the surviving spouse of a
servicemember is eligible for SBP, that annuity is offset by the amount
of DIC received. I would like to work with DOD to devise a plan to
eliminate the offset over time; it is the least we can do for the
widows, widowers, and orphans of our servicemembers. What is the proper
balance of discretionary and mandatory spending that will not only
ensure our national defense, but will also take care of our
servicemembers, veterans, and their families?
Mr. Lynn. While I have not yet had an opportunity to be briefed on
this subject, it's important to be fair to our veterans' and their
surviving family members. If confirmed, I will look into this area to
ensure our veterans and their families are treated fairly.
11. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Lynn, what would a plan look like that
would eliminate the SBP-DIC offset over 4 years and over 10 years?
Mr. Lynn. As noted in the answer to the prior question, I will need
to explore this subject more fully with the goal of ensuring our
veterans and their families are treated fairly.
base realignment and closure commission
12. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Lynn, in November 2005, the Base
Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) of 2005 went into effect.
Full funding of BRAC 2005 is imperative because the Services must build
infrastructure to support the mandated force movements. Two BRAC 2005
conclusions that affect Florida are the establishment of Initial
Aircraft Training for the F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter and
the beddown of the 7th Special Forces Group at Eglin Air Force Base.
The BRAC 2005 law expires in 2011. Explain how DOD will support the
Services' funding requests necessary to implement the BRAC 2005 law
before expiration of the BRAC 2005 mandate.
Mr. Lynn. While I am not yet familiar with the budget details of
the Services, it is my understanding the Department has tasked the
applicable components to fully fund all BRAC 2005 actions to meet the
September 15, 2011 deadline.
navy decision to establish a second aircraft carrier homeport
13. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Lynn, in 2006, the Navy began an
environmental impact statement to determine the environmental impact of
homeporting additional surface ships at Naval Station Mayport, FL.
Since 2005, congressional and military leadership have reaffirmed the
importance of dispersing the Atlantic Fleet in two ports. In February
2005, then Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Clark, stated that it was
his view that, ``over-centralization of the [carrier] port structure is
not a good strategic move . . . the Navy should have two carrier-
capable homeports on each coast.'' He went on to say, ``. . . it is my
belief that it would be a serious strategic mistake to have all of
those key assets of our Navy tied up in one port.''
Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, as the former Secretary
of the Navy, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the
Navy needed to disperse its Atlantic coast carriers: ``My judgment is
that [dispersion] is still the situation . . . a nuclear carrier should
be in Florida to replace the [U.S.S. John F.] Kennedy to get some
dispersion.''
The current Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Roughead,
recommended to Secretary of the Navy Winter that Naval Station Mayport
should be made capable of homeporting a nuclear aircraft carrier
homeport to reduce the risk to our Atlantic Fleet carriers should
Norfolk become incapacitated. The current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, Admiral Mullen, agrees with Admiral Roughead's
recommendation.
On January 14, the Navy made its decision to make Naval Station
Mayport a carrier homeport and plans to request the necessary funding
for its implementation in its fiscal year 2010 budget request.
Understanding the fiscal challenges facing our country and the
constrained defense budget, how will you approach this funding priority
among the many priorities facing the military?
Mr. Lynn. I have not yet had the opportunity to explore the details
of this move. However, if confirmed, I will examine this decision and
its impact on the fiscal year 2010 POM to ensure the Department's
strategy and funding match.
14. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Lynn, the principle of strategic
dispersal is decades old. What is your understanding of the principle
of strategic dispersal and what are your thoughts of Secretary of the
Navy Donald Winter's implementation of this principle with respect to
Naval Station Mayport?
Mr. Lynn. Strategic dispersal is a protective measure that allows
forces to be less vulnerable to a single critical attack. However, in
many cases dispersal also increases costs by reducing economies of
scale. If confirmed, I will seek to strike a balance of developing an
effective basing strategy that the Department can afford.
sexual assaults in iraq and afghanistan
15. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Lynn, untold numbers of sexual
assaults have been committed in Iraq and Afghanistan by executive
branch contractors and employees. In 2007, I sent letters regarding
sexual assault to the Secretaries of Defense and State and the Attorney
General. On December 13, 2007, I wrote to Secretary of Defense Gates,
requesting that he launch an investigation by the Defense Department's
Inspector General (DOD/IG) into rape and sexual assault cases in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Following my letters, the DOD/IG stated that the Army
Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigated 41 sexual assaults in
Iraq in 2005, 45 sexual assaults in 2006, and 38 sexual assaults in
2007. These numbers are limited to only 3 years worth of investigations
by the Army in Iraq. They do not include investigations for both
theaters of operations nor all the Services operating in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Consequently, there could be many additional
investigations and assaults that have not been investigated. Also,
because the DOD/IG would not provide information on the status of its
investigations, it remains unclear how many of these cases have been
prosecuted and/or processed within the military or criminal justice
systems. If confirmed, how will you work with your counterparts at the
Departments of State, Justice, and other executive branch departments
with regard to contractor crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Mr. Lynn. Sexual assault is a crime and an affront to our values.
The Department recognizes even one sexual assault is too many and in
2004 established the DOD Sexual Assault and Prevention Office to
provide policy and procedures to address the issues encountered by
victims of sexual assault worldwide. If confirmed, I will continue to
support the Office of the General Counsel in their efforts to
coordinate with other Federal agencies to ensure the criminals
perpetrating these acts are prosecuted.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Evan Bayh
troop levels in afghanistan
16. Senator Bayh. Mr. Lynn, as the U.S. military continues to draw
down our forces in Iraq, how does the new administration propose to
balance the needs of maintaining security in Iraq with its pledge to
increase our troop levels in Afghanistan by as many 30,000
servicemembers?
Mr. Lynn. The Department must continue to listen to the assessments
of our military commanders in the field, United States Central Command,
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop and provide the President the
right options. Getting troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan right is a
critically important issue that, if confirmed, I will follow closely.
17. Senator Bayh. Mr. Lynn, how do these requirements square with
the readiness levels and operational tempo we have demanded of our
troops?
Mr. Lynn. Our force's current operational tempo and associated
readiness levels present a continuing challenge for the Department.
Rotation timelines, increased allied contributions, and a strong
interagency plan must all be considered to properly meet current and
future taskings. Current plans to increase the Army and Marine Corps
would also help reduce these pressures.
resources for iraq and afghanistan
18. Senator Bayh. Mr. Lynn, according to the recently signed Status
of Forces Agreement with Iraq, American combat troops will begin
leaving Iraq very soon. How do you plan to address the significant need
for equipment recapitalization and reset while also weaning the
Department off of supplemental budget requests?
Mr. Lynn. As the Department addresses the fiscal year 2010 budget,
recapitalization and reset are part of a wide span of important
requirements that must be balanced. This process will present many
tough choices for DOD leadership as they respond to the economic
environment.
19. Senator Bayh. Mr. Lynn, what risks does DOD face by continuing
to rely so heavily on the supplemental process?
Mr. Lynn. Supplemental appropriations are an important tool for the
government to respond to contingency requirements. But the core defense
budget needs should proceed through the normal authorization and
appropriations process to ensure proper balance and appropriate
oversight.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
troop levels in afghanistan
20. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, General McKiernan has spoken of
increasing U.S. troops in Afghanistan by something on the order of four
combat brigades. Do you support this request?
Mr. Lynn. Secretary Gates has highlighted the current troop
shortfalls in basic security and training in the face of an
increasingly active Taliban. At current levels, our forces are
challenged to provide a foundation of security while at the same time
supporting our broader efforts to train Afghan security forces. The
Department needs to examine General McKiernan's request in that
context.
21. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, would increasing the number of troops
in Afghanistan require us to draw down in Iraq faster than we otherwise
might?
Mr. Lynn. If confirmed, I will assist Secretary Gates in his review
of possible options to provide to the President.
22. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, how large do you believe the Afghan
National Army (ANA) and the Afghan National Police (ANP) should
ultimately be?
Mr. Lynn. Both the Government of Afghanistan and the international
community have agreed an increase in Afghan security forces is required
for the Afghans to assume primary responsibility for their own
security. This planned expansion would bring the ANA to 134,000 and the
ANP to 82,000. It is not yet clear whether these levels will be
sufficient over the long run. The ultimate number will require
continued assessment and evaluation to determine.
nato support in afghanistan
23. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, the Afghanistan mission is an
important test of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) out-
of-area capability. Yet, NATO commanders continue to have difficulty
persuading allies to contribute forces to International Security
Assistant Force or to provide NATO forces the appropriate equipment for
their tasks. Secretary Gates testified last year that he is worried
about the alliance evolving into a two-tiered alliance, in which you
have some allies willing to fight and die to protect people's security,
and others who are not. How do you assess the contributions of NATO
allies to the war in Afghanistan?
Mr. Lynn. NATO and other non-NATO partner nation contributions,
both military and civilian, are an important component of the
international mission in Afghanistan. While NATO contributions have
increased over time, their growing involvement will continue to play a
pivotal role in the stabilization and security of Afghanistan.
24. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, what steps would you recommend to
persuade NATO nations to increase their efforts in concert with our
own?
Mr. Lynn. NATO and other international contributions are an
important component of the international mission in Afghanistan. If
confirmed, I will examine future strategy options in part for their
proposed steps to increase partner contributions.
guantanamo bay
25. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, President-elect Obama has said he
wants to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay
(GTMO). If confirmed, how would you go about executing the President-
elect's policy? How would you approach this challenge?
Mr. Lynn. As both President Obama and Secretary Gates have stated,
the detention facility at GTMO has become a liability for the United
States. If confirmed, I would work closely with the State Department to
seek new ways to encourage our allies and friends to assist us in
transferring those detainees from GTMO who can be safely returned to
their home countries or resettled in a third country when that is not
possible.
active-duty end strength
26. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, the President-elect and the Secretary
of Defense have endorsed significant increases in the Active-Duty
strengths of the Army and Marine Corps and these Services have been
working hard to accelerate this growth. Please discuss your concerns
about the rising cost of personnel and how you anticipate this will
affect the ability of the Services to recapitalize its equipment.
Mr. Lynn. All of our servicemembers, Active and Reserve, continue
to perform extraordinarily in light of the demands we have placed upon
them. However, as the President has stated, we do believe increases in
our ground forces are necessary. Moreover, we cannot fail to have the
right numbers and kinds of uniformed personnel to win our wars, and to
deter potential adversaries. While our force, Active and Reserve, must
be large enough to satisfy deployment needs, there must be a base that
recognizes the personal needs of our volunteers and their families. At
the same time, our volunteers must have the weapons, equipment and
support that will enable mission success. Striking the right balance
between personnel, recapitalization, and operational and support costs
is a challenging imperative that will be central to the fiscal year
2010 budget and the QDR. We look forward to working with Congress.
chief of the national guard bureau and the joint chiefs of staff
27. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, do you think the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau should be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Why or why not?
Mr. Lynn. In recognition of its increased role in recent years, the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau was raised to a four-star position
in December 2008. If confirmed, I will evaluate this very recent
adjustment over time before recommending further changes in the Joint
Chiefs of Staff structure.
retirees and the cost of dod health care
28. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, for the last 3 years, the
administration has tried--without success--to gain approval for
increases in the annual premiums for DOD-provided health care paid for
by military retirees under the age of 65. What are your views about the
need for change in this regard?
Mr. Lynn. The amount of funding budgeted for healthcare must be in
balance with all of the other essential requirements that must be
funded in the DOD budget. DOD established the Task Force on the Future
of Military Healthcare in accordance with the provisions of the NDAA
for Fiscal Year 2007. The Task Force reviewed several aspects of
military healthcare including ``the beneficiary and government cost
sharing structure'' and provided recommendations to promote the
provision of quality, cost-effective healthcare for DOD beneficiaries.
I will utilize the Task Force's recommendations as a reference when
evaluating the benefit and government cost-sharing options for
implementation to ensure that DOD continues to provide quality care in
a manner that also provides the best value for our servicemembers and
our Nation.
funding for wounded warrior care
29. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, in your answers to pre-hearing policy
questions you indicated that you will supervise the development of the
Department's 2010 budget submission. I urge you to pay particular
attention to funding of wounded warrior care and research. Congress has
provided significant increases in funding for traumatic brain injury
(TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) research and treatment,
as well as programs critical to supporting family needs, through
supplemental appropriations. These conditions are enduring requirements
in support of warfare, and far too important to rely on supplemental
appropriations. Will we see the Department's full funding requirements
for TBI and PTSD in the budget which you develop and submit to Congress
in March or April of this year?
Mr. Lynn. I certainly agree that funding for wounded warrior care
and research, such as that which was provided through prior
supplemental appropriations, is an important priority for DOD. If
confirmed, I will personally review the fiscal year 2010 budget to
ensure that wounded warrior care is funded appropriately.
``soft power''
30. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, Secretary Gates has called on
Congress to provide more funding for the State Department's Foreign
Service and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Just a few
days ago, Admiral Mullen expressed the same views commenting that our
national security and foreign policy requires ``a whole-of-government
approach to solving modern problems'' and ``we need to reallocate roles
and resources in a way that places our military as an equal among many
in government--as an enabler, a true partner.'' Admiral Mullen went on
to say that ``as an equal partner in government, I want to be able to
transfer resources to my other partners when they need them.'' What
thoughts do you have on these remarks calling for more resources for
civilian agencies responsible for ``soft power,'' including the
Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and Agriculture?
Mr. Lynn. A successful whole-of-government approach requires
greater investment in our non-military instruments of power. Our
civilian institutions need to have the will and capacity to support
more integrated approaches for national strategies to be effective.
31. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, should Congress provide greater
flexibility for the military to transfer funding during a crisis?
Mr. Lynn. More flexible spending authorities would allow the
Department to be more responsive and adaptable during a crisis.
cyber security and cyber threats
32. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, the United States heavily depends on
our cyber-infrastructure--possibly more than any other nation. What do
you think the greatest threat to the United States is in terms of cyber
security and cyber threats?
Mr. Lynn. Our ability to conduct business, communicate, and operate
through cyberspace is one of our Nation's greatest strengths. Indeed,
the United States does depend upon cyberspace and its associated
information technology infrastructure. DOD relies upon global data and
telecommunication networks, much of which is owned and operated by the
commercial sector, to conduct full spectrum land, sea, air, and space
operations. Adversaries could potentially acquire a capability to deny
or disrupt the Department's access to those networks, or impact
operations by diminishing our confidence in the reliability of those
networks. Bad actors in cyberspace can range from insider threats to
malicious hackers, criminal organizations to nation-states. Although
nation-states can invest greater resources and acquire more
sophisticated capabilities than non-state actors, all are a cause for
concern. As Estonia experienced in 2007, it only takes a small but
committed group of malicious hackers to bring a technologically
sophisticated government to a standstill. Threats to cyber-
infrastructure are not solely through cyberspace, we must maintain
awareness of physical vulnerabilities to key communications nodes,
electrical power sources, satellite or ground relay links, and
underground or undersea cables. The range of potential adversaries is
such that there is no ``greatest'' threat, only the enduring need to
remain vigilant, and continually improve security, reliability, and
resiliency of our critical information networks.
33. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, how is DOD organized to address cyber
threats?
Mr. Lynn. Commander, U.S. Strategic Command (CDRUSSTRATCOM) has the
DOD lead for cyberspace operations per the 2008 Unified Command Plan.
CDRUSSTRATCOM has designated Commander, Joint Functional Component
Command--Network Warfare (JFCC-NW), as the lead for the planning,
integration, and, as directed, execution of the full spectrum of
military cyberspace operations. The Director of the National Security
Agency is dual-hatted as Commander, JFCC-NW. Joint Task Force--Global
Network Operations (JTF-GNO) is under the operational control of JFCC-
NW. The Director of the Defense Information Systems Agency is dual-
hatted as Commander, JTF-GNO. CDRUSSTRATCOM has designated JTF-GNO as
the lead for directing the operation and defense of the Department's
Global Information Grid. In addition, the Department is a major
partner, as well as a key enabler of the Comprehensive National
Cybersecurity Initiative, working closely with interagency partners to
provide support to efforts aimed at securing U.S. Government networks
and the national cyber infrastructure.
34. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, is the current structure adequate to
address this threat?
Mr. Lynn. I consider your question to be of utmost importance to
DOD and to the Nation. As a nominee for the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, I will refrain from answering this question because I do not
have the proper insights into this complex question. I can tell you
however, that if confirmed, I will address this critical issue to
determine if DOD is optimally structured and organized to conduct a
wide range of cyber missions now and into the future.
defense business board view
35. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, the Defense Business Board (DBB), an
internal management oversight board established by Secretary Gates,
recently warned that the Defense Department's budget is
``unsustainable'' and that the Department can only meet its priorities
if it makes hard budget decisions on its largest and costliest
acquisition programs. ``Business as usual [in terms of the Department's
budget decisions] is no longer an option,'' warned the Board. Do you
agree with the DBB's warning?
Mr. Lynn. Yes, business as usual is no longer an option. President
Obama and Secretary Gates have underscored that change is needed and
vowed to make acquisition reform a top priority.
36. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, what principles will guide your
thinking on possible cuts to large acquisition programs?
Mr. Lynn. Acquisition programs must be able to deliver the required
capability on schedule and at or under cost. The capabilities they
provide must not be duplicative of other acquisitions, and these
capabilities must be integral components of the overall portfolio of
capabilities that the Department needs to accomplish its mission. We
will review programs to ensure that they have the required
technological and production maturity to enable successful delivery of
the required capability to the warfighter according to schedule, and at
cost. Programs lacking this maturity may be candidates for termination
or restructure, depending on their potential contributions to our
mission accomplishment. Cuts to large acquisition programs will also be
evaluated against the capabilities they provide to ensure
accomplishment of the Department's mission to defend our Nation, its
interests, and our allies. We will review acquisitions to determine
which best address requirements of near-term engagements and current
known threats, and fund the highest priority acquisition programs that
address these areas. At the same time, we will also ensure that we do
not neglect the need for increased capabilities to meet increased or
new threats in the future. As standard practice, we will align our
acquisitions to stay within our funding topline and always strive to
get the best value for our resources.
f-22a decisions
37. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, early this year, this administration
will be required to make what amounts to a go/no-go decision on the F-
22A Raptor program, an increasingly expensive program that has made no
contribution to the global war on terror and that may impinge on the
timing and cost of when the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter may first be
operationally capable. Do you have any preliminary thoughts on whether
the F-22A program should be continued or should be wound down as
originally planned?
Mr. Lynn. The F-22A Raptor is the most advanced tactical fighter in
the world and, when combined with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, will
provide the Nation with the most capable and lethal mix of 5th
generation aircraft available for the foreseeable future. The
tremendous capability of the F-22A is a critical element in the
Department's overall tactical aircraft force structure requirements.
The Department is reviewing whether to procure more F-22A aircraft
beyond its current Program of Record quantity of 183 and will make a
recommendation to the administration in time to meet the requirements
stipulated in section 134 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009.
38. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, what principles will guide the
Department's thinking on that matter?
Mr. Lynn. The Department is currently reviewing whether to procure
more F-22A aircraft beyond its current Program of Record quantity of
183. Some of the factors that will go into the Department's
recommendation to the administration are: compliance in meeting the
requirements of the current National Military Strategy; affordability
of additional F-22A aircraft within the Department's resource
constrained environment; and whether continued production or
termination is in the national interest of the United States.
reforms for procurement of weapons systems
39. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, over the last few years, this
committee has developed several legislative initiatives intended to
reform the process by which the Department buys its largest and most
expensive weapons systems. The preponderance of those initiatives have
addressed acquisition policy and the requirements system. Are there any
aspects of acquisition policy, the requirements-determination system,
or the resource allocation process that you believe require additional
reform?
Mr. Lynn. One issue the Department faces in regard to buying weapon
systems is creating program stability. There are critical linkages
among the requirements generation, acquisition management, and
programming and budgeting systems. To achieve effective outcomes, all
three systems must be aligned so that once a corporate commitment is
made to developing a material solution that achieves a needed
capability the development process is not destabilized by changes in
requirements, immature technology, or budget adjustments. To stabilize
programs, DOD must perform the necessary analysis, technology
development, and cost estimating so sufficient knowledge is available
to allow informed decisions to move into development. Over the years,
DOD has implemented several reforms to improve program stability. For
example, DOD has created Configuration Steering Boards to manage
requirements changes and directed competitive prototyping to mature
technology. The Department will continue to emphasize the need to
perform adequate upfront planning prior to development. More work needs
to be done on funding stability. Congress has helped by emphasizing
certifications that focus on assessing need, priority, and funding.
Now, DOD must find a way to eliminate perturbations in high priority
programs that are well-managed.
40. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, the Department recently instituted
several reforms to the Defense Department Instructions on how the
Defense Acquisition System (DAS) operates. Those initiatives seek to
start major acquisition programs off responsibly by increasing emphasis
on systems engineering and greater upfront planning and management of
risk, as well as utilization of competitive prototyping in a newly-
named Technology Development Phase (before Milestone B). Are there any
aspects of those newly instituted instructions (or the newly structured
DAS) with which you have difficulty or intend to modify or repeal?
Mr. Lynn. I believe the general direction of the new policies is
sound. The Department should stay committed to achieving improved
acquisition outcomes by reducing risk, and improving process
discipline. If confirmed, I plan to closely monitor the execution of
these policies and review whether any modifications are appropriate.
41. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, among the reforms that this committee
and the Department have instituted include those that enable the
Department to remove more effectively non-essential requirements; have
the Department move towards employing fixed-type contracts while better
incentivizing contractor performance; and require the Department to
exercise better oversight of service contracts. Are there any aspects
of those initiatives in particular with which you have difficulty or
intend to modify or repeal?
Mr. Lynn. I believe these can be effective initiatives. If
confirmed, I will monitor these policies to ensure the Department is
providing the right level of oversight to maximize our acquisition
outcomes.
42. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, the current estimate for the costs to
relocate the marines from Okinawa to Guam is at least $10 billion, with
the Government of Japan directly contributing $2.8 billion. The
remainder will be funded by DOD through military construction or loans
paid back through future housing allowances. With all the other
modernization, recapitalization, and reset requirements facing the
Department in the next 4 years, in your opinion, can we afford this
move?
Mr. Lynn. Secretary Gates has spoken to the strategic importance of
this relocation initiative in terms of our regional deterrent posture
and our key alliance relationship with Japan. These are long-term
investments in our enduring regional interests. The Department will
ensure fiscal discipline is exercised throughout the duration of the
effort, both with respect to U.S. appropriated funds and with respect
to the $6.09 billion of funding our Japanese ally is providing.
43. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, there has also been discussion about
the significant investment necessary to upgrade port, road, and utility
infrastructure on Guam to support the stationing of marines and their
families. Do you believe DOD should assume this financial obligation as
well?
Mr. Lynn. The Department recognizes the necessary investment
associated with port, roads, and utility infrastructure on Guam
resulting from the Marine relocation. It is critical to thoroughly
evaluate the broad Federal impact of this significant investment and
partner with other Federal entities, such as the Guam Federal
Interagency Task Force, to determine the financial obligation that the
United States should assume for infrastructure on Guam. The Department
is addressing Guam's needs that are directly related to maintaining an
enduring presence in support of the military mission.
Guam's infrastructure, namely the commercial port and the island's
road network, require upgrades that will directly assist our ability to
carry out the program and also benefit Guam. The Department, through
the Defense Access Road program, is preparing to address qualifying
improvements to roadways, intersections, and bridges that are critical
to executing the construction program for DOD.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) was designated the lead Federal
agency for the Port of Guam Improvement Enterprise Program in Public
Law 110-417, section 3512. As the lead Federal agency, the MARAD will
manage the expenditure of Federal, non-Federal, and private funds made
available for the project and provides oversight and project management
through a prime contractor. The DOD is working closely with MARAD to
help facilitate their initiative to correct the issues at the port.
DOD is also working to facilitate the necessary utilities solutions
that will: meet the DOD mission; provide the widest benefit to the
people of Guam; be technically and financially supportable by all
participating parties; and be acceptable to the environmental
regulators. DOD is working in collaboration with GovGuam officials to
understand their needs and to determine the feasibility of utilities
solutions that are mutually beneficial to DOD, the civilian community
and the regulatory agencies. Additionally, we are working with the
Government of Japan to ensure that their equities are met in
conjunction with the DOD's needs and the equities of the Government of
Guam and the Consolidated Commission on Utilities. Concurrently, we are
working with the environmental regulators to ensure that the solution
set meets the requirements set by the regulatory standards.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mel Martinez
nuclear weapons surety and the new triad
44. Senator Martinez. Mr. Lynn, on August 30, 2007, a B-52 bomber
mistakenly loaded with six nuclear warheads flew from Minot Air Force
Base, ND, to Barksdale Air Force Base, LA. Following the Defense
Science Board's Permanent Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Surety and the
two part Secretary of Defense's Task Force on DOD Nuclear Weapons
Management, there are numerous recommendations and issues which need to
be addressed over the next administration. How will you implement the
panels' recommendations and how else will you provide our deterrence
with the oversight and leadership it deserves?
Mr. Lynn. I take this issue very seriously. Senior leader oversight
and governance is vital to the success of our nuclear weapons
enterprise and strategic deterrence. If confirmed, I will work with
Secretary Gates to continue his efforts to strengthen deterrence and to
sustain our high standards for safeguarding and storing nuclear
weapons. I am committed to working with the Secretary to assess panel
recommendations and to prepare an action plan for those
recommendations.
45. Senator Martinez. Mr. Lynn, the 2008 National Defense Strategy
references the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review's New Triad in saying ``the
New Triad remains a cornerstone of strategic deterrence''; however,
there is no central plan for the ``New Triad''. With increasing
military requirements, draw-downs in nuclear warhead numbers, and
limited follow-on programs to replace an aging deterrent, how do you
see the future of our Strategic Triad?
Mr. Lynn. Congress has directed DOD to conduct a Nuclear Posture
Review in 2009. This effort will provide an opportunity to review these
critical questions and develop a consensus on the way forward. I expect
senior officials in OSD Policy will guide these efforts, in
coordination with other senior officials in DOD, as well as those in
the Departments of Energy and State. If confirmed, I would expect to
take an active role in this review, and to consult with members of this
committee on its results and implications once completed.
preemption
46. Senator Martinez. Mr. Lynn, both the 2008 National Defense
Strategy and the 2006 National Security Strategy reference the act of
preemption. Where do you see the line drawn between preemption and
aggression? How will you ensure the legislature is correctly informed
of military action with enough time for substantive thought and debate?
Mr. Lynn. It is impossible to foresee the nature of all the future
threats against the United States and its allies. While the United
States does not seek conflict with others, the Nation has a
responsibility to its people to provide for their defense. In each
case, the elements in the decision to use force will likely be unique.
Close consultation with Congress will be important any time the United
States is faced with an imminent threat.
strategic dispersal of the nuclear carrier fleet
47. Senator Martinez. Mr. Lynn, carriers have been homeported in
two east coast bases since the arrival of the U.S.S. Tarawa (CVS-40) in
Ribault Bay in 1952. Admiral Mullen as Chief of Naval Operations on the
record before the Senate Armed Services Committee stated that he was
``very supportive of strategic dispersal of our carriers'' as well as
his predecessor Admiral Vern Clark stated in February 2005 that ``It is
[his] belief that it would be a serious strategic mistake to have all
of those key assets of our Navy tied up in one port.'' Gordon England
as Secretary of the Navy stated before the committee that his
``judgment is that dispersion is still the situation. A nuclear carrier
should be in Florida to replace the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy to get some
dispersion.'' Even more recently Secretary Donald Winter with the
concurrence of the current Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary
Roughead, signed the Record of Decision to upgrade Mayport to being
nuclear ready, continuing the Navy's 47 year history of east coast
strategic dispersal. Please state for the record, that, if confirmed as
Deputy Secretary of Defense, your intentions will be to continue to
strategically disperse the Nation's nuclear aircraft carriers along the
east coast. If you disagree with the previous three Chiefs of Naval
Operations, specifically outline why you would go against the uniformed
members' recommendations.
Mr. Lynn. Although I am aware of this issue, I have not yet been
briefed on it. I expect to examine this issue and consult with the
Navy, the Joint Staff, and members of this committee.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
shipbuilding
48. Senator Collins. Mr. Lynn, in your answers to the advance
policy questions, you stated that you want to work with the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, as
well as the Service Assistant Secretaries for Acquisition, in
developing a better acquisition process, that balances the need to meet
requirements in a timely manner and delivering major weapons systems as
cost effectively as is possible. In one of your answers you stated that
one of your themes would be greater stability. A stable industrial base
and predictable levels of funding are critical to achieving cost
projections. As has been evident in the shipbuilding industry, the lack
of a stable, fully-funded shipbuilding plan has put a tremendous burden
on our Nation's shipbuilders. While I applaud Secretary Winter and
Admiral Roughead for continuing to state that the Navy's goal is a 313-
ship fleet, I was very concerned with their decision last summer to
change, without any consultation with Congress, the Navy's shipbuilding
plan. Our shipyards make strategic decisions based upon long-term plans
and, such sudden changes have significant impacts, one of which is
cost. If confirmed, what will you do to help stabilize our country's
industrial base for shipbuilding and other major weapons acquisition
programs?
Mr. Lynn. Since I have not been briefed on the specifics on the
major acquisition programs, I will not be able to speak about the
details of a specific program; however, let me explain what will be my
principles that will allow a stable, cost-effective acquisition process
if I am confirmed as the Deputy Secretary of Defense. First, I think
there is agreement from both our industrial partners and the leaders in
the Navy, DOD, and government in general that the shipbuilding industry
needs a stable, reliable shipbuilding plan from which to make sound
business decisions. Given the long lead times for both skilled manpower
and material, shipbuilding is not a business that responds well to
multiple, quick changes in policy. For several years now, the Navy has
had a long-term shipbuilding plan on the table, and now, it must be
executed. To accomplish that, the Navy must buy only exactly what it
needs--the capabilities put into each ship must provide the absolute
best return on investment. We can't afford all the newest technologies
on every platform, so the early decisions on requirements and design of
a new system are crucial to maintaining an affordable shipbuilding or
major weapon acquisition program. Design and requirement changes, once
the design has begun maturing, cost an enormous amount in both time and
money--these changes should be minimized to only cases where the system
will not function without the change. I understand the Secretary of the
Navy announced last summer several changes in the acquisition process
to ensure that more senior leadership oversight is injected early into
a program's life cycle. This increased senior level involvement in the
first stages of a program should prove crucial to improving the
definition of requirements and ensuring they remain stable throughout
the design and production phases of the program. Much of the cost
growth of acquisition programs can be tied to unrealistic build times
and cost estimates based on overly optimistic projections or immature
technologies. We must use realistic figures for our estimates of both
cost and build times to ensure our initial plans project the most
realistic cost possible. Finally, having a plan is the first step;
fully funding that plan is the second. If the plan is only paper and
doesn't translate into real contracts, our shipbuilding partners will
not be able to do the long-term strategic planning that will give the
Navy the cost savings that can be realized from successful long-term
planning.
armed forces end strength
49. Senator Collins. Mr. Lynn, it has now been over 7 years since
the initial call-up and mobilization of National Guard and Reserve
Forces in support of the global war on terrorism. In the Afghan Study
Report of 2007, it stated that ``Afghanistan stands at a crossroads,''
and that the progress achieved over the previous 6 years was threatened
by resurgent Taliban violence. The report recommended that the ``light
footprint'' in Afghanistan be replaced by the ``right footprint'' of
U.S. and Allied force levels. Given the strain on the Active-Duty
Forces and the over usage of the National Guard and Reserves, do you
think the current end strength numbers for the Armed Forces, especially
the Army and Marine Corps, are sufficient to meet today's current needs
and threats while reducing the strain on our Active, Reserve, and
National Guard troops?
Mr. Lynn. All of our servicemembers (Active and Reserve) continue
to perform extraordinarily in light of the demands we have placed upon
them. I believe the increases in our ground forces (Army and Marines)
are necessary, and will strengthen the ability of the Department to
continue to support the global war on terror. We cannot fail to have
the right numbers and kinds of uniformed personnel to win our wars, and
to deter potential adversaries. Additionally, our force, Active and
Reserve, must be large enough to not only satisfy deployed demands, but
also have a rotation base that recognizes the personal needs of our
volunteers and their families. At the same time, our volunteers must
have the weapons, equipment, and support that will enable mission
success. Striking the right balance between personnel,
recapitalization, and operational and support costs will be a
challenging imperative and I look forward to working with Congress.
______
Questions Submitted by Honorable Chuck Grassley, U.S. Senator from the
State of Iowa
financial management
50. Senator Grassley. Mr. Lynn, as the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller), you were the Department's Chief Financial Officer (CFO).
That position was established by the CFO Act of 1990. Section 902 of
the CFO Act states: ``The CFO shall develop and maintain an integrated
agency accounting and financial management system, including financial
reporting and internal controls.'' This requirement existed for at
least 5 years before you became the DOD CFO. While you were CFO, did
DOD operate a fully integrated accounting and financial management
system that produced accurate and complete information? If not, why?
Mr. Lynn. The DOD financial and business management systems were
designed and created before the CFO Act of 1990 to meet the prior
requirements to track obligation and expenditure of congressional
appropriations accurately. The CFO Act required the Department to shift
from its long-time focus on an obligation-based system designed to
support budgetary actions to a broader, more commercial style, accrual-
based system. To accomplish this transformation, several things needed
to be done. First, the Department created the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service (DFAS) to consolidate financial operations, which
was accomplished in 1991 before my tenure as Under Secretary. Second,
the Department had too numerous and incompatible finance and accounting
systems. From a peak of over 600 finance and accounting systems, I led
an effort to reduce that number by over two-thirds. This consolidation
effort also strove to eliminate outdated financial management systems
and replace them with systems that provided more accurate, more timely,
and more meaningful data to decisionmakers. The third and most
difficult step in developing an integrated accounting and financial
management system has been to integrate data from outside the financial
systems. More than 80 percent of the data on the Defense Department's
financial statement comes from outside the financial systems
themselves. It comes from the logistics systems, the personnel systems,
the acquisition systems, the medical systems, and so on. On this
effort, we made progress while I was Under Secretary but much more
needs to be done. If confirmed, I will take this task on as a high
priority.
51. Senator Grassley. Mr. Lynn, under section 3515 of the CFO Act,
all agencies, including DOD, are supposed to prepare and submit
financial statements that are then subjected to audit by the Inspectors
General. While you were the CFO, did DOD ever prepare a financial
statement in which all DOD components earned a clean audit opinion from
the DOD IG? If not, why?
Mr. Lynn. In the 1997, the DOD had 23 reporting entities, only 1 of
which, the Military Retirement Fund, had achieved a clean audit. Over
the next 4 years, the Department under my leadership as Under Secretary
earned a clean opinion on three other entities: most importantly, the
DFAS in 2000, followed by the Defense Commissary Agency, and the
Defense Contract Audit Agency in 2001. We were unable to obtain clean
opinions on the other reporting entities. The primary reason for not
earning clean opinions on the remaining entities was the difficulty of
capturing data from nonfinancial systems and integrating that data into
the financial systems in an auditable manner. It is my understanding
that the Department still faces the challenge of integrating financial
and nonfinancial systems to support the auditability of the DOD
financial statements.
52. Senator Grassley. Mr. Lynn, as CFO, what specific steps did you
take to correct this problem?
Mr. Lynn. Under my leadership, the DOD instituted several important
efforts to achieve a clean audit opinion. The primary effort was
described in the Biennial Financial Management Improvement Plan (FMIP)
which was submitted to Congress in 1998. That plan merged previous
initiatives with new ones into a single comprehensive effort to achieve
both financial management improvement and auditability. To directly
address auditability, the FMIP included an effort in collaboration with
the Office of Management and Budget, the General Accounting Office, and
the Office of the Inspector General to address 10 major issues
identified by the audit community: 1) internal controls and accounting
systems related to general property plant and equipment; 2) inventory;
3) environmental liabilities; 4) military retirement health benefits
liability; 5) material lines within the Statement of Budgetary
Resources; 6) unsupported adjustments to financial data; 7) financial
management systems not integrated; 8) systems not maintaining adequate
audit trails; 9) systems not valuing and depreciating properly, plant
and equipment; and 10) systems not using the Standard General Ledger at
the transaction level. Due to this effort, substantial progress was
made on most of these issues and several were resolved, including
valuation of the military retirement health benefits liability, the
reduction of unsupported adjustments to financial data, and the
identification of environmental liabilities.
53. Senator Grassley. Mr. Lynn, 18 years after the CFO Act was
signed into law, DOD is still unable to produce a comprehensive
financial statement that has been certified as a clean audit. It may be
years before that goal is met. If DOD's books cannot be audited, then
the defense finance and accounting system is disjointed and broken.
Financial transactions are not recorded in the books of account in a
timely manner and sometimes not at all. Without accurate and complete
financial information, which is fed into a central management system,
DOD managers do not know how the money is being spent or what anything
costs. That also leaves DOD financial resources vulnerable to fraud,
waste, and abuse, and even outright theft. The last time I looked at
this problem billions--and maybe hundreds of billions--of tax dollars
could not be properly linked to supporting documentation. As Deputy
Secretary of Defense, what will you do to address this problem? Please
give me a realistic timeline for fixing this problem.
Mr. Lynn. The Department needs stronger management information
systems. I can assure you that, if confirmed, I will be committed to
improving financial information and business intelligence needed for
sound decisionmaking. I have not yet completed my review of all the
information needed to provide a specific timeline; however, I will
continue to examine this issue, including consideration of this and
other committees' views as well as the resources needed for the audit,
before forming my assessment of how close DOD is to a clean audit.
potential conflict of interest
54. Senator Grassley. Mr. Lynn, as a Senior Vice President of
Government Operations at the Raytheon Company, you were a registered
lobbyist until July 2008. Correct? How long were you a registered
lobbyist?
Mr. Lynn. Yes. From July 2002 to March 2008.
55. Senator Grassley. Mr. Lynn, in his ``Blueprint for Change,''
President-elect Obama promises to ``Shine Light on Washington
Lobbying.'' He promises to ``Enforce Executive Branch Ethics'' and
``Close the Revolving Door.'' He promises: ``no political appointees in
an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulation
or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer
for 2 years.'' Raytheon is one of the big defense contractors. As
Deputy Secretary, Raytheon issues will surely come across your desk. If
you have to recuse yourself from important decisions, you would limit
your effectiveness as Deputy Secretary of Defense. How will you avoid
this problem for 2 years?
Mr. Lynn. I have received a waiver of the ``Entering Government''
restrictions under the procedures of the Executive order implementing
the ethics pledge requirements. The waiver, however, does not affect my
obligations under current ethics laws and regulations. Until I have
divested my Raytheon stock, which will be within 90 days of
appointment, I will take no action on any particular matter that has a
direct and predictable effect on the financial interests of Raytheon.
Thereafter, for a period of 1 year after my resignation from Raytheon,
I also will not participate personally and substantially in any
particular matter involving Raytheon, unless I am first authorized to
do so under 5 C.F.R. Sec. 2635.502(d). If confirmed, I pledge to abide
by the foregoing provisions. I would add that I have not been exempted
from the other Executive order pledge requirements, including the ones
that restrict appointees leaving government from communicating with
their former executive agency for 2 years and bar them from lobbying
covered executive branch officials for the remainder of the
administration.
______
[The nomination reference of William J. Lynn III follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
Janaury 20, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
William J. Lynn III, of the District of Columbia, to be Deputy
Secretary of Defense, vice Gordon England, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of William J. Lynn III, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of William J. Lynn III
William Lynn served as the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
from 1997 to 2001. In that position, he was the chief financial officer
for the Department of Defense and the principal advisor to the
Secretary of Defense for all budgetary and fiscal matters. From 1993 to
1997, Mr. Lynn was the Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation in
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, where he oversaw the Defense
Department's strategic planning process.
During his tenure at the Defense Department, Mr. Lynn was awarded
three Department of Defense medals for Distinguished Public Service,
the Joint Distinguished Civilian Service Award from the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and awards from the Army, Navy and Air Force. He
also received the 2000 Distinguished Federal Leadership Award from the
Association of Government Accountants for his efforts to improve
defense accounting practices.
Mr. Lynn currently serves as senior vice president of Government
Operations and Strategy at Raytheon Company. In that position, he leads
the company's strategic planning and oversees the government relations
activity. Before entering the Department of Defense in 1993, he served
for 6 years on the staff of Senator Edward Kennedy as liaison to the
Senate Armed Services Committee. He has also been a Senior Fellow at
the National Defense University, on the professional staff at the
Institute for Defense Analyses and served as the executive director of
the Defense Organization Project at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies.
A graduate of Dartmouth College, Mr. Lynn has a law degree from
Cornell Law School and a Master's in Public Affairs from the Woodrow
Wilson School at Princeton University.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by William J.
Lynn III in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
William J. Lynn III.
2. Position to which nominated:
Deputy Secretary of Defense.
3. Date of nomination:
Intention to nominate issued January 8, 2009.
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 1, 1954; Key West, FL.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Mary A. Murphy.
7. Names and ages of children:
Catherine J. Lynn, 2.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
1972-1976 - Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH - B.A. - 06/1976.
1977-1980 - Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY - Juris Doctor - 06/
1980.
1980-1982 - Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School -
Princeton, NJ - Masters Degree, Public Affairs - 06/1982.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
08/2002-Present - Raytheon Company, Senior Vice President,
Government Operations & Strategy, Arlington, VA.
01/2001-07/2002 - DFI International, Executive Vice President,
Washington, DC.
11/1997-01/2001 - Department of Defense, Under Secretary of
Defense, Washington, DC.
06/1993-11/1997 - Department of Defense, Director PA&E, 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.
Office of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Legislative Counsel,
Washington, DC - 1983-1987.
Office of the Defense Adviser, Graduate Student Intern, Belgium,
Brussels - 06/1981-12/1981.
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.
Raytheon Company, Corporate Officer.
Center for New American Security, Board of Directors.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Bar Association - District of Columbia.
Wychemere Harbor Beach Club - Harwich Port, MA.
TPC Avenel - Potomac, MD.
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.
2008 - Obama for America - $2,300.
2008 - Jeff Merkley for Oregon (general election) - $2,300.
2008 - Reed Committee - $500.
2008 - John Kerry for Senate - $1,000.
2007 - Jeff Merkley for Oregon (primary) - $2,300.
2007 - Hillary Clinton for President (general election) - $2,300
(returned in 2008).
2007 - Hillary Clinton for President (primary) - $2,300.
2006 - Friends of Jane Harman - $500.
2006 - Forward Together PAC - $1,000.
2005 - Bill Nelson for U.S. Senate - $500.
2004 - The Markey Committee - $500.
2004-2008 - Annual contributions of $5,000 to Raytheon Company PAC.
14. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Joint Distinguished Civilian Service Award - Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Department of Navy Distinguished Service Award.
Department of Air Force Distinguished Service Award.
Department of Army Distinguished Service Award.
2000 Distinguished Federal Leadership Award - Assoc. of Government
Accountants.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
``Guns That Die of Embarrassment,'' book review in The New York
Times Book Review (December 21, 1986).
``U.S. Defense Policy.'' Yale Law & Policy Review (Fall/Winter
1986).
``The Case for JCS Reform,'' International Security (Winter 1985-
1986).
Toward a More Effective Defense, Ballinger (1985).
``Reform Needed so JCS Can Act as One,'' Atlanta Journal and
Constitution (March 24, 1985).
``The Wars Within: The Joint Military Structure and Its Critics,''
Reorganizing America's Defenses: Leadership in War and Peace, edited by
Art, Davis, and Huntington Pergamon Press (1985).
``U.S.-Soviet Crisis Management and Confidence-Building Measures,''
in Preventing Nuclear War, edited by Barry Blechman, Indiana University
Press (1985).
``Service Rivalries Block True Security,'' The Los Angeles Times
(April 13, 1983).
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 J. Lynn III.
This 13th day of January, 2009.
[The nomination of William J. Lynn III was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on February 5, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on February 11, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Robert F. Hale by Chairman
Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense (DOD)
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They have also clarified the responsibility of the Military Departments
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment
to the combatant commanders.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions?
Answer. I believe the Goldwater-Nichols Act is one of the most
important and effective defense reforms enacted by Congress. I do not
see any need for modifications. However, if confirmed, I will keep an
open mind regarding changes.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. As noted, I do not see any need for modifications.
relationships
Question. What is your understanding of the relationship between
the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and each of the following?
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is the
principal assistant and advisor to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary
of Defense on fiscal and budgetary matters. The Under Secretary
(Comptroller) also performs such other duties as the Secretary or
Deputy Secretary may prescribe.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. Please see the answer above.
Question. The other Under Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. My relationship with all other senior officials of the
Department will, for the most part, be based on the role described
above. If confirmed, I will work closely with the other Under
Secretaries to carry out the policies and guidance of the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. My relationship with the Assistant Secretaries of Defense
and other senior officials of the Office of the Secretary of Defense
would be similar to that described above in relation to the other Under
Secretaries of Defense.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal
military advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and
the Secretary of Defense. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with
the Chairman and Joint Staff on resource and financial management
issues.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. The Secretaries of the military departments carry out the
policies of the President and the Secretary of Defense in their
respective military departments and formulate recommendations to the
Secretary and to Congress relating to their military departments and
DOD. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with the Secretaries of the
military departments, and specifically, their Assistant Secretaries for
Financial Management who I intend to meet with regularly. I will ensure
that they are aware of the President's and the Secretary of Defense's
policies and priorities and assist them in contributing to the
successful development and implementation of effective DOD policies and
programs.
Question. The heads of the defense agencies.
Answer. As the Department's Comptroller and Chief Financial
Officer, I will, if confirmed, work closely with the heads of the
defense agencies, and specifically, with our financial management
counterparts in those agencies. I will ensure that they are aware of
the President's and the Secretary of Defense's policies and priorities
and assist them in contributing to the successful development and
implementation of effective DOD policies and programs.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries for Financial Management of the
Services.
Answer. In the role of Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer for
the Department, I will, if confirmed, work closely with the Assistant
Secretaries of the Military Departments for Financial Management in the
development and execution of the budgetary and fiscal policies and
initiatives of the President and the Secretary of Defense.
Question. The General Counsel of DOD.
Answer. As the Department's Comptroller and Chief Financial
Officer, I will, if confirmed, rely on the General Counsel, who is the
Chief Legal Officer of DOD, on all legal matters, and will consult and
coordinate with the General Counsel on all matters relating to
programs, projects, and activities of DOD, as well as matters relating
to financial management, accounting policy and systems, management
control systems, and contract audit administration, that may have legal
implications.
Question. The Inspector General.
Answer. As the Department's Comptroller and Chief Financial
Officer, I will, if confirmed, consider it my responsibility to support
the DOD Inspector General in carrying out his or her duties as set
forth in the Inspector General Act.
Question. The Director, Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation.
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure a high level of coordination
with the Director of the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation in
fulfilling his or her role of providing independent assessments for
acquisition systems. I will also work with the Director of PA&E to
ensure the success of the combined program/budget review.
Question. The Deputy Chief Management Officer (CMO).
Answer. I would, if confirmed, establish an appropriate
relationship based on the responsibilities assigned to that official
and do everything possible to improve management of the Department's
complex operations and organization.
Question. The Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Answer. If I am confirmed, my relationship would include periodic
interaction with the OMB leadership on the sound preparation and
execution of DOD budgets and the advancement of both OMB and DOD
management improvements.
Question. The Comptroller General.
Answer. If I am confirmed, my relationship would be to analyze and
address recommendations of the Comptroller General and the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) regarding DOD matters, and to solicit
recommendations in areas I think could use additional perspectives.
duties of the comptroller
Question. The duties of the Comptroller of the DOD are set forth in
section 135 of title 10, U.S.C., and in DOD Directive 5118.3. Among the
duties prescribed in statute are advising and assisting the Secretary
of Defense in supervising and directing the preparation of budget
estimates of DOD, establishing and supervising DOD accounting policies,
and supervising the expenditure of DOD funds.
Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect that
Secretary Gates will prescribe for you?
Answer. Provide high quality, timely advice to the Secretary of
Defense and Deputy Secretary on issues related to financial management
in the Department.
Ensure that the men and women in the military Services have the
resources they need to meet national security objectives.
Ensure that funds are spent in accordance with laws and regulations
and that the American taxpayers get the best possible value for their
tax dollars.
Account in an accurate manner for the funds spent by the
Department.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform the duties of the Comptroller?
Answer. I have more than 30 years of experience with defense and
its financial management tasks including:
Seven years as Air Force Comptroller overseeing many
of the types of tasks I would, if confirmed, oversee for the
Department as a whole.
Twelve years at the Congressional Budget Office
heading the group dealing with national security issues.
Work in support of professional development
initiatives to improve the training of defense financial
managers.
Service as a member of the United States Navy, both on
Active Duty and in the Reserves.
Completion of the Certified Defense Financial Manager
program, a test-based certification program set up to provide
objective verification of knowledge of the rules and processes
governing defense financial management.
Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to
take to enhance your expertise to perform these duties?
Answer. I believe I can continue to increase my expertise by
learning more about current, specific issues regarding the DOD budget
through study of source documents and discussions with subject matter
experts.
Question. Do you expect Secretary Gates to make any changes in the
duties of the Comptroller as set out in DOD Directive 5118.3?
Answer. I have not yet discussed this question with Secretary
Gates.
chief financial officer
Question. DOD Directive 5118.3 designates the Comptroller as the
Chief Financial Officer of DOD. Does Secretary Gates intend to continue
to designate you, if confirmed as the Comptroller, as the Chief
Financial Officer of DOD?
Answer. I have seen no indications that he would do otherwise, but
will address this issue expeditiously if I am confirmed.
Question. If so, what would be your major responsibilities as Chief
Financial Officer?
Answer. Oversee all financial management activities relating to the
programs and operations of DOD; develop and maintain integrated agency
accounting and financial management systems; direct, manage, and
provide policy guidance and oversight of DOD's financial management
personnel, activities, and operations; prepare audited financial
statements; and monitor the financial execution of budgets.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial
Officer?
Answer. If confirmed, the foremost challenge is to prepare and
manage defense budgets so that the Department obtains the resources
necessary to accomplish national security objectives--especially the
resources needed to meet wartime requirements and for our military
forces to successfully conduct their operations. This includes:
Ensuring that the pay, benefits, health care, and
quality of life support is commensurate with the sacrifices we
are asking our troops and their families to make.
Making sure the troops have the training and equipment
needed to meet the challenges they will face.
If confirmed, I must also improve the financial information
available to DOD managers including achieving, where appropriate,
auditable financial statements and improving financial systems. Better
information will also help control defense spending in ways that assist
in reducing long-term deficits.
If confirmed, I need to support the components in their critical
efforts to recruit, train, and retain a workforce that can meet defense
financial management needs into the 21st century.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with other senior
principals in DOD and the Comptroller staff, military departments,
defense agencies, OMB, and Congress to develop policies to meet these
challenges.
I will also provide aggressive leadership and support for my staff
in executing these policies.
authorization for national defense programs
Question. Do you believe that an authorization pursuant to section
114 of title 10, U.S.C., is necessary before funds for operation and
maintenance, procurement, research and development, and military
construction may be made available for obligation by DOD?
Answer. I understand that it has been the Department's practice to
work with all the oversight committees to resolve these matters. If
confirmed, I will respect the prerogatives of the Department's
oversight committees and will work closely with the committees to
achieve a consensus necessary to meet our defense needs.
supplemental funding for military operations
Question. Section 1008 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) requires
the President's budget to include funding for ongoing military
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in the Department's annual budget
requests, along with a detailed justification for that funding. It also
requires the President's budget to include an estimate of the total
funding to be required in that fiscal year for such operations. The
Department fully complied with these requirements in the fiscal year
2008 budget, but more than a year elapsed before Congress approved the
bulk of the requested funding. The administration then failed to comply
with these requirements in the fiscal year 2009 budget request.
To what degree do you believe it is possible, in the near term, to
include the full cost of these ongoing operations in the base budget
request?
Answer. If confirmed, I would hope to work with Congress and OMB to
try to move away from supplementals. The feasibility of moving away
from supplementals depends on the budget year.
For fiscal year 2009, DOD needs a supplemental,
because the base budget has been enacted.
For fiscal year 2010, with limited time available for
submission of a base budget request, and with continuing
uncertainty about changing war requirements, the President may
decide he will need to have a supplemental.
In later budgets, we should be better able to minimize
dependence on supplementals.
Regardless of the year, we should avoid including predictable costs
in supplemental requests.
Question. Do you believe the costs of ongoing military operations
can be fully incorporated into a unified budget request such that the
use of supplementals could be discontinued? If so, what criteria would
need to be met to achieve that objective?
Answer. Full elimination of supplementals would require substantial
reduction in the uncertainties associated with wartime operations.
However, the negative aspects of supplementals can be minimized by
ensuring DOD scrutiny of supplemental requests similar to that afforded
the base budget (a policy endorsed by the President-elect) and by
providing Congress with early information regarding supplemental
requests.
Question. In recent years the Department has had to prepare a base
budget and two separate supplemental funding requests each year.
Do you believe the Comptroller organization has the personnel and
other resources needed to adequately manage this increased workload?
Answer. I am concerned about the adequacy of resources in the
Comptroller organization to manage the increased workload associated
with wartime operations.
If confirmed, I will carefully review the staffing and organization
and recommend any changes that I believe are required.
program and budget review
Question. The Department has operated under a planning,
programming, and budget system for decades. The programming and
budgeting functions have sometimes been combined in a single reporting
chain and at other times, as is currently the case, been run by
distinct offices (Program Analysis and Evaluation and the Comptroller,
respectively) that report separately to the Secretary of Defense. The
program and budget review processes have also been revised in recent
years and have been made more concurrent than was previously the case.
What are your views on the proper relationship between the program
and budget processes and the offices responsible for those functions?
Answer. I believe there must be regular and effective coordination
between the Comptroller and Program Analysis and Evaluation
organizations. If confirmed, I will keep an open mind about possible
changes regarding the proper relationship between the program and
budget processes and the offices responsible for those functions. I
will also, if confirmed, consider whether to recommend changes in the
concurrency of the program and budget processes.
management of defense spending
Question. GAO recently released its list of ``urgent issues'' for
the next administration and Congress. Among those issues was defense
spending. According to the GAO: ``The Department's current approach to
planning and budgeting is based on overly optimistic planning
assumptions and lacks a strategic, risk-based framework for determining
priorities and making investment decisions. As a result, it continues
to experience a mismatch between programs and budgets, and it does not
fully consider long-term resource implications and the opportunity cost
of selecting one alternative over another.''
What are your views on the concerns raised by GAO?
Answer. The Department's Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and
Execution (PPBE) process provides DOD with a sound process with which
to develop a strategic plan and build a 6-year program and budget to
achieve that plan. Within the PPBE process there is ample opportunity
to debate and determine priorities and make resource decisions that
take into account relative risks. The key is how that process is
managed. If confirmed, my goal will be to assist in ensuring that the
PPBE process does in fact achieve its designed purpose and to recommend
changes where they are appropriate.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take, as the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), with respect to those aspects of
the management of the Department that are within the purview of the
Comptroller that may be relevant to the concerns raised by GAO?
Answer. As I noted above, I will review the current implementation
of the PPBE process and recommend improvements where appropriate.
earmarks
Question. On January 29, 2008, President Bush signed Executive
Order 13457, which states that agency decisions to commit, obligate, or
expend funds may not be ``based on language in any report of a
committee of Congress, joint explanatory statement of a committee of
conference of Congress, statement of managers concerning a bill in
Congress, or any other non-statutory statement or indication of views
of Congress, or a House, committee, Member, officer, or staff
thereof.'' Congress responded to this Executive order by including a
provision in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009 that incorporated by reference the funding tables in
the conference report on the bill. Similar provisions were included in
several other bills.
Do you see the need for any changes to Executive Order 13457? If
so, what changes would you recommend?
Answer. I would expect that all Executive orders from prior
administrations will be reviewed by the new administration. I would
want to see the results of that review before making any specific
recommendations regarding changes.
However, I believe that there should be a careful review of the
effectiveness of defense spending including all spending, not just
earmarks. Such a review would be consistent with policies likely to be
promulgated by President Obama after his inauguration.
Question. If confirmed, what would your duties be with respect to
implementing this Executive order with respect to funding for DOD?
Answer. I expect that the White House will provide direction on
earmarks and, if confirmed, I will ensure that direction is followed.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you expect to take to
ensure that DOD abides by congressional funding decisions and that
funds available to the Department are expended only for the purposes
for which they have been appropriated?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with DOD components to ensure
that the funds are spent for the purposes for which Congress
appropriated the funds.
Question. The committee has considered the possibility of including
the funding tables in bill language, instead of report language, in
future bills. Concern has been expressed that this approach could limit
the flexibility of DOD to transfer funds to meet emerging high-priority
needs.
What is your view on the advisability of incorporating funding
tables into the text of bills authorizing and appropriating funds for
DOD?
Answer. I am concerned that DOD must have enough flexibility to
meet national security requirements by, among other things,
accomplishing needed reprogramming. As for this specific question, I am
not familiar enough with the legal implications of incorporating the
tables into the bill. If confirmed, I would examine this issue, discuss
it with the Department's lawyers, and then work closely with the
committees and others before implementing a solution.
contracting for services
Question. In recent years, DOD has become increasingly reliant on
services provided by contractors. Over the past 8 years, for example,
DOD's spending on contract services has more than doubled with the
estimated number of contractor employees working for the Department
increasing from an estimated 730,000 in fiscal year 2000 to an
estimated 1,550,000 in fiscal year 2007. As a result, the Department
now spends more for the purchase of services than it does for products
(including major weapon systems).
Do you believe that the Department can or should continue to
support this level of spending on contract services?
Answer. It is my understanding that service contractors provide a
valuable function to DOD.
If confirmed, I would support efforts by the Under Secretary of
Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) and other leaders to
review the level of contracting services required in keeping with
President-elect Obama's pledge to have the Department improve its
strategy for determining when contracting makes sense.
Question. Do you believe that the current balance between Federal
employees and contractor employees is in the best interests of DOD?
Answer. DOD requires some mix of Federal employees and contractors
to carry out its mission effectively.
If confirmed, I would support efforts to help ensure the
appropriate balance in that mix.
Question. If confirmed, will you take a close look at the
Department's expenditures for services and determine whether it would
be appropriate to cap or limit growth in such expenditures for a period
of time?
Answer. Yes.
acquisition workforce
Question. Over the last 15 years, DOD has dramatically reduced the
size of its acquisition workforce, without undertaking any systematic
planning or analysis to ensure that it would have the specific skills
and competencies needed to meet current and future needs. Since
September 11, 2001, moreover, the demands placed on that workforce have
substantially increased. Do you believe that the DOD acquisition
workforce is large enough and has the skills needed to perform the
tasks assigned to it?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) organization on this issue.
Question. Would you agree that the Department is losing more money
through waste and inefficiency in its acquisition programs than it is
likely to save through constraints on the size and qualifications of
its acquisition workforce, and, if so, what recommendations do you have
to address the problem?
Answer. I understand the committee's concerns with this issue.
However, I do not have sufficient recent information to answer this
question effectively. Eliminating waste and inefficiency in acquisition
needs to be a top priority for DOD leaders, and if confirmed, I would
make that part of my agenda.
Question. Section 852 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 established an Acquisition Workforce Development Fund
to help the DOD address shortcomings in its acquisition workforce. The
fund would provide a minimum of $3 billion over 6 years for this
purpose.
Do you support the use of the DOD Acquisition Workforce Development
Fund to ensure that DOD has the right number of employees with the
right skills to run its acquisition programs in the most cost effective
manner for the taxpayers?
Answer. If confirmed, I certainly would support efforts to have the
right number of professionals with the right skills for our acquisition
work.
I believe it is too early to know how effectively the fund is being
used. But, if confirmed, I certainly will comply with the law regarding
the fund and do everything I can to advance the cost-effective
management of acquisition programs.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
the Acquisition Workforce Development Fund remains fully funded
throughout the period of the Future Years Defense Program?
Answer. I do not have in mind any specific steps, but if confirmed,
I will examine this issue and, after consulting with this committee and
others, make an appropriate recommendation.
chief management officer
Question. The positions of CMO of DOD and Deputy CMO of DOD were
established by section 904 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008. In accordance with section 904, the purpose of
these new positions is to improve the overall efficiency and
effectiveness of the business operations of DOD and to achieve an
integrated management system for business support areas within DOD. Do
you believe that a comprehensive, integrated, enterprise-wide
architecture and transition plan is essential to the successful
transformation of DOD's business systems?
Answer. Yes. I believe an effective architecture is a necessary but
not a sufficient condition for successful overhaul of DOD business
systems.
Question. Do you believe that the Department needs senior
leadership from a CMO and a Deputy CMO to cut across stovepipes and
ensure the implementation of a comprehensive, integrated, enterprise-
wide architecture for its business systems?
Answer. Yes. Creation of an architecture and, more importantly the
implementation of system changes, are major tasks that require
substantial time and management expertise. I believe that a CMO and
Deputy CMO can help provide the required time and expertise.
Question. If confirmed, what role do you expect to play in working
with the CMO and the Deputy CMO to improve the business operations of
DOD?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the CMO and Deputy CMO in
ensuring unified, standardized, and integrated business processes and
systems.
Question. What responsibilities, if any, that may have formerly
been performed by the Comptroller do you believe have been, will be, or
should be reassigned to the CMO or the Deputy CMO of DOD?
Answer. I believe that I need more knowledge of the specific
options, and the resources and expertise available from the CMO and
Deputy CMO, before deciding what, if any, changes in responsibilities
are appropriate. If confirmed, I will consider appropriate changes.
government performance and results act
Question. If confirmed as Comptroller, what would your
responsibilities be with respect to DOD implementation of the
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) to
set specific performance goals and measure progress toward meeting
them?
Answer. I would collaborate with the other principals to ensure
that the budget justification material includes realistic annual
performance goals and corresponding performance measures and
indicators.
These executive-level goals and metrics should represent the
leading performance trends that the Secretary must monitor to manage
risk across the Department, and to maintain progress toward
accomplishing the long-term outcomes of the defense strategy.
Question. What additional steps can the Department take to fulfill
the goal of the GPRA to link budget inputs to measurable performance
outputs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the existing GPRA metrics and
work with the other principals to improve them where warranted.
collection of contractor taxes
Question. The Comptroller General has reported that approximately
27,100 DOD contractors owe more than $3.0 billion in back taxes, and
that DOD has not fulfilled its duty under the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996 to help recoup these back taxes.
What steps will you take, if confirmed, to improve the Department's
performance in this area?
Answer. If confirmed, I would do what is necessary to help DOD
fulfill its duty under the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996--to
include the collection of all monies owed to the Federal Government
from any contractor with whom we are doing business. I look forward to
working with other government agencies to improve the tax collection
process.
Question. Do you believe that the Department needs additional
statutory authority to be effective in identifying and recovering back
taxes from contractors?
Answer. If confirmed, I will explore this issue with other
agencies, specifically the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury,
after which I can better address the need for additional legislation.
leasing major weapon systems
Question. The Air Force's proposal, which was ultimately not
implemented, to lease rather than purchase new tanker aircraft,
highlighted serious concerns about the cost-effectiveness of leasing
major capital assets as opposed to purchasing them and led the
Department to create a ``Leasing Review Panel,'' co-chaired by the
Comptroller, to review all major leasing agreements.
What are your views on the merits of leasing versus buying major
capital equipment?
Answer. I do not have any predetermined views on leasing versus
buying major capital equipment. I believe that each proposal would need
to be evaluated on its own merit.
Question. Under what circumstances do you believe that the lease of
major capital equipment should be considered an annual operating
expense for budget purposes?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department adheres to
OMB guidance and pursues leasing only when it clearly benefits the
taxpayer.
incremental funding vs. full funding
Question. Do you believe DOD should continue to adhere to the
longstanding practice of fully funding the purchases of major capital
assets, including ships and aircraft, in the year the decision to
purchase the asset is made, or do you believe incremental funding of
such purchases is justified in some cases?
Answer. As I understand it, it is OMB's policy that requires that
programs be fully funded when they are procured.
I fully support this requirement and, if confirmed, will work to
ensure full funding because it ensures that all of the funding is there
to support a usable end item.
However, there may be limited instances where incremental funding
is warranted and is in the best interest of the Department and the
taxpayer. For example, I can understand why we may want to consider
incremental funding of some major end items such as aircraft carriers
and large building construction projects because they take so long to
complete and are very expensive.
Question. If you believe a change in policy is warranted, please
explain how you believe such changes would benefit the Department and
the taxpayer.
Answer. If confirmed, I will assess whether such a policy change is
warranted.
base closure savings
Question. The costs of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure round
have exceeded the initial estimates put forward by DOD and the
independent commission by about 50 percent, an increase of
approximately $10 billion. Those initial estimates were derived from
the Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA) model, which is not
designed to produce ``budget quality'' data.
Do you believe the Department should continue to use the COBRA
model, in its current form, for any future base closure rounds that may
be authorized, or do you believe the accuracy of the estimated cost of
such actions should be improved?
Answer. If confirmed, and before significant additional use is made
of the COBRA model, I will discuss this issue further with the
committee and make a recommendation.
Question. Do you think the office of the Comptroller should play a
greater role in developing these cost estimates?
Answer. If confirmed, I will assess how great a role is appropriate
as part of a review of the COBRA model.
financial management
Question. What is your understanding of the efforts and progress
that have been made in DOD since 1999 toward the goal of being able to
produce a clean audit?
Answer. I believe DOD is making substantial progress toward a clean
audit. There is, however, a substantial amount of work still to do,
including efforts to address some of the most difficult problems. If
confirmed, I will pursue appropriate actions to ensure continued
progress toward meeting clean audit goals.
Question. Do you believe the Department's Financial Improvement and
Audit Readiness (FIAR) plan will lead to achieving a clean audit
opinion for DOD, or are changes in that plan necessary in order to
achieve that goal?
Answer. I do not have detailed knowledge of the FIAR plan, but if
confirmed, I will study this issue further after consulting with the
FIAR committee and others.
Question. Do you believe that the Department can achieve a clean
audit opinion through better accounting and auditing, or is the
systematic improvement of the Department's business systems and
processes a perquisite?
Answer. Both business systems and improved processes are required.
Question. When do you believe the Department can achieve a clean
audit?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review all the
information needed to provide a specific timeline. However, if
confirmed, I will examine this issue more fully, including
consideration of this committee's views as well as the resources needed
for the audit, and provide an answer.
Question. If confirmed, what role do you expect to play, and how do
you expect to work with the CMO and Deputy CMO, in the effort to
achieve a clean audit opinion?
Answer. Better business practices and fully integrated business
systems are a must to achieve and sustain a clean audit opinion.
If confirmed, I will work with the CMO and Deputy CMO and make use
of their skills to ensure better business practices and fully
integrated business systems are in place to support the Department's
audit opinion goals.
cost overrruns on major acquisition programs
Question. Last year, the GAO reported that DOD's Major Defense
Acquisition Programs had experienced an estimated total (lifecycle)
acquisition cost growth of $295 billion in constant fiscal year 2008
dollars.
Do you believe the Department can build and manage an affordable
program with cost increases of this magnitude?
Answer. I believe DOD must do everything possible to minimize
acquisition cost growth, which can help ensure that we are able to
provide our fighting forces the technology and capabilities needed to
ensure their combat dominance.
Question. If you believe these cost increases are a concern, what
role, if any, do you see for the Comptroller in improving the accuracy
of the cost estimates for major weapons programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with Program Analysis and
Evaluation leaders, my staff, and others to scrutinize cost estimates--
because they are essential components of our budget and management
responsibilities.
Question. The poor performance of major defense acquisition
programs has been attributed in part to instability in funding and
requirements.
What steps would you plan to take, if confirmed, to increase the
funding and requirements stability of major defense acquisition
programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I would make stability a pivotal priority
during DOD deliberations on funding and requirements. We must look at
all programs and especially those that are early in their program
lives, and try to ensure that enough funds are available to avoid
slowdowns due to lack of funding.
Question. Would you agree that early communication between the
acquisition, requirements, and budget communities is critical to
establishing acquisition programs on a sound footing?
Answer. Yes, early and detailed communication is critical.
Question. What steps would you plan to take, if confirmed, to
improve such communication?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work to ensure such communications
are an integral part of DOD processes on acquisition, requirements, and
especially on budgets.
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 Defense
(Comptroller)?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
Question. 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 of any good faith delay or denial in providing such
documents?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
supplemental budget requests
1. Senator Akaka. Mr. Hale, section 1008 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 required the President's budget
to include funding for ongoing military operations that are
traditionally included in supplementals. In your response to the
advance policy questions, you stated: ``the negative aspects of
supplementals can be minimized by ensuring Department of Defense (DOD)
scrutiny of supplemental requests similar to that afforded the base
budget (a policy endorsed by the President-elect) and by providing
Congress with early information regarding supplemental requests.'' If
confirmed, what steps are you going to take to include traditional
supplemental requirements in the DOD planning, programming, budgeting,
and execution process for the fiscal year 2011 budget?
Mr. Hale. DOD needs to move away from supplementals, using them
only for truly unexpected costs. Working with others in DOD and with
the Office of Management and Budget, I expect to work to achieve this
goal. I hope to make progress in the fiscal year 2010 budget and
achieve the goal by the fiscal year 2011 budget.
chief management officer
2. Senator Akaka. Mr. Hale, in May 2007, the Secretary of Defense
designated the Deputy Secretary of Defense as the Chief Management
Officer (CMO) of DOD. The CMO position was developed to address
management challenges that have plagued DOD for years. The CMO was
charged with establishing performance goals and measures for improving
and evaluating overall economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, and to
monitor and measure the progress of the Department. What is your
understanding of the relationship between the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller) and the CMO?
Mr. Hale. My relationship with the Deputy Secretary of Defense in
his capacity as CMO will be to do my utmost to ensure that the
Department's business systems and processes are unified, standardized,
and integrated. I will also take an active role in supporting the CMO
in defining, establishing, and reporting business operations
performance metrics that provide leading indicators of effective DOD
operations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
survivor benefit plan/dependency and indemnity compensation offset
3. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Hale, for 8 years I have worked to
eliminate the unjust offset between the DOD Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)
and the Department of Veterans Affairs Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation (DIC). Under current law, if the surviving spouse of a
servicemember is eligible for SBP, that annuity is offset by the amount
of DIC received. I would like to work with DOD to devise a plan to
eliminate the offset over time; it is the least we can do for the
widows, widowers, and orphans of our servicemembers. What is the proper
balance of discretionary and mandatory spending that will not only
ensure our national defense, but will also take care of our
servicemembers, veterans, and their families?
Mr. Hale. The offset to SBP for simultaneous DIC entitlement is
fair, reasonable, and equitable. Allowing one to receive both
annuities, without offset, would create an inequity by giving dual
lifetime annuities to certain survivors while survivors of other
deceased former military members would continue to receive only one or
the other.
If current levels of the annuity for survivors of members who die
from service-connected causes are deemed insufficient, the level of DIC
should simply be recalibrated, ensuring there are no winners and
losers--simply that all similarly situated families benefit from an
appropriate annuity level defined by Congress.
4. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Hale, what would a plan look like that
would eliminate the SBP-DIC offset over 4 years and over 10 years?
Mr. Hale. As noted in the answer to the prior question, I do not
favor eliminating the SBP-DIC offset and suggest that if current
annuity levels for survivors of former military members who die of
service-connected causes are deemed inadequate, the level of DIC should
be reevaluated.
base realignment and closure commission
5. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Hale, in November 2005, the Base
Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) of 2005 went into effect.
Full funding of BRAC 2005 is imperative because the Services must build
infrastructure to support the mandated force movements. Two BRAC 2005
conclusions that affect Florida are the establishment of Initial
Aircraft Training for the F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter and
the beddown of the 7th Special Forces Group at Eglin Air Force Base.
The BRAC 2005 law expires in 2011. Explain how DOD will support the
Services' funding requests necessary to implement the BRAC 2005 law
before expiration of the BRAC 2005 mandate.
Mr. Hale. It is my understanding that the Department has directed
the DOD components with BRAC realignments and/or closures to fully fund
those actions to ensure implementation of each BRAC recommendation by
the statutory deadline of September 15, 2011. As such, it is my
understanding that all costs to implement BRAC are included in
departmental budget requests (including supplemental requests) and in
the Future Year Defense Program.
navy decision to establish a second aircraft carrier homeport
6. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Hale, in 2006, the Navy began an
environmental impact statement to determine the environmental impact of
homeporting additional surface ships at Naval Station Mayport, FL.
Since 2005, congressional and military leadership have reaffirmed the
importance of dispersing the Atlantic Fleet in two ports. In February
2005, then Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Clark, stated that it was
his view that, ``over-centralization of the [carrier] port structure is
not a good strategic move . . . the Navy should have two carrier-
capable homeports on each coast.'' He went on to say, ``. . . it is my
belief that it would be a serious strategic mistake to have all of
those key assets of our Navy tied up in one port.''
Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, as the former Secretary
of the Navy, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the
Navy needed to disperse its Atlantic coast carriers: ``My judgment is
that [dispersion] is still the situation . . . a nuclear carrier should
be in Florida to replace the [U.S.S. John F.] Kennedy to get some
dispersion.''
The current Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Roughead,
recommended to Secretary of the Navy Winter that Naval Station Mayport
should be made capable of homeporting a nuclear aircraft carrier
homeport to reduce the risk to our Atlantic Fleet carriers should
Norfolk become incapacitated. The current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, Admiral Mullen, agrees with Admiral Roughead's
recommendation.
On January 14, the Navy made its decision to make Naval Station
Mayport a carrier homeport and plans to request the necessary funding
for its implementation in its fiscal year 2010 budget request.
Understanding the fiscal challenges facing our country and the
constrained defense budget, how will you approach this funding priority
among the many priorities facing the military?
Mr. Hale. If confirmed, I will review the implications of this
decision with the Navy, and the impact, if any, on the fiscal year 2010
and future budget requests. At such time, I would be willing to provide
Congress an update on specifics once the review is completed.
7. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Hale, the principle of strategic
dispersal is decades old. What is your understanding of the principle
of strategic dispersal and what are your thoughts of Secretary of the
Navy Donald Winter's implementation of this principle with respect to
Naval Station Mayport?
Mr. Hale. You raise a good question that would require more study
on my part, if confirmed. I am not yet familiar with all the details
and potential impacts with Secretary Winter's decision to implement
strategic dispersal on the east coast, but I am committed to review the
matter thoroughly and respond to your question in the near future.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Evan Bayh
clean audit
8. Senator Bayh. Mr. Hale, the DOD budget continues to grow by
billions annually. How close to a clean audit do you believe DOD is
today?
Mr. Hale. I have not yet completed my review of all the information
needed to provide a specific timeline. However, there are many
difficult tasks still to be completed before DOD receives a clean or
unqualified opinion. I expect that DOD will not achieve that goal any
sooner than the date specified in the latest Financial Improvement and
Audit Readiness report--which stated that major statements would be
audit ready by 2017.
9. Senator Bayh. Mr. Hale, what steps do you believe will be
necessary to take in order to perform a clean audit?
Mr. Hale. DOD is making progress towards an unqualified audit
opinion. However, there are many difficult steps yet to be achieved.
These include but are not limited to implementing integrated business
systems, achieving an auditable funds balance with Treasury, and
resolving valuation issues such as those associated with military
equipment. The Department must also continue to improve its financial
controls.
10. Senator Bayh. Mr. Hale, what benefits or savings do you believe
could be realized by such an audit?
Mr. Hale. An unqualified audit opinion provides evidence that the
financial systems of an entity provide reliable, accurate, and timely
information for management decisionmaking. Informed decisionmaking
leads to cost saving and/or cost avoidance. There is also a benefit to
citizens and taxpayers in that an unqualified audit opinion validates
their confidence in their government to manage, protect, and use their
resources well by proving the Department's books are reliable and
accurate.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
active-duty end strength
11. Senator McCain. Mr. Hale, the President-elect and the Secretary
of Defense have endorsed significant increases in the Active-Duty
strengths of the Army and Marine Corps and these Services have been
working hard to accelerate this growth. Please discuss your concerns
about the rising cost of personnel and how you anticipate this will
affect the ability of the Services to recapitalize its equipment.
Mr. Hale. I am concerned about the rising cost of personnel in our
DOD budget. Of course, we must continue to compensate our military
people adequately, and we must take good care of military families. At
the same time, we must also address rising costs in order to have the
resources to upgrade military equipment, systems, and facilities. For
example, we must do more to control the escalating cost of health care
for our military. These difficult trade-offs will need to be made--both
by the executive branch and Congress--during program and budget
reviews.
retirees and the cost of dod health care
12. Senator McCain. Mr. Hale, for the last 3 years, the
administration has tried--without success--to gain approval for
increases in the annual premiums for DOD-provided health care paid for
by military retirees under the age of 65. What are your views about the
need for change in this regard?
Mr. Hale. The proposed increases in TRICARE premiums included with
the fiscal year 2009 DOD budget was based on recommendations of the
Task Force on the Future of Military Healthcare, which DOD established
as directed by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2007. I expect that--during upcoming program and budget reviews--the
new administration will analyze options regarding the large and growing
cost of TRICARE, and I look forward to helping with that analysis.
defense business board view
13. Senator McCain. Mr. Hale, the Defense Business Board (DBB), an
internal management oversight board established by Secretary Gates,
recently warned that the DOD's budget is ``unsustainable'' and that the
Department can only meet its priorities if it makes hard budget
decisions on its largest and costliest acquisition programs. ``Business
as usual [in terms of the Department's budget decisions] is no longer
an option,'' warned the Board. Do you agree with the DBB's warning?
Mr. Hale. Yes, business as usual is no longer an option. President
Obama and Secretary Gates have underscored that change is needed and
vowed to make acquisition reform a top priority.
14. Senator McCain. Mr. Hale, what principles will guide your
thinking on possible cuts to large acquisition programs?
Mr. Hale. Acquisition programs must be able to deliver the required
capability on schedule and at or under cost. The capabilities they
provide must not be duplicative of other acquisitions, and these
capabilities must be integral components of the overall portfolio of
capabilities that the Department needs to accomplish its mission. We
will review programs to ensure that they have the required
technological and production maturity to enable successful delivery of
the required capability to the warfighter according to schedule, and at
cost. Programs lacking this maturity may be candidates for termination
or restructure, depending on their potential contributions to our
mission accomplishment. Cuts to large acquisition programs will also be
evaluated against the capabilities they provide to ensure
accomplishment of the Department's mission to defend our Nation, its
interests, and our allies. We will review acquisitions to determine
which best address requirements of near-term engagements and current
known threats, and fund the highest priority acquisition programs that
address these areas. At the same time, we will also ensure that we do
not neglect the need for increased capabilities to meet increased or
new threats in the future. As standard practice, we will align our
acquisitions to stay within our funding topline and always strive to
get the best value for our resources.
reforms for procurement of weapons systems
15. Senator McCain. Mr. Hale, over the last few years, this
committee has developed several legislative initiatives intended to
reform the process by which the Department buys its largest and most
expensive weapons systems. The preponderance of those initiatives have
addressed acquisition policy and the requirements system. Are there any
aspects of acquisition policy, the requirements-determination system,
or the resource allocation process that you believe require additional
reform?
Mr. Hale. Yes, we need reforms in the areas I listed in my answer
to question 14 above.
16. Senator McCain. Mr. Hale, the Department recently instituted
several reforms to the DOD Instructions on how the Defense Acquisition
System (DAS) operates. Those initiatives seek to start major
acquisition programs off responsibly by increasing emphasis on systems
engineering and greater upfront planning and management of risk, as
well as utilization of competitive prototyping in a newly-named
Technology Development Phase (before Milestone B). Are there any
aspects of those newly instituted instructions (or the newly structured
DAS) with which you have difficulty or intend to modify or repeal?
Mr. Hale. I think the recent changes to defense acquisition policy
reflect the Department's commitment to achieving improved acquisition
outcomes by reducing risk, and improving process discipline. I believe
the new policies are sound and I support them. If confirmed, I plan to
closely monitor the execution of these policies and contribute to the
success of these important initiatives.
17. Senator McCain. Mr. Hale, among the reforms that this committee
and the Department have instituted include those that enable the
Department to remove more effectively nonessential requirements; have
the Department move towards employing fixed-type contracts while better
incentivizing contractor performance; and require the Department to
exercise better oversight of service contracts. Are there any aspects
of those initiatives in particular with which you have difficulty or
intend to modify or repeal?
Mr. Hale. No, I believe these are effective initiatives and I will
support them. Each of the policies mentioned is designed to improve the
operation of our acquisition system and enhance oversight of our
substantive investments in our major defense acquisition programs and
contract services. If confirmed, I plan to monitor the effectiveness of
these policies to ensure that the desired outcomes are being achieved.
relocation of u.s. marines from okinawa
18. Senator McCain. Mr. Hale, the current estimate for the costs to
relocate the marines from Okinawa to Guam is at least $10 billion, with
the Government of Japan directly contributing $2.8 billion. The
remainder will be funded by DOD through military construction or loans
paid back through future housing allowances. With all the other
modernization, recapitalization, and reset requirements facing the
Department in the next 4 years, in your opinion, can we afford this
move?
Mr. Hale. The Department is committed to this relocation
initiative, and I support it. This investment provides assurance of the
U.S. commitment to security and strengthens deterrent capabilities in
the Asia-Pacific region. The Japanese Government may commit up to $6
billion in total funding for this initiative. During upcoming program
and budget reviews, the Department will balance the fiscal commitment
required to move forward with this initiative against other high-
priority initiatives.
19. Senator McCain. Mr. Hale, there has also been discussion about
the significant investment necessary to upgrade port, road, and utility
infrastructure on Guam to support the stationing of marines and their
families. Do you believe DOD should assume this financial obligation as
well?
Mr. Hale. The Department recognizes the necessary investment
associated with port, roads, and utility infrastructure on Guam
resulting from the Marine Corps relocation. It is critical to
thoroughly evaluate the broad Federal impact of this significant
investment and partner with other Federal entities, such as the Guam
Federal Interagency Task Force, to determine the financial obligation
that the United States should assume for infrastructure on Guam. The
Department is addressing Guam's needs that are directly related to
maintaining an enduring presence in support of the military mission.
Guam's infrastructure, namely the commercial port and the island's
road network, require upgrades that will directly assist our ability to
carry out the program and also benefit Guam. The Department, through
the Defense Access Road (DAR) program, is preparing to address
qualifying improvements to roadways, intersections, and bridges that
are critical to executing the construction program for DOD.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) was designated the lead Federal
agency for the Port of Guam Improvement Enterprise Program in Public
Law 110-417, section 3512. As the lead Federal agency, the MARAD will
manage the expenditure of Federal, non-Federal, and private funds made
available for the project and provide oversight and project management
through a prime contractor. DOD is working closely with MARAD to help
facilitate their initiative to correct the issues at the port.
DOD is also working to facilitate the necessary utilities solutions
that will: meet the DOD mission; provide the widest benefit to the
people of Guam; be technically and financially supportable by all
participating parties; and be acceptable to the environmental
regulators. DOD is working in collaboration with the Government of Guam
officials to understand their needs and to determine the feasibility of
utilities solutions that are mutually beneficial to DOD, the civilian
community, and the regulatory agencies. Additionally, we are working
with the Government of Japan to ensure that their equities are met in
conjunction with the DOD's needs and the equities of the Government of
Guam and the Consolidated Commission on Utilities. Concurrently, we are
working with the environmental regulators to ensure that the solution
set meets the requirements set by the regulatory standards.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mel Martinez
acquisition strategy
20. Senator Martinez. Mr. Hale, as you have read, the Secretary of
Defense wrote recently in Foreign Affairs, ``When it comes to
procurement, for the better part of 5 decades, the trend has gone
toward lower numbers as technology gains have made each system more
capable. In recent years, these platforms have grown ever more baroque,
have become ever more costly, are taking longer to build, and are being
fielded in ever-dwindling quantities. Given that resources are not
unlimited, the dynamic of exchanging numbers for capability is perhaps
reaching a point of diminishing returns. A given ship or aircraft, no
matter how capable or well-equipped, can be in only one place at one
time.'' How do you intend to ensure that simple, effective and cost
efficient systems are not replaced by cutting edge, yet highly
expensive platforms our Nation is not willing to procure en mass?
Mr. Hale. I believe that DOD must make trade-offs between
performance and cost, especially early in the life of new programs, in
order to ensure reasonably priced yet adequately capable weapon
systems. Stability during the acquisition process is another key to
ensuring reasonable prices. Working along with other offices in charge
of acquisition, I expect to be an advocate for these and other process
improvements necessary to improve DOD's acquisition system.
21. Senator Martinez. Mr. Hale, how will you bring sensibility to
the procurement process so we maintain the capacity to address the
Nation's needs?
Mr. Hale. As I said in my answer above, I intend to lead my staff,
and work with other DOD offices, to help carry out the acquisition
goals enunciated by Secretary Gates.
22. Senator Martinez. Mr. Hale, what additional acquisition process
improvements will you bring to the Pentagon?
Mr. Hale. Discipline is the key to creating affordable weapons
programs, especially discipline in the early stages of a weapon
system's life cycle. The Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics) is responsible for DOD acquisition process.
Once the new Under Secretary takes office I plan to be helpful in
identifying improvements.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
upgrading aging systems
23. Senator Collins. Mr. Hale, in your answers to the advance
policy questions, you listed what you believe to be some of the major
challenges confronting the next Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer. One of the biggest
challenges for all the Services is the need to replace aging major
equipment and weapons systems with newer and more technologically
advanced systems in a cost effective manner. For example, DOD has spent
countless hours and millions of dollars trying to develop the next
generation aerial refueling tanker, and the Navy has a strong need to
replace many of its aging warships. What is your fiscal plan to
purchase these systems that DOD so desperately needs?
Mr. Hale. Fiscal discipline will be a key to meeting the many
budgetary challenges facing DOD. We must maintain an adequate force
structure, but we also need to identify ways to hold down personnel
costs (including health care costs) in order to free up resources
needed to replace aging systems. We must buy a reasonable number of
replacement systems, but we also need to make the hard trade-offs
(including performance trade-offs) necessary to hold down the unit
costs of the replacement systems. During upcoming program and budget
reviews, I expect to be an advocate for the necessary fiscal
discipline.
______
[The nomination reference of Robert F. Hale follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
January 20, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Robert F. Hale, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller), vice Tina Westby Jonas, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Robert F. Hale, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Robert F. Hale
Robert F. Hale currently serves as the Executive Director of the
American Society of Military Comptrollers (ASMC). In that capacity he
runs an 18,000 member association that provides a wide range of
professional development activities for defense financial managers.
From 1994 to 2001 Mr. Hale was appointed by the President and
confirmed by the Senate as the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
(Financial Management and Comptroller). He was responsible for the Air
Force budget and all aspects of Air Force financial management. During
this period Mr. Hale oversaw submission of budgets that met Air Force
needs in peace and war. He made numerous improvements in Air Force
financial management and brought about substantial streamlining of
processes. He also spearheaded creation of the first-ever certification
program for defense financial managers.
Mr. Hale served for 12 years as head of the defense unit of the
Congressional Budget Office. His group provided defense analyses to
Congress, and he frequently testified before congressional committees.
He was a sought-after expert on the Federal budget, especially the
defense budget, and spoke widely on budget topics.
Before coming to ASMC, Mr. Hale directed a program group at LMI
Government Consulting and, early in his career, he served on active
duty as a Navy officer and worked for the Center for Naval Analyses.
Robert Hale holds a BS with honors from Stanford University, as
well as an MS from Stanford, and an MBA from George Washington
University. He is also a Fellow in the National Academy of Public
Administration and has served on the organization's task forces. Mr.
Hale has served on the Defense Business Board and on the
Congressionally-Mandated Task Force on the Future of Military Health
Care. He is a former National President of the American Society of
Military Comptrollers and is a Certified Defense Financial Manager with
acquisition specialty.
______
[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 F. Hale
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 F. Hale.
2. Position to which nominated:
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
3. Date of nomination:
Intention to nominate issued January 8, 2009.
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 21, 1947; Sacramento, CA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Susan Kohn.
7. Names and ages of children:
Scott D. Hale, 30; Michael J. Hale, 28.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
George Washington University, MBA, 1976 (attended 1972-1976).
Stanford University, MS, 1969 (attended 1969).
Stanford University, BS, 1968 (attended 1964-1968).
Armijo High School, 1964 (attended 1960-1964).
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Executive Director, American Society of Military Comptrollers, July
2005-present; 415 North Alfred Street, Alexandria, VA.
Currently managing all aspects of a professional association
with 18,000 members. Created an ``easy-access'' program of
professional development, using internet and audio approaches
to meet new training needs. Significantly improved content of
Society's quarterly journal and its annual conference (a
premier training event for defense financial managers).
Successfully implemented major automation improvements at
Society headquarters. Improved organization's profitability
without raising member dues.
Program Director and Consultant, LMI Government Consulting, May
2001-July 2005; 2000 Corporate Ridge Road, McLean, VA.
Served as program director for a group of about 20
professionals providing consulting services to Federal agencies
on acquisition topics. Inherited a group that was not
productive or profitable. Instituted major changes in business
processes that brought in new, high-quality business and
rendered the group profitable within a year. Also consulted for
Federal agencies on financial issues.
Assistant Secretary (Financial Management and Comptroller), United
States Air Force, March 1994-January 2001; 1130 Air Force Pentagon,
Washington, DC.
Nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, managed
all aspects of Air Force financial management. Oversaw creation
and defense of seven budgets and associated supplementals that
successfully met critical Air Force resource needs, both in
peacetime and during the Bosnian war. Worked successfully to
involve all key personnel in the budget process, especially
those in the Secretariat. Streamlined Air Force financial
business processes by overseeing implementation of three new
automated systems and shepherding implementation of four major
multi-service systems. Sharply reduced antideficiency act cases
and credit card delinquencies by devoting personal attention to
these problem areas. Accomplished first full audit of an Air
Force financial statement. Created a new office to improve
base-level financial services. Also spearheaded creation of a
new certification program for defense financial managers, which
has now become an important part of their training. Longest
serving Assistant Secretary in the history of the office.
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, Defense Business Board, 2002-2007.
Member, DOD Task Force on the Future of DOD Health Care, 2006-2007.
Member, Task Force on Fiscal Futures, National Academy of Public
Administration, 2008-present.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
RFH Consulting, single-person consulting firm doing limited work
for private companies and DOD, 2001-present.
Member, National Executive Committee, American Society of Military
Comptrollers (nonprofit society devoted to professional development).
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member, National Academy of Public Administration.
Executive Director, American Society of Military Comptrollers.
Member, Association of Government Accountants.
Member, National Contract Management 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.
10/23/08, Obama for America - $1,000.
9/21/08, Obama for America - $1,000.
9/22/08, Connolly for Congress - $250.
7/28/08, Obama for America - $500.
5/6/06, Democratic Senate Committtee - $500.
9/17/06, Democratic Congressional Campaign - $500.
9/29/06, Fairfield-Suisan CA, Save the Farms, $250.
4/3/04, Kerry for President - $500.
6/27/04, Kerry for President - $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.
DOD Exceptional Public Service Award.
Air Force Distinguished Service Award.
National Defense Medal.
Fellow, National Academy of Public Administration.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
``Defense and Deficits,'' Armed Forces Comptroller Journal, Spring
2004.
``The Graying of Federal Financial Management,'' Journal of
Government Financial Management, Spring 2003.
``Promoting Efficiency in the Department of Defense: Keep Trying,
But Be Realistic,'' Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments,
January 2002.
Authored numerous reports on defense financial management during
service as a Federal employee with the Congressional Budget Office
(1975-1994).
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
No formal, written speeches.
Many informal speeches, mainly to chapters of the American Society
of Military Comptrollers.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to appear and testify upon request before any duly
constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Robert F. Hale.
This 13th day of January, 2009.
[The nomination of Robert F. Hale was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on February 5, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on February 9, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Michele Flournoy by
Chairman Levin 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. Goldwater-Nichols was landmark legislation that led to
dramatic improvements in operational effectiveness, unity of effort,
and civilian oversight. We now have a generation of military leaders
for whom operating in a coordinated and joint, multi-service
environment is the norm. Given these successes, I do not see the
immediate need to change the provisions of this legislation.
I have co-authored a number of studies that have advocated using
the Goldwater-Nichols Act as a point of departure for enhancing
interagency unity of effort and the capabilities of America's non-
military instruments of statecraft. If confirmed, I would hope to be in
a position to help strengthen the U.S. Government's ability to craft
effective whole of government approaches to the national security
challenges we face.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. See my previous answer.
relationships
Question. What is your understanding of the relationship between
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)) and each of the
following:
Question. The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The USD(P) serves as the principal staff assistant and
advisor to the Secretary of Defense for all matters concerning the
formulation of national security and defense policy and the integration
and oversight of DOD policy and plans to achieve national security
objectives. The USD(P) provides policy support to the Secretary in
interagency fora (such as National Security Council and Homeland
Security Council deliberations), engagement with international
interlocutors, and in the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and
Execution (PPBE) processes inside the Department, including the
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), and
annual program and budget reviews.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Under Secretary for Policy provides similar support to
the Deputy Secretary as described above.
Question. The other Under Secretaries of Defense, including the
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
Answer. The Under Secretary for Policy works closely with the other
Under Secretaries of Defense to achieve the Secretary's objectives.
This includes providing policy input, as appropriate, to each of them
in their respective areas of responsibility. In addition, the USD(P)
works closely with the Under Secretary of Intelligence and other
intelligence officials to ensure that policy formulation and execution
are well-informed and supported by intelligence.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. The USD(P) exercises authority, direction, and control over
the Principal Deputy USD(P), and the Assistant Secretaries of Defense
for International Security Affairs, Asian and Pacific Affairs, Global
Security Affairs, Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict and
Interdependent Capabilities, and Homeland Defense and Americas'
Security. This team works together to provide the Secretary with advice
and recommendations on the full range of policy issues under
consideration in the Department and provides policy oversight to ensure
that the Secretary's guidance and decisions are implemented properly.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. The USD(P) works closely with the secretaries of the
military departments on a broad range of issues, including strategy
development, force planning, and other areas in which the military
departments are critical stakeholders.
Question. The General Counsel of the Department of Defense (DOD).
Answer. The USD(P) works closely with the General Counsel on all
policy issues that involve a legal dimension. In practice, this means
significant and regular coordination on a broad range of issues.
Question. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
Answer. As the principal military advisor to the Secretary of
Defense, the President, and the National Security Council, the Chairman
has a unique and critical military role. The USD(P) works closely with
the Chairman and Vice Chairman to support the efforts of the Secretary
and Deputy Security, and to ensure that their military advice is taken
into account in an appropriate manner.
Question. The Commanders of the Regional Combatant Commanders.
Answer. The USD(P) also works closely with the regional combatant
commanders to support the efforts of the Secretary and Deputy Security,
particularly in the areas of regional strategy and policy, contingency
planning, and policy oversight of operations.
duties of the under secretary of defense for policy
Question. Section 134 of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the USD(P)
shall assist the Secretary of Defense in preparing written policy
guidance for the preparation and review of contingency plans, and in
reviewing such plans. Additionally, subject to the authority,
direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary
shall have responsibility for supervising and directing activities of
DOD relating to export controls. Further, subject to the authority,
direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, the USD(P) is
responsible for overall direction and supervision for policy, program
planning and execution, and allocation and use of resources for the
activities of the DOD for combating terrorism.
DOD Directive 5111.1 reiterates these duties and specifically notes
that the USD(P) is the principal staff assistant and advisor to the
Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense for all
matters on the formulation of national security and defense policy and
the integration and oversight of DOD policy and plans to achieve
national security objectives.
What is your understanding of the duties and functions of the
USD(P) under current regulations and practices?
Answer. If confirmed, I will perform the duties set forth in title
10 and the DOD Directive. The USD(P) serves as the principal staff
assistant and advisor to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense
for all matters concerning the formulation of national security and
defense policy and the integration and oversight of DOD policy and
plans to achieve national security objectives. Specifically the USD(P)
directly supports the Secretary of Defense in the interagency process,
in dealings with foreign counterparts, in developing strategy and
planning guidance for the rest of the PPBE process, in providing policy
oversight of current operations, and in guiding the development and
review of contingency plans. He or she is the Secretary's principal
policy adviser on the use of the U.S. military instrument and its
adaptation for future missions.
Question. What is your understanding of the responsibilities of the
USD(P) in combating terrorism, in particular as differentiated from
those of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and
Low Intensity Conflict (ASD(SOLIC))?
Answer. The ASD(SOLIC) and Integrated Capabilities (IC) functions
under the authority, direction, and control of the USD(P) in combating
terrorism. In practice, ASD(SOLIC)/IC is often asked to provide direct
support to the Secretary on sensitive operational material.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what additional duties and
functions do you expect that the Secretary of Defense would prescribe
for you?
Answer. I look forward to speaking with him further about how I
could best support his efforts beyond those set forth in section 134(b)
of title 10.
qualifications
Question. What background and experience do you have that you
believe qualifies you for this position?
Answer. I have had the privilege of spending more than 20 years
working on a broad range of national security and defense issues, both
in and out of government. From my time in university and graduate
school wrestling with issues surrounding the Cold War and the Soviet
nuclear arsenal, to my 5\1/2\ years spent in the Pentagon taking a lead
role in formulating defense strategy in the immediate post-Cold War
context for three different Secretaries of Defense, to my more recent
roles in the think-tank community exploring U.S. policies to address
the complex challenges of the post-September 11 era, I believe I have
the policy background and management experience that would serve the
country well if confirmed as the next USD(P).
contingency planning
Question. One of the purposes of Goldwater-Nichols was to increase
military and civilian attention on the formulation of strategy and
contingency planning. The USD(P) is specifically directed to assist the
Secretary of Defense in preparing written policy guidance for the
preparation and review of contingency plans and in reviewing such
plans.
What is your view of the civilian role, as compared to the military
role, in the formulation of strategy and contingency planning?
Answer. I believe that civilian leadership is critical in the
formulation of strategy and planning. Civilian defense leadership is
particularly vital in translating broad national security policies and
principles into the strategic ends that ultimately drive military
planning.
More specifically, the USD(P) supports the development of the
President's National Security Strategy, leads the development of the
defense strategy, establishes realistic objectives and guidance to form
the basis for contingency planning, and reviews DOD plans and programs
to ensure they support strategic objectives. The Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff is a critical partner in the development of guidance
for contingency planning and provides independent military advice to
the Secretary of Defense and the President. In addition to the
provision of written guidance, an important civilian role is to review
contingency plans submitted for approval by the combatant commanders.
The USD(P) is also responsible for facilitating interagency
coordination on contingency planning efforts, as necessary.
Question. In your opinion, does the civilian leadership currently
have an appropriate level of oversight of strategy formulation and
contingency planning?
Answer. I believe that the United States is at a critical time in
history--with multiple wars, enduring threats, and imminent challenges.
From the need to redeploy forces in Iraq, strengthen commitments in
Afghanistan, to the importance of combating terrorism and preparing for
a future in which energy security and the rise of states like China and
India will fundamentally alter the international environment, I believe
that a strong civilian and military partnership on these issues is
vital. If confirmed, I will examine this issue closely and seek to
ensure that civilian leadership has the appropriate level of oversight
on the full range of strategy, planning, and use-of-force issues.
Question. What steps do you believe are necessary to ensure
effective civilian control and oversight of strategy formulation and
contingency planning?
Answer. Given that we are at this critical point in history, I do
feel that the strategy and planning capacity in the Office of the
Secretary of Defense should be strengthened. From my time inside and
outside of government, I have come to believe that the U.S. Government
needs to fortify its capacity for strategic thinking and strategic
planning to ensure that it not only deals with the challenges of today
but is also well-prepared for those of tomorrow.
If confirmed, I would strive to provide the best advice possible to
the Secretary of Defense in fulfilling his responsibility to provide
written policy guidance and to review contingency plans. I would also
work closely with the Joint Staff to develop further opportunities to
collaborate on planning guidance and reviews.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the USD(P)?
Answer. If confirmed, my office will likely play an important role
within the Department and the interagency process in developing policy
for a number of key issues, including among others: responsibly ending
the war in Iraq; ensuring that the United States develops and employs a
more effective strategy in Afghanistan and the surrounding region;
working to prevent nuclear and weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
proliferation; combating terrorism; adapting the U.S. military for 21st
century challenges; and strengthening America's alliances with key
partners and allies. Beyond ensuring that the Secretary of Defense
receives the best possible policy input on these vital questions,
another major challenge will be to strengthen the organizational
capacity to support these efforts.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I would participate in a number of policy
reviews, including the upcoming QDR, which provides an opportunity to
assess these challenges and develop policy, plans, and investments to
address them.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the USD(P)?
Answer. If confirmed, I would give priority to the major challenges
identified above and to strengthening the organizational capacity of
the Office of the Secretary of Defense Policy to address them. I would
also give priority to ensuring effective working relationships with
both military and civilian counterparts through the Department and the
interagency.
iraq
Question. The U.S.-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) requires
that U.S. combat forces withdraw from cities and towns by June 2009 and
that all U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq by the end of December 2011.
Additionally, if Iraqi voters reject the SOFA in a referendum scheduled
for July 2009, U.S. troops would be required to withdraw by July 2010.
What, in your view, are the greatest challenges facing the
Department in meeting these deadlines and what actions, if any, would
you recommend to maximize the chances of meeting these requirements?
Answer. The challenge in Iraq will be to continue the phased
redeployment of U.S. forces while maintaining a secure environment to
support elections, political reconciliation, and economic development.
If confirmed, I would review DOD plans and work with colleagues across
the Department to make any necessary recommendations to the Secretary
of Defense.
Question. What is your understanding and assessment of U.S. plans
to support implementation of the SOFA requirements for repositioning
and redeployment of U.S. forces, including contingency planning
relating to the Iraqi referendum?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review detailed plans
regarding the repositioning and redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq. If
confirmed, I would review such plans and make any necessary
recommendations to the Secretary of Defense.
Question. To date, U.S. taxpayers have paid approximately $48
billion for stabilization and reconstruction activities in Iraq while
the Iraqi Government has accrued a budget surplus of tens of billions
of dollars. On April 8, 2008, Ambassador Crocker told the committee
``the era of U.S.-funded major infrastructure is over'' and said the
United States is no longer ``involved in the physical reconstruction
business.''
What do you believe is the appropriate role for the United States
in reconstruction activities in Iraq going forward?
Answer. I support the President-elect's views on bringing in Iraq's
neighbors to help with reconstruction efforts. I also believe American
policy should continue to be supportive in working with and through our
Iraqi partners and that the U.S. role in reconstruction should focus on
capacity development and assisting our Iraqi partners in prioritizing,
planning, and executing their reconstruction projects.
Question. What are your views on the responsibility of the Iraqi
Government to assume the cost of training, equipping, and operations
for its security forces?
Answer. I believe that a critical part of our strategy depends on
ensuring that the Iraqi Government assumes control of the entire range
of tasks necessary to organize, train, and equip its security forces.
From DOD's perspective, this includes helping our Iraqi partners to
formulate a defense strategy and acquisition policy that is prudent and
practical given finite resources.
Question. What are your views on the responsibility of the Iraqi
Government to share the cost of combined operations with Multi-National
Forces-Iraq (MNF-I) forces and stability programs throughout Iraq?
Answer. I understand that the U.S. Government has not requested the
Iraqis contribute to the costs of MNF-I operations. A key objective is
for Iraq to develop and fully support its forces in order to assume
responsibility for its own security and stability.
Question. What are your views on the responsibility of the Iraqi
Government to share the increased operating and facilities costs
associated with repositioning or withdrawal of U.S. forces in
accordance with the U.S.-Iraqi SOFA?
Answer. My understanding is that under the U.S.-Iraqi Security
Agreement, there is no Iraqi responsibility to pay costs associated
with repositioning or withdrawal of U.S. forces. I believe the U.S.
Government should encourage Iraq to focus on the development and
support of its security forces.
afghanistan
Question. What is your understanding and assessment of our
strategic objectives in Afghanistan?
Answer. Our strategic objective is a stable and secure Afghanistan
in which al Qaeda and the network of insurgent groups, including the
Taliban, are incapable of seriously threatening the Afghan state and
resurrecting a safe haven for terrorism. We are a long way from
achieving this objective. If confirmed, I look forward to working with
the committee on this enormous challenge, which requires urgent and
sustained attention.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to our current
strategy in Afghanistan?
Answer. Achieving our strategic objectives in Afghanistan will
require a more integrated and comprehensive approach to security,
economic development, and governance. All of the instruments of
national power and persuasion must be harnessed in order to be
successful. It is imperative that we improve coordination and
cooperation between Afghanistan and its neighbors and that we achieve
greater unity of effort among our coalition partners, international
institutions, and the Government of Afghanistan.
Question. Do you believe that there is a need to develop a
comprehensive civil-military plan for Afghanistan, akin to that used in
Iraq?
Answer. Yes.
Question. How do you assess the contributions of North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) allies to the effort in Afghanistan, and how
do you believe that the United States can persuade these allies to
increase their efforts as the United States does so?
Answer. Afghanistan would be less secure without the contributions
and sacrifices of our NATO allies and other International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) partners. President-elect Obama and Secretary
Gates have both called for greater contributions with fewer caveats
from our NATO allies. By committing more of our own resources to the
challenge, the United States will be better positioned to persuade our
allies to do more.
Question. General David McKiernan, USA, Commander of the NATO ISAF
and Commander, U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, has identified a need for four
additional combat brigades and support units in Afghanistan.
Do you support General McKiernan's request for additional forces?
If so, would you support drawing down U.S. forces in Iraq faster in
order to meet General McKiernan's request?
Answer. President-elect Obama and Secretary Gates have both
consistently stated that they believe the deteriorating security
conditions in Afghanistan required additional U.S. and international
forces. If confirmed, I look forward to talking with them and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others to determine how DOD
can best support that request. Balancing the demand for forces between
Iraq and Afghanistan while ensuring that the military is ready for
other contingencies will be one of the Department's key challenges and,
if confirmed, I look forward to working with those in the Department
responsible for this as well as with this committee.
Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the
Department's plans for the continued rotational flow of combat brigades
and other units necessary to support operations in Iraq through 2009
and the availability of the additional combat brigades as requested by
General McKiernan?
Answer. Though I have not been briefed in detail, I understand that
the Department is preparing plans for the requirements for Iraq and
Afghanistan as currently understood. If confirmed, I will consult with
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior commanders to
examine the plans in detail as the law requires my office to do.
Question. How would the Department support combat brigade increases
in Afghanistan without extending combat brigades or redeploying combat
brigades without replacement in Iraq?
Answer. Managing the build-up of forces in Afghanistan must be
balanced with the demands in Iraq and the necessity to restore full
spectrum readiness. We have asked a great deal of our service men and
women, and I am acutely aware of the costs to them and to their
families of extended and repeated deployments.
Question. The goal for increasing the size of the Afghan National
Army (ANA) has been revised from 68,000 to approximately 134,000
soldiers.
Would you support a surge of trainers from the United States and
coalition partners into Afghanistan to accelerate the expansion of the
ANA?
Answer. Building an effective, broadly representative, and
respected ANA will require additional resources. If confirmed, I will
work with the Services, senior commanders, and our international
partners to make sure that we have the right number of trainers,
mentors, and advisors with sufficient resources to accomplish their
mission.
Question. What recommendations, if any, would you have for
encouraging or enabling our coalition partners to provide more training
team personnel to embed with ANA units?
Answer. Developing the ability of the Afghan National Security
Forces to assume the front-line responsibility of security inside
Afghanistan should be the greatest incentive for coalition partners to
provide training team personnel. We must stress to our allies the long-
term commitment of the United States to Afghanistan and the shared
responsibility NATO has to develop Afghan forces so that they can
eventually take the lead for security in Afghanistan.
Question. One of the main threats to U.S. and coalition forces in
Afghanistan comes from cross-border attacks by the Taliban and
extremist militants who find safe haven in Pakistan's border regions.
What steps in your view need to be taken to eliminate the threat
posed by Taliban and extremist militants hiding out across the
Afghanistan-Pakistan border?
Answer. Both President-elect Obama and Secretary Gates have cited
the need to eliminate the terrorist sanctuary in the border regions of
Pakistan, but there is no purely military solution. The United States
must have an integrated strategy to promote development and prevent
terrorism across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. If confirmed,
I intend to work closely with my DOD and interagency colleagues to
examine several potential components of such a strategy:
Work with the Pakistani Government to strengthen the
capacity of the Pakistani military and police to conduct
counterterrorism and counterinsurgency missions;
Encourage Pakistani political reforms in the Federally
Administered Tribal Areas to better link the border regions to
the central government with more democratic representation;
Increase non-military economic assistance and support
for education and health care; and
Improve the partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan,
and the coalition to secure the border, eliminate terrorist
camps, and reduce cross-border insurgent movement.
Question. The ANA has shown itself to be effective, well-motivated,
and respected by the Afghan people.
Would you support giving the ANA the lead in stopping cross-border
incursions, either by transferring the mission of patrolling the border
to the ANA or by bringing the Afghan Border Patrol (ABP) under the ANA?
Answer. Securing the border from cross-border incursions and
illegal smuggling is an important component of a strategy for success
in Afghanistan, but the specific command relationship between the ABP
and ANA is an area that, if confirmed, I would need to examine in
closer detail.
Question. The cultivation of poppies and trafficking of opium has
reached alarming proportions in Afghanistan. Some estimate that over 50
percent of Afghanistan's gross national product is associated with the
illegal opium trade and that Afghanistan is at risk of failing as a
nation state. Coalition strategies for countering the opium trade have
not been effective to date.
In your view, what strategy would be most effective in reducing
opium production and trafficking in Afghanistan?
Answer. Opium traffic distorts the Afghan economy, corrodes the
judicial system, and increases the incentives for corruption and
criminal violence. Countering the opium trade must include a multi-
pronged coalition and Afghan strategy, including judicial reform,
better law enforcement and intelligence sharing, and rural economic
development.
Question. What should the role of the U.S. military forces be in
the counterdrug program in Afghanistan?
What is the appropriate role for coalition nations and the larger
international community in effectively addressing the counterdrug
challenge in Afghanistan and the surrounding region?
Answer. The international community must play a greater role in
helping the Afghan Government to strengthen Afghan institutions,
including the judicial and law enforcement system, intelligence
service, and Afghan National Security Forces, so that it can better
take the lead in combating narcotics in Afghanistan.
Question. What are the main challenges facing the U.S. and
international community's reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan?
Answer. The deterioration of the security situation is the most
immediate challenge, but reconstruction and development in Afghanistan
also face more fundamental challenges. As one of the poorest countries
in the world that has suffered through more than a generation of war,
Afghanistan's development challenges are daunting. Four out of five
Afghans make their living from farming, yet widespread drought and a
crumbling agricultural infrastructure have created an opening for
illicit opium production to supplant the legal agricultural economy.
While Afghanistan has made significant strides since 2001 in health
care delivery, life expectancy is still below 45 years and more than
half of Afghan children are growth-stunted from poor nutrition and
disease. While progress has been made towards primary education in
Afghanistan, fewer than half of adult males and only one in eight
females can read, impeding the professionalization of the Afghan
Government and security forces and limiting economic growth.
Question. What would be your priorities for addressing those
challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the
interagency and international partners to help create a truly
comprehensive civil-military strategy to build the necessary foundation
for a stable and secure Afghanistan.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend for the
strategy, organizational structure, or resourcing of Provincial
Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan?
Answer. Provincial Reconstruction Teams have been critical to the
development work undertaken in Afghanistan over the past 6 years. If
confirmed, I look forward to discussing the committee's concerns and
ideas on the use of PRTs.
pakistan
Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the efforts
by the Pakistani Government to counter militant groups along the
Afghanistan-Pakistan border and to fight terrorism in general?
Answer. The Pakistani Government will, of course, be central to
defeating the terrorist and cross-border insurgent groups that threaten
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the international community. Although the
Pakistani Government has conducted a series of military operations
against militants in the border region, the area remains a sanctuary
for al Qaeda and Taliban-affiliated groups. If confirmed, I plan to
focus significant time and energy to better understand the requirements
to solve this particular challenge.
Question. In your view, is the Pakistani Government doing enough to
combat these threats? If not, what more should it be doing? What, in
your view, should be the United States' approach vis-a-vis Pakistan?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review Pakistan's most
recent efforts in detail. If confirmed, I look forward to reporting
back to the committee on my assessment of ways in which the United
States and Pakistan can work better together to combat these shared
threats.
india
Question. The recent attacks in Mumbai raise questions about what
more might be done to help India guard against and react to terrorist
incidents and underscore the fragile nature of the relationship between
India and neighboring Pakistan.
What is your view of the current state of U.S.-India military-to-
military contacts?
Answer. I understand that the U.S.-India military-to-military
relationship is quite positive and getting stronger. If confirmed,
these are areas that I hope we can work on together.
Question. What do you believe the United States should do to assist
the Indian Government in the prevention of and response to terrorist
events?
Answer. As the world's largest democracy, India is a critical
strategic partner of the United States. Both India and the United
States share an interest in preventing terrorism. If confirmed, I will
work with the State Department to carefully consider all requests for
counterterrorism assistance from India.
Question. In your view, what impact has this rise in tensions
between Pakistan and India had on the stability of the South Asia
region, generally, and on the prospects for security in Afghanistan?
Answer. India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are linked by history,
culture, language, and trade, and regional stability cannot be achieved
without the cooperation of all three. It is in America's national
interest to play a constructive role in helping defuse the recent rise
in tensions and to help derive from the tragic attacks in Mumbai an
opportunity for further cooperation between three of America's crucial
allies.
future of nato
Question. What are the greatest challenges and opportunities that
you foresee for NATO over the next 5 years?
Answer. The United States has enormous stakes in a strong, mutually
supportive NATO alliance, and both the President-elect and the
Secretary of Defense have stressed their strong desire to rebuild and
adapt transatlantic security relationships to meet 21st century
security challenges. Over the next 5 years, top-tier NATO-related
challenges include, first and foremost, achieving durable progress on
Afghanistan, while also developing a common approach toward managing
relations with Russia, improving the prospects for unity-of-action
between NATO and the European Union (EU), and finding common ground
across the alliance on emerging threats and opportunities.
Question. Do you envision further enlargement of NATO, beyond
Albania and Croatia, within the next 5 years?
Answer. The President-elect has stated that NATO enlargement should
continue so long as new candidates are democratic, peaceful, and
willing to contribute to common security. Precisely which countries and
within what applicable timeframe NATO would undertake further
enlargement are important questions which the new administration will
need to address in close consultation with Congress and our allies. It
is important that each NATO aspirant should be judged on its individual
merits and progress in implementing political, economic, and military
reforms.
Question. What more can the United States do to encourage NATO
members to develop the capabilities and provide the resources necessary
to carry out NATO missions in Afghanistan and elsewhere?
Answer. While the President-elect and Secretary Gates have both
stressed the need for the United States to invest more in its non-
military instruments of national power, many of our NATO allies are
underperforming in terms of their own investments in defense
capabilities, especially when it comes to deployable expeditionary
forces. Forging a shared strategic view of the emerging threat
environment and updating NATO's strategic concept will be critical to
encouraging NATO allies to develop the military capabilities needed now
and in the future.
nato-eu relations
Question. A challenge facing the United States and NATO in the
months and years ahead is the EU's implementation of its European
Security and Defense Policy (ESDP), that is, an EU capability to
conduct military operations in response to international crises in
cases where ``NATO as a whole is not engaged.'' At the same time, NATO
and EU are working alongside each other in addressing a number of
common security challenges, including police training in Afghanistan
and crisis management in Kosovo.
Are you concerned that the EU could assume a competing role, rather
than a complementary role, to the NATO alliance?
Answer. Ideally, the NATO-EU relationship should be complementary.
In the defense realm, NATO is going to be the preferred vehicle for
negotiation whenever our European allies view the U.S. role as
indispensable in responding to a shared security challenge. At the same
time, the EU's great strength lies is its ability to project economic
power and political influence in a way that helps to attenuate
conflict. The Obama administration will need to look carefully at the
relationship to ensure that competition is kept to a minimum. Moreover,
because both NATO and the EU draw largely from a single pool of
national capabilities, cooperation will be extremely important.
Question. What steps do you believe that the United States and NATO
must take to ensure that ESDP is implemented in a way that strengthens
the alliance?
Answer. Over the past several years, ESDP-related activities have
grown in number and diversity, to include the EU's recently launched
anti-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia. Given these trends,
high priority should be given to promoting good communications and a
common operating picture between the United States, its allies and
partners, and EU-sponsored operations.
Question. What is your view of the future of NATO-EU relations in
areas relating to security, defense, and crisis management?
Answer. Both NATO and the EU have important roles to play in
meeting future security, defense, and crisis management challenges. As
noted above, from an alliance perspective, it will be important for DOD
and U.S. interagency partners to take a clear-eyed view of the entire
range of current EU-activities--from civilian policing, to military,
border control or other missions--to identify both areas of duplication
and where closer coordination may be required.
engagement policy
Question. One of the central pillars of our 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,
humanitarian de-mining operations, and similar activities are used to
achieve this goal.
If confirmed, would you support continued engagement activities of
the U.S. military? If yes, would you advocate for expanding U.S.
military-to-military engagement? If not, why not?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support continued U.S. military-to-
military engagement. I believe the current and emerging security
environment will require robust engagement with the militaries of our
partners and allies around the world, and building productive
relationships with many states in which our past military-to-military
engagements have been limited or absent entirely.
Question. Do you believe that these activities contribute to U.S.
national security?
Answer. Yes. I believe military-to-military contacts contribute to
U.S. national security in a variety of important ways. Such activities
can build capacity among partner nations to participate in coalition
operations to counterterrorism and other transnational threats,
potentially relieving stress on U.S. forces. They can help harmonize
nations' views of common security challenges. Military-to-military
activities can also help sustain investments made by other U.S.
assistance programs. Finally, when performed effectively, military-to-
military activities should show by example how military forces can act
effectively while respecting human rights and civilian control. If
confirmed, I intend to help ensure that our engagement activities
remain at the forefront of our planning and strategy development
processes.
stability operations
Question. Experience in Iraq has underscored the importance of
planning and training to prepare for the conduct and support of
stability operations in post-conflict situations.
In your view, what is the appropriate relationship between DOD and
other departments of government in the planning and conduct of
stability and support operations in a post-conflict environment?
Answer. In stabilizing post-conflict environments, success depends
upon the integrated efforts of both civilian and military organizations
in all phases of an operation, from planning through execution.
Ideally, civilian agencies should lead in areas such as fostering
political reconciliation, building accountable institutions of
government, restoring public infrastructure, and reviving economic
activity. Military forces, in turn, are best suited to help provide a
safe and secure environment and to assist in building accountable armed
forces. The U.S. military has learned many hard lessons in this area
over the past several years, and if confirmed, I will work closely with
Secretary Gates, military leaders, and other U.S. Government agencies
to ensure we have the capabilities we need to execute these challenging
missions.
Question. What lessons do you believe the Department has learned
from the experience of planning and training for post-conflict
operations in Iraq?
Answer. One of the most important lessons is that 21st century
conflict will occur along the entire spectrum of conflict. That is, the
military cannot be prepared only for combat. They must plan and train
with their civilian counterparts and be prepared to operate effectively
in all phases of conflict. That said, the military should also be
prepared to undertake critical non-military tasks when civilian
agencies cannot operate effectively, either due to the security
environment or due to lack of capacity. Indeed, the need for greater
capabilities and capacity in civilian agencies has been a recurring
lesson for the entire government. Finally, we need to obtain better
situational awareness of the underlying drivers--political, cultural,
and economic--instability and conflict so as to ensure that our actions
will meet our objectives and not trigger unintended consequences.
building partner capacity
Question. In the past few years, Congress has provided DOD a number
of temporary authorities to provide security assistance to partner
nations. These include the global train-and-equip authority (section
1206) and the security and stabilization assistance authority (section
1207).
In your view, what are our strategic objectives in building the
capacities of partner nations?
Answer. One of the greatest threats to international security is
the violence that is sparked when human security needs are not met by
governments. This creates space for terrorists, insurgents, and other
spoilers to operate and, as the September 11 attacks demonstrated, to
threaten the United States and its allies. The goal, therefore, is to
close this space through efforts that strengthen bilateral
relationships; increase U.S. access and influence; promote militaries
that respect human rights; civilian control of the military and the
rule of law; and build capacity for common security objectives. In
addition to promoting regional and global security, enhanced partner
capacity reduces the risk of future military interventions and reduces
stress on U.S. Armed Forces.
Question. What is your understanding of the purpose of the section
1206 global train-and-equip authority? What is your assessment of the
implementation of the global train-and-equip program?
Answer. My understanding is that section 1206 is intended to
provide a quicker, more targeted ability to build partner capacity in
critical regions than the more traditional routes of security
assistance. Under law, it has two discrete purposes: to build a
partner's national military or maritime security forces' capacity
either to (1) conduct counterterrorism operations or (2) conduct or
support stability operations where U.S. forces are participating. I
have not been involved in section 1206 implementation, but I understand
that the program has enthusiastic support from embassies and combatant
commands and reflects a close collaboration between State and DOD who
work together in a ``dual key'' process to approve funding allocations.
If confirmed, I will assist the Secretary in fully assessing how well
this authority is working and whether it meets congressional intent.
Question. What is the relationship of the global train-and-equip
authority to other security assistance authorities, such as
counternarcotics assistance and foreign military financing? What should
be done to ensure that the global train-and-equip authority does not
duplicate the efforts of these other assistance programs?
Answer. The Departments of State and Defense need to work together
very closely to avoid duplication of effort among these important
activities. The Global Train-and-Equip authority fills two specific
legal requirements (to build capacity for counterterrorism and for
stability operations where U.S. forces are a participant). Foreign
Military Financing serves a broader set of diplomatic and foreign
policy objectives such as improving bilateral relations, encouraging
behavior in the U.S. interest, increasing access and influence, and
building capacity particularly where host-nation and U.S. interests
align.
Counternarcotics authorities are focused on providing DOD the
ability to support U.S. or other government efforts to counter the flow
of narcotics globally. If confirmed, I will support any interagency
assessment of potential overlaps and work to ensure DOD programs are
focused on supporting U.S. and other agency efforts to counter the flow
of narcotics.
Question. What is your understanding of the purpose of the security
and stabilization assistance authority (section 1207)? What is your
assessment of how this authority has been utilized?
Answer. Section 1207 was, as I understand it, designed to help the
State Department's Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization to
become operational. It facilitates security, stabilization, and
reconstruction missions--bringing civilian expertise to bear alongside
or in lieu of U.S. military forces. If confirmed, I will monitor this
effort closely.
Question. Secretary Gates has called for an expansion of the
Government's resources devoted to instruments of non-military soft
power--civilian expertise in reconstruction, development, and
governance.
Do you agree with Secretary Gates that there is a need to expand
the Government's resources devoted to the ability of civilian
departments and agencies to engage, assist, and communicate with
partner nations?
Answer. Absolutely. The President-elect and Secretary Gates have
both made clear their strong desire to see more robust non-military
instruments of national power. Congress has the authority to expand
significantly the Government's soft-power resources and U.S. civilian
agency capacity. If confirmed, I will certainly make it my priority to
assist in this effort.
Question. In your view, what should be the role of the DOD, vis-a-
vis other civilian departments and agencies of the Government, in the
exercise of instruments of soft power?
Answer. Generally, the Department's role should be to support, not
lead, in the exercise of soft power. But DOD plays a vital role in
helping to promote--through the full gamut of planning effort,
exchanges, exercises, operations, and bilateral defense relationships--
the conditions that enable these instruments to be applied with maximum
beneficial effect.
Question. Which department should have the lead in setting U.S.
Government security assistance policy, the Department of State or DOD?
Answer. The State Department should retain the overall lead in
setting our foreign policy and foreign assistance priorities broadly,
including security assistance. Still, DOD has critical roles to play in
informing, developing, and implementing agreed programs in an effective
and timely manner. Strong and close working relationships between DOD,
the State Department, and other U.S. agencies are critical.
russia
Question. What is your assessment of the current U.S.-Russian
security relationship?
Answer. Russia's more aggressive external behavior--combined with
its retreat from democracy and openness at home--is a source of deep
concern. Of greatest concern, clearly, is a growing pattern of Russian
pressures on, and, in some cases, aggressive action against the
sovereign states located on its immediate borders, most notably
Georgia. Russia's standing in the international community has declined
as a result of its threatening behavior, and the U.S.-Russia security
relationship has become much more difficult to manage as a result. That
said, as Secretary Gates has noted, Russia's military capacity remains
a shadow of its Soviet predecessor, and a combination of adverse
economic and demographic trends are not likely to change that picture
dramatically in the foreseeable future.
Question. What do you believe are appropriate objectives for U.S.-
Russian security relations, and what do you believe are the areas of
common interest between the United States and Russia in the security
sphere?
Answer. As the President-elect has stressed, it is in no one's
interest to see our relations return to a Cold War posture. Our
interests clearly overlap in areas such as non-proliferation,
counterterrorism, Afghanistan, and counternarcotics. Ultimately, I
believe we should work to create the conditions that make clear that
stable, democratic neighbors on Russia's borders are in Russia's own
interest. We need to look at ways of enhancing cooperation in areas
such as preventing WMD terrorism, where coordinated action is critical.
Question. In your view, what policy steps should DOD take to
improve relations with Russia? For instance, would you support
increased military-to-military relations and exchanges with Russia?
Answer. Yes, when it is in our interest to do so, and in close
coordination with the State Department. If confirmed, I will make it a
priority to assess areas where greater military-to-military and other
exchanges with Russia might be beneficial. It is certainly important
for U.S. security interests that we work to keep our lines of
communication open.
Question. Would you support any joint development or other programs
with Russia?
Answer. I am not prepared at this stage to offer any specific
recommendations on this issue. If confirmed, I will study the issue
closely and consult with interested members of this committee.
iran
Question. Do you believe it would be in the United States' interest
to engage Iran in a direct dialogue to promote regional stability and
security?
Answer. I support the President-elect's view that the United States
should be willing to engage with all nations, friend or foe, and with
careful preparation, to pursue direct diplomacy. Furthermore, I fully
support the President-elect's view that we should not take any options
off the table, but that we should employ tough diplomacy, backed by
real incentives and pressures, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons and end their support of terrorist organizations such as
Hezbollah.
Question. Do you believe it would be in the United States' interest
to engage Iran in a direct dialogue regarding the narcotics problem in
Afghanistan?
Answer. This issue should be examined as part of a broader
interagency policy review on Iran.
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? Specifically, what actions do you believe that
DOD should undertake to support diplomatic efforts to dissuade Iran
from pursuing a nuclear weapon?
Answer. The United States has not yet brought to bear all the
elements of statecraft to deal with this issue. The use of tough,
direct, and principled diplomacy, working with our other international
partners and allies, can increase the chances of making useful inroads.
Setting the conditions in the region is critical. DOD should therefore
continue developing the ongoing multilateral cooperation with the Gulf
Cooperation Council countries and other allies in the region, in
support of the State Department's diplomatic initiatives.
syria
Question. Do you believe it would be in the United States' interest
to engage Syria in a direct dialogue regarding regional security and
stability?
Answer. The Department of State should take the lead on any
diplomatic initiatives with Syria. I agree with the President-elect's
view that Syria is best engaged in the context of an aggressive
regional diplomatic approach on the question of Iraq. Syria has a great
and growing interest in ensuring that the large population of Iraqi
refugees within its borders eventually returns home. I would hope that
this topic would be examined when the new administration comes into
office.
saudi arabia
Question. What is your assessment of the current state of U.S.-
Saudi bilateral relations and defense cooperation activities? What
changes, if any, would you recommend in this relationship?
Answer. Saudi Arabia is an important ally of the United States. The
United States and Saudi Arabia have a close defense relationship and
extensive security assistance programs. If confirmed, I look forward to
assessing ongoing cooperation activities and identifying ways to
sustain this important relationship.
Question. What is the future of U.S.-Saudi security cooperation,
including training programs such as the Saudi Arabian National Guard
Modernization program? What other types of military or security
cooperation do you envision advocating?
Answer. I have not been briefed on the details of current or
prospective security cooperation programs with the Kingdom. If
confirmed, I will consider and evaluate the full range of possible
initiatives to support this relationship.
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. China's sustained rise over the past decade is due in no
small measure to its progressive integration into the global economy.
For this reason, I believe that the United States and other countries
can have positive influence on the direction of China's development.
Indeed, no country has done more to assist, facilitate, and encourage
China's development and international integration than the United
States. However, U.S. policy and actions, or those of any country or
group of countries, cannot alone determine China's future. Ultimately,
it is the Chinese who will determine China's future.
Furthermore, as Secretary Gates noted in a recent speech, ``China
is a competitor but not necessarily an adversary, and there is no
reason for China to become an adversary.'' If confirmed, I would seek
to encourage China to play a responsible and constructive role in the
international community and to encourage Beijing to view this role as
the best choice for their own strategic interests, as well as ours.
Question. What do you see as the impact of the current global
economic crisis on stability and security in China specifically, and in
the region generally?
Answer. It is too early to gauge the full impact of the global
economic crisis upon China and stability in the Asia-Pacific region
more broadly. But those who manage defense and security issues must be
attentive to the security-economic interconnections and be prepared to
work together with colleagues in economic and diplomatic fields, both
to guard against negative outcomes and also to seek positive ways
forward where they may exist.
Question. What do you believe are China's political-military
objectives regarding Taiwan, the Asia-Pacific region, and globally?
Answer. Broadly, the overriding objectives of China's leaders
appear to be to ensure the continued rule of the Chinese Communist
Party, continue China's economic development, maintain the country's
domestic political stability, defend China's national sovereignty and
territorial integrity, and secure China's status as a great power.
Within this context, preventing any moves by Taipei toward de jure
independence is a key part of Beijing's strategy. Within each dimension
there lies a mix of important challenges and opportunities for the
United States that will continue to deserve priority attention.
Question. What is your view of the U.S. policy of selling military
equipment to Taiwan, despite China's objections?
Answer. U.S. policy on arms sales to Taiwan is based on the 1979
Taiwan Relations Act, which provides that the United States will make
available to Taiwan defense articles and services in such quantities as
may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense
capability. That policy has contributed to peace and stability in the
region for nearly 30 years and is consistent with the longstanding U.S.
calls for peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue in a manner
acceptable to the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. If
confirmed, I would work closely with Congress and our interagency
partners to ensure the continued effective implementation of this
longstanding policy.
Question. How do you believe the United States should respond to
China's military modernization program?
Answer. The pace and scale of Chinese modernization, coupled with
the lack of transparency surrounding both capabilities and intentions,
are a source of concern for the United States as well as for its allies
and the region more broadly. An appropriate U.S. response would include
efforts to fully comprehend the future direction of China's programs,
active engagement to reduce the potential for miscalculations and to
manage unwanted competition, and, finally, defense preparedness to
ensure we retain our edge in areas that are critical to achieving
specific operational objectives. If confirmed, I would seek to ensure
that DOD places a high priority on this issue and would consult closely
with committee members on appropriate U.S. responses.
Question. In its 2008 Report to Congress, the U.S.-China Economic
and Security Review Commission concluded that China is asserting
various excessive claims of sovereignty relating to maritime, air, and
space, and also concluded that these claims have negative implications
for the United States. Further, the Commission concluded that more must
be done to ensure that China's rapid expansion of nuclear power does
not result in the decline in safety or an increase in proliferation of
nuclear weapons technology or expertise.
How should the United States respond to excessive claims of
sovereignty by China?
Answer. I appreciate that China's claims of sovereignty are
controversial and detract from regional stability. The United States
has a longstanding policy on Freedom of Navigation and does not
acquiesce to excessive maritime claims that restrict navigation and
over-flight rights under customary international law, as reflected in
the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. If confirmed, I would work
closely with the Department of State, and as appropriate with other
countries that have a stake in this issue, on developing a common
understanding of and collaborative approaches to these issues.
Question. What is the role of DOD in helping to ensure that China
does not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons or weapons
technology in the region?
Answer. DOD should continue to support interagency efforts to
prevent the proliferation of WMD and delivery systems, along with
related technologies and materials, including with respect to China.
Question. Our current military-to-military relations with the
Chinese have been described by defense officials as ``modest.''
Do you believe that we should make any changes in the quality or
quantity of our military relations with China? If so, what changes and
why?
Answer. More can be done to improve the U.S.-China military-to-
military relationship, both in terms of the quality and the quantity of
exchanges between the Armed Forces of our countries. If confirmed, I
would look closely at exchanges with the Chinese armed forces at all
levels and across a range of issues, including the recently opened
dialogue on nuclear policy and strategy, which I understand is a
priority for Secretary Gates. If confirmed, I look to engage in a wide
range of areas where we can encourage China to act responsibly both
regionally and globally.
Question. Is legislation needed to effect these changes?
Answer. I do not know. If confirmed, I would carefully monitor
developments in the U.S.-China military-to-military relationship and
consult with Congress on these issues.
north korea
Question. 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 conventional military, WMD and proliferation
activities pose a significant threat to regional peace and security.
Working with our allies and other key parties in the region on
diplomatic solutions is an essential element in addressing the totality
of the security problem on the Korean peninsula. Likewise, it is
essential to maintain the capabilities to deter North Korea's military
threat and proliferation activities. Our strong alliances with South
Korea and Japan remain instrumental in this regard. These alliances
help maintain the peace and stability that has allowed the wider East
Asia region and U.S. interests there to prosper over the past several
decades. If confirmed, I would work with my military and interagency
colleagues to strengthen these alliance relationships and U.S. efforts
to address the problems posed by North Korea. The United States must
continue to provide strong leadership to ensure the full implementation
of the recent agreement in North Korea. North Korea must dismantle its
nuclear weapons program and confirm the full extent of its past
plutonium production and uranium enrichment activities.
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? In your view, how
should DOD forces be sized, trained, and equipped to deal with this
threat?
Answer. North Korea missile and WMD programs pose a serious threat
to the United States, the rest of Asia, and the world. Strong
alliances, regional partnerships and forward military presence remain
key means to deal with these threats. U.S. national capabilities are
also an essential element in deterring the threat and defending our
interests. Additionally, in the event of a DPRK collapse, the U.S.
would need the capabilities to work closely with the Republic of Korea
(ROK) to rapidly and safely secure nuclear weapons and materials. If
confirmed, I would work closely with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, senior military commanders and members of this committee to
ensure that the U.S. military has the capabilities needed to deal with
the range of threats North Korea poses and that our contingency
planning is adaptive and responsive.
Question. In your view, what should be done to maintain or
strengthen deterrence on the Korean peninsula?
Answer. Maintaining a strong alliance between the United States and
the ROK remains central to effective deterrence on the Peninsula. Our
alliance with Japan is likewise a critical factor in security and
stability in the wider Asia-Pacific region, including on the Peninsula.
If confirmed, I would work hard to continue strengthening these
alliances.
Question. With recent speculation regarding the possible poor
health of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, what do you believe the
United States should be doing now to prepare for the possibility of a
change in leadership in North Korea?
Answer. The unexpected, with its attendant opportunities and
challenges, can take different forms, including a sudden health crisis
or change in leadership in North Korea. If confirmed, I look forward to
consulting with this committee about the range of potential challenges
we face and ensuring that we are capable of addressing these
contingencies. I believe our focus should be ensuring we are ready to
maintain stability in the region, defend the ROK, and prevent the
proliferation of WMD or other dangerous technologies from the DPRK.
Question. If confirmed, would you undertake a review of the status
of the efforts to obtain from North Korea remains of U.S. service men
missing from the Korean War and specifically address under what
circumstances such efforts could resume?
Answer. Yes.
republic of 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 and assessment of the current U.S.
security relationship with the ROK?
Answer. Over a half-century old, the alliance remains strong and
reflects the common values and aspirations of the Korean and American
people. The alliance continues to ensure peace and stability on the
Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia. As the regional security
environment has evolved over time, the U.S. and the ROK have made great
strides in transforming their collective deterrent and defense posture.
In particular, the ROK has made major strides in developing its defense
capabilities, commensurate with its economic development. Consequently,
the Alliance remains relevant and capable both for deterring aggression
on the peninsula and for addressing regional and global security
issues. If confirmed, I would work to continue the positive development
of this key U.S. security relationship and would hope to work with the
committee to that end.
Question. If confirmed, what measures, if any, would you take to
improve the U.S.-ROK security relationship?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with Congress, the Joint Staff,
and others to complete the realignment of U.S. forces on the Korean
peninsula and return facilities our forces no longer require. I would
also work to ensure that our command and control relationships with
Korea and our contingency plans remain appropriate to the situations we
face. Additionally, I believe it is important to ensure the U.S. and
Korean publics continue to understand the enduring mutual benefits
derived from this alliance.
Question. What is your view regarding the planned timing of the
transfer of wartime operational command to the ROK?
Answer. As Secretary Gates said following his meeting with the
Korean Minister of Defense last October, the ROK military forces and
U.S. forces are on track to complete the alliance agreement to
transition wartime operational control in 2012. This effort will enable
the ROK military to take the lead role in the defense of Korea. If
confirmed, I will work with the Secretary, this committee, and others
to ensure that the important transition in command relationships is
carried out in a manner that strengthens deterrence and maintains a
fully capable U.S.-ROK combined defense posture on the Korean
Peninsula.
u.s. africa command
Question. On October 1, 2008, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) was
authorized Unified Command status. The creation of AFRICOM has raised
questions about the role of DOD in U.S. development efforts.
What do you see as the role of AFRICOM in U.S. African policy and
in economic development and humanitarian engagement?
Answer. The Department of State and USAID lead U.S. foreign policy
and development engagements abroad, to include Africa. President-elect
Obama has argued that AFRICOM should promote a more united and
coordinated engagement plan for Africa. Ideally, AFRICOM's supporting
role should be to promote national security objectives by working with
African states, regional organizations, and the African Union to
enhance stability and security in the region. In particular, AFRICOM
should work to forge closer U.S. military-to-military relations with
states on the African continent. If confirmed, my intent would be to
work closely with State, USAID, other agencies and Congress to ensure
that AFRICOM's roles and missions support U.S. foreign policy and
national security objectives and are transparent.
Question. AFRICOM's leadership has promoted the concept of ``active
security,'' with an increased emphasis on theater security cooperation,
as a guiding principle of the command.
Are DOD's current security assistance authorities and funding
levels adequate to fulfill AFRICOM's mission? If yes, please explain.
If not, why not?
Answer. I am not in a position to render a definitive judgment on
this important question. I will, if confirmed, study the matter and, if
changes are needed, provide views to Secretary Gates and the members of
this committee.
Question. The Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA)
mission appears to have shifted from counterterrorism to civil and
humanitarian affairs since its inception in 2002.
What do you see as CJTF-HOA's primary mission?
Answer. It is my understanding that the CJTF-HOA is designed to
support the State Department's and DOD's security strategy in Africa to
counterterrorism, in part through building partner capacity and
promoting regional stability.
Question. Do you believe it should continue as an enduring
presence? If yes, what recommendations might you make regarding
manpower, resources, and activities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Joint Staff and
AFRICOM to assess the question of CJTF-HOA's duration and to ensure
that U.S. security interests in the region are supported by an
appropriate, right-sized and properly resourced posture to promote
long-term stability in the region.
darfur
Question. More than 4 years after then-Secretary of State Powell's
declaration that genocide was taking place in Darfur, the death toll
has climbed still higher, the camps for displaced persons have grown
more crowded, and humanitarian access to help people in need has
diminished in many areas. The United Nations has pledged to send 26,000
peacekeepers to Darfur, but has sent less than half that number and has
not provided them with the helicopters, vehicles, and other tools to
fulfill their mission.
What do you believe is the appropriate role of the United States
and, in particular, DOD, in assisting with the deployment and mobility
of this peacekeeping mission, given that its creation was largely a
U.S. initiative and today is largely funded by a variety of U.S.
assistance programs?
Answer. I agree with the President-elect's statements about the
need to bring pressure to bear on Sudanese authorities in Khartoum to
halt the genocide in Darfur. The U.N. has two major peacekeeping
missions in Sudan that seek to create a secure environment conducive to
a political settlement of the cultural, ethnic, and religious
differences that divide Sudan's periphery from the center. I understand
that the Departments of State and Defense have supported the deployment
of African contingents to the U.N. Darfur mission by providing
personnel, training, equipment, logistical expertise, deployment
assistance, and, when required, airlift. If confirmed, I will look
closely at what additional support DOD could reasonably provide in this
area if so directed by the President-elect.
united nations peacekeeping
Question. DOD has provided logistics, communications, and
headquarters staff to a variety of U.N. peacekeeping missions over the
past several years.
In your view, what support, if any, should DOD provide to U.N.
peacekeeping missions?
Answer. From Haiti to Liberia, Lebanon and other venues, the United
States has important stakes in the success of U.N. peacekeeping
operations. In addition to logistics, communications, and headquarters
staff-related assistance, the issue of DOD help for U.N. field missions
should be studied closely and in close consultation with other U.N.
member states.
Question. The United States sponsored along with its partners in
the G-8 an initiative to train 75,000 peacekeepers by 2010. This
program, known as the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI), is run
by the Department of State. DOD has provided varying degrees of support
since the program's inception.
In your view, what is the appropriate role of DOD in this program
and, more generally, in the training of peacekeepers?
Answer. DOD plays an important role in bringing its expertise to
bear in the training and equipping of peacekeeping units. DOD
collaboration with State is important to successfully identifying and
vetting viable partners, analyzing indigenous capacities, developing
sustainable train-the-trainer programs, and promoting self-sufficiency
in this critical area so that more nations can more effectively
contribute to the increasing demand for skilled peacekeepers around the
world.
Question. As the GPOI program approaches its scheduled end date
(i.e. 2010), would you support or oppose an extension of the program
and its mandate? Please explain.
Answer. President-elect Obama has stated his support for continued
funding for GPOI. In general, I believe the United States has a strong
interest in effective training that expands the pool of available
peacekeepers worldwide, including those with whom we may need to
operate jointly. If confirmed, my intent would be to work closely with
State Department colleagues as well as Members of Congress to ensure
GPOI supports the President-elect's objectives in this area.
somalia
Question. In your view, what should be the U.S. policy towards
Somalia and what do you believe to be the appropriate role of DOD in
support of that policy?
Answer. Somalia's political turmoil and violence pose the continued
specter of humanitarian suffering as well as offering a sanctuary to
violent extremists and, more recently, a haven for pirates. Instability
in Somalia is a threat to the region and potentially to the United
States and our allies. If confirmed, I will work with the interagency
to develop a coordinated U.S. national security policy toward Africa
that addresses the U.S. strategic interests in the Horn of Africa, and
to determine how DOD can and should best support this policy.
combating terrorism
Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the
Department's comprehensive strategy for combating terrorism, both at
home and abroad?
Answer. As I understand it, the Department's strategy for combating
terrorism has three primary elements: protecting the homeland,
disrupting and attacking terrorist networks, and countering ideological
support for terrorism. The strategy includes indirect approaches aimed
at building the capacity of partner governments and their security
forces as well as direct approaches to defeat terrorist networks.
Consistent with existing law, the Department's role within the United
States is limited to providing support to civil authorities.
I believe the United States needs a more comprehensive strategy for
combating terrorism--an integrated whole-of-government effort that
brings all elements of national power to bear effectively against this
threat and fully engages allies and international organizations. If
confirmed, I will work with the Chairman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
the combatant commanders, and my interagency colleagues to undertake a
review and assessment of our strategy to ensure it meets the goals of
the President-elect and the Secretary of Defense.
Question. How can the Department best structure itself to ensure
that all forms of terrorism are effectively confronted?
Answer. I am not in a position to recommend changes in structure
for this specific problem-set at this time. If confirmed, I look
forward to evaluating the Department's structure vis-a-vis a whole-of-
government strategy as discussed above and will do my utmost to ensure
that we are organized properly to combat all forms of terrorism.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the Defense
Intelligence Community to ensure optimal support to combating terrorism
and other homeland security efforts?
Answer. Timely and accurate intelligence is a vital part of U.S.
efforts against terrorism. If confirmed, I will continue the close
relationship Policy has with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence and the Intelligence Community to ensure intelligence and
operations are mutually supportive.
Question. Are there steps the Department should take to better
coordinate its efforts to combat terrorism with those of other Federal
agencies?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I look forward to collaborating with
members of the National Security Council, National Counterterrorism
Center, and others in a whole-of-government approach to combating
terrorism.
Question. The Department and Intelligence Community have determined
that some terrorist organizations are beginning to rely more heavily on
producing and trafficking narcotics to fund their operations.
Do you believe DOD should have the lead for the U.S. Government's
efforts to combat the nexus between narcotics and terrorism? If not,
who should have the lead?
Answer. The nexus between narcotics and terrorism is a serious
challenge. This requires an integrated interagency approach, of which
DOD is an integral part. DOD brings important tools and global
capabilities to interagency efforts to counter networks that support
both terrorist and international criminal organizations. If confirmed,
I will review the DOD role in combating this nexus and coordinate with
the other elements of the U.S. Government to determine the best way
ahead.
war on drugs
Question. DOD serves as the single lead agency for the detection
and monitoring of aerial and maritime foreign shipments of drugs
flowing toward the United States.
What is your assessment of the ongoing efforts of the United States
to significantly reduce the amount of drugs illegally entering into our
Nation?
Answer. Drug trafficking--and the increasing link to terrorism in
many places--is a formidable threat that challenges our Nation as well
as our friends such as Mexico and Afghanistan. Drug traffickers can
acquire the latest technology and corrupt governments around the world
facilitate the trade. Although we have made significant progress in
coordinating efforts across multiple agencies to counter this threat,
there is more to be done. If confirmed, I will work with my interagency
colleagues to assess the U.S. Government's efforts to date and craft a
strategic way forward.
Question. In your view, what is the appropriate role of DOD in U.S.
counterdrug efforts?
Answer. The Department's global focus, organization, capabilities,
and its ability to act as an honest broker complement law enforcement
goals and make it an effective actor in counterdrug efforts. DOD brings
important tools and global capabilities to interagency efforts to
counter both terrorist and international criminal networks.
Question. The international community has detected a new narcotics
trafficking route from Columbia to Europe via West Africa.
In your view, what should be the role of the United States in
countering the flow of narcotics to nations other than the United
States?
Answer. Clearly the transnational flow of narcotics is a global
issue and cannot be addressed separately by individual nations around
the world. The United States should work with allies and international
organizations to counter the trans-national flow of narcotics through
coordinated and strategic civil-military efforts.
colombia
Question. Success in suppressing violence in Colombia has been
credited to U.S. assistance to support Plan Colombia and to the growth
of the Colombian economy, which spread wealth to a larger portion of
the population. Over the past 2 years, there has been a debate about
the most effective balance of U.S. assistance to continue to build on
this success. Much of the U.S. assistance to Colombia over the past 5
years would be characterized as hard-side security assistance (such as
weapons, aircraft, and necessary training), but some argue hard-side
assistance should now be decreased significantly and a more robust
development plan should be implemented.
In your view, what is the most appropriate strategy for U.S.
engagement (including ``soft'' support) vis-a-vis Colombia?
Answer. In principle, where a threat has been diminished, external
support should be able to transition from a heavily military posture to
a greater focus on promoting enduring stability through soft-power
engagement. Congress has already begun a phased reduction of assistance
reflecting their assessment that Colombian security forces are capable
of pressing rebels and paramilitary groups to demobilize. If confirmed,
I will work with my interagency colleagues--and the Colombians--to
assess the progress of Plan Colombia and support a comprehensive
civilian-military strategy for enduring stability.
space posture review
Question. If confirmed, what role will you play in the Space
Posture Review?
Answer. The Space Posture Review is a joint review to be conducted
by the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence
intended to clarify the national security space policy and strategy of
the United States. In this regard, if I am confirmed, I will play a
leading role in working with the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence and others to conduct the review and respond to the
congressional tasking.
nuclear posture review
Question. If confirmed, what role will you play in the NPR?
Answer. If confirmed as USD(P), I would oversee the NPR. I consider
this basket of issues one of the most important long-term challenges we
face--how to support the President-elect's ultimate goal of eliminating
nuclear weapons worldwide while ensuring that America retains a robust
nuclear deterrent that is sufficient to the threats we face. I would
expect to engage other senior officials in DOD, as well as officials in
the Departments of Energy and State, in this review and to consult
fully with members of this committee.
nuclear weapons council
Question. The USD(P) is a member of the Nuclear Weapons Council
(NWC). What are the significant issues that the NWC should/will take up
in the coming years?
Answer. In my view, the most important immediate issue before the
NWC is ensuring a credible U.S. nuclear deterrent that is safe, secure,
and reliable. In the near term, this includes sustaining a viable
nuclear stockpile and a weapons complex capable of supporting the
stockpile, both of which are appropriately sized for the 21st century.
Question. Do you believe that the NWC should have a role in
addressing lapses in attention to nuclear matters, which have resulted
in a number of serious problems, particularly in the Air Force?
Answer. The NWC has oversight for a variety of matters, including
nuclear safety, security, and control issues. I believe we must demand
the highest standards of stewardship for nuclear weapons. If confirmed,
I will give these important responsibilities the attention they deserve
through my participation on the NWC as well as other related fora.
Question. If confirmed, would you commit to active personal
participation in NWC matters?
Answer. Yes.
cooperative threat reduction program
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., DOD, the State Department, and the Department of Energy?
Answer. The President-elect has expressed his concern about the
need to break bureaucratic logjams that have slowed the progress of CTR
and other threat reduction programs, and if confirmed, I will give this
matter the urgent attention it deserves.
Question. The CTR program was recently expanded to geographic areas
outside the former Soviet Union.
What, in your view, are the key proliferation concerns that CTR
should address outside the former Soviet Union? Please explain.
Answer. The congressional initiative to expand the geographic reach
of the Nunn-Lugar CTR program beyond the former Soviet Union strikes me
as an important step toward reducing WMD threats and building global
partnerships. I am aware that recent bipartisan reports, including the
report from the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass
Destruction, Proliferation and Terrorism, have stressed the importance
of reducing nuclear threats wherever possible and highlight
bioterrorism as a key proliferation concern demanding greater
attention. If confirmed, I will work closely with Congress, other U.S.
Government agencies, and global partners to strengthen our efforts to
prevent WMD proliferation and terrorism.
Question. CTR has completed or will soon complete the bulk of the
scheduled work with Russia.
What, in your view, is the next step in the U.S.-Russia CTR
program?
Answer. I anticipate that our CTR programs in Russia will remain a
high priority for the new administration. The Nunn-Lugar CTR program
represents an important and very successful relationship between our
two countries which has endured even as difficulties have grown in
other aspects of our relations. If confirmed, I will explore expanding
this relationship and the capabilities built through CTR for mutually
beneficial purposes to reduce the risks of WMD proliferation and
terrorism outside of Russia.
united nations convention on the law of the sea
Question. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) is currently pending in the Senate.
What are your views on U.S. accession to UNCLOS?
Answer. Like the President-elect and the current Secretary of
Defense, I strongly support U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea
Convention. The United States should be at the forefront of promoting
the rule of law, including in the world's oceans; by becoming a party
to the Convention we send a clear signal to all nations that we are
committed to advancing the rule of law at sea. Additionally under the
Convention, we provide the firmest possible legal foundation for the
navigational rights and freedoms needed to project power, reassure
friends and deter adversaries, respond to crises, sustain combat forces
in the field, and secure sea and air lines of communication that
underpin international trade and our own economic prosperity.
Question. From a national security standpoint, what do you see as
the advantages and disadvantages to being a party to UNCLOS?
Answer. Joining the Convention will give the United States a seat
at the table when rights vital to our national interests are debated
and interpreted, including the maritime mobility of our Armed Forces
worldwide. The navigation and overflight rights and high seas freedoms
codified in the Convention are essential for the global mobility of our
Armed Forces and the sustainment of our combat forces overseas. America
has more to gain from legal certainty and public order in the world's
oceans than any other country. More than 150 nations are parties to the
Convention. By becoming a party, the United States will be better
positioned to work with foreign air forces, navies, and coast guards to
cooperatively address the full spectrum of 21st century security
challenges.
Question. In your view, is customary international law alone
sufficient to safeguard U.S. navigational and overflight rights and
freedoms worldwide?
Answer. I am not a legal expert, but from what I have learned from
those who are, customary international law alone is not sufficient to
safeguard U.S. navigational and overflight rights and freedoms. U.S.
assertions of rights under customary international law carry less
weight with other states than do binding treaty obligations. By its
very nature, customary international law is less certain than treaties,
as it is subject to the influence of changing state practice. If the
United States remains outside the Convention, it will not be best
positioned to interpret, apply, and protect the rights and freedoms
contained in the Convention.
bilateral defense trade cooperation agreements
Question. Defense trade cooperation agreements between the United
States and the United Kingdom and between the United States and
Australia are currently pending before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee.
What are your views on the U.S.-UK and U.S.-Australia defense trade
cooperation agreements?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review these agreements
in detail. I understand that several Senators raised a number of
concerns and questions about the Treaties during the last Congress. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with the Senate on any issues
related to ratification.
Question. In your view, are these agreements in the national
security interest of the United States?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review these agreements
in detail. If confirmed, I will review them and be available to consult
with Congress.
Question. What do you consider to be the main advantages and
disadvantages of these defense trade cooperation arrangements?
Answer. See above.
arms control
Question. What role do you see for arms control as a means of
improving U.S. national security?
Answer. Arms control has been an important element of U.S. national
security policy since the Cold War, and it remains important today.
Engaging other nations in a process that builds confidence, increases
transparency, reduces arsenals, and enhances cooperation has been, and
remains, important to our interests. Arms control negotiations can also
further progress towards the long-term goal of eliminating nuclear
weapons.
Question. What are your views on the next bilateral steps to
address nuclear weapons issues between the United States and Russia?
Answer. High level engagement will be critical in addressing the
wide variety of issues between the United States and the Russian
Federation, including nuclear weapons issues. One key issue that both
nations will need to address early in the new administration is the
impending expiration of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).
Question. What elements of START, if any, do you believe should be
retained in any future agreement?
Answer. The most important element to retain in any future
agreement is the extension of essential monitoring and verification
provisions contained in the current START.
Question. In the absence of a START extension or successor treaty,
what steps would you take to extend, expand, and to verify the Moscow
Treaty?
Answer. If confirmed, I would initiate a prompt and detailed review
to determine the best path forward with respect to START, the Moscow
Treaty, and any successor agreements.
Question. What is your view of the role of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in U.S. national security, and how should
it be strengthened or improved?
Answer. The NPT is an important tool for constraining further
nuclear proliferation. We should work to strengthen the Treaty by
encouraging states to adhere to the NPT and to agree to IAEA safeguards
inspections. I support the President-elect's view that we need to work
with our allies, partners, and other nations to achieve a successful
outcome in the 2010 NPT review conference. One way to strengthen the
NPT regime would be to ensure that any violation automatically triggers
sanctions. Others should be examined as well. I would also like to see
the United States abide by our promises to reduce our nuclear
stockpiles over time and to further increase the safety and security of
our arsenal.
Question. Do you support a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)?
Answer. Yes, I support the President-elect's view that passing the
CTBT is in America's national security interest.
ballistic missile defense
Question. Do you agree that any ballistic missile defense systems
that we deploy operationally must be operationally effective, suitable,
survivable, cost-effective, affordable, and should address a credible
threat?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will seek to ensure that missile
defense programs are prioritized in a manner that ensures that further
development and deployment is pragmatic, cost-effective, and
appropriate to the threats of tomorrow. I understand that the United
States currently has operationally deployed a range of sea-based and
ground-based ballistic missile defense systems to protect our forward-
based forces, allies, and other friendly nations against short- and
medium-range missile threats and to defend the U.S. homeland against
longer-range threats.
Question. Do you agree that U.S. missile defense efforts should be
prioritized on providing effective defenses against existing ballistic
missile threats, especially the many hundreds of short- and medium-
range ballistic missiles that are currently within range of our
forward-based forces, allies, and other friendly nations?
Answer. I am aware of the threats posed by short- and medium-range
ballistic missiles. If confirmed, I will review our BMD programs and
consult with Congress to ensure we have an appropriate mix of short-,
medium-, and long-range ballistic missile defense capabilities that are
responsive to existing and emerging threats to our homeland, deployed
forces, allies, and other friendly nations.
Question. Do you agree that ballistic missile defense testing needs
to be operationally realistic, and should include operational test and
evaluation, in order to assess operational capabilities and limitations
of ballistic missile defense systems, prior to making decisions to
deploy such systems?
Answer. Yes. While missile defense testing is not a Policy
responsibility, I agree that missile defense testing should be
operationally realistic and should involve the Operational Test and
Evaluation office as well as our warfighters.
Question. If the United States and Russia could agree on a
cooperative approach on missile defense issues, do you believe it would
be in the security interest of the United States to pursue such an
effort?
Answer. Yes, although the final contours of such an approach would
require close consultations between the administration and Congress. I
believe that working with Russia in areas where we have common security
concerns is in the interests of both of our countries. Efforts to
cooperate with Russia on missile defense to address the risk of
ballistic missile and WMD proliferation go back to the 1990s during the
Clinton administration. I understand that in recent years, the United
States has continued to explore missile defense cooperation with
Russia. If confirmed, I will review the recent efforts, consult with
colleagues and the State Department, and help recommend an appropriate
course of action.
chemical weapons elimination and the chemical weapons conventions
Question. Do you agree that the United States should make every
effort to meet its treaty obligations, including its obligations under
the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)?
Answer. Yes. As a signatory to the CWC, the United States is
obligated to destroy its chemical weapons stockpile by April 29, 2012.
The United States also has a congressional mandate to destroy its
stockpile by April 29, 2012, but not later than December 31, 2017.
Question. Do you agree that the Department should plan and budget
for the most expeditious elimination of United States chemical weapons
stockpile, consistent with safety and security requirements, in order
to complete the destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile as
close to the CWC deadline as possible?
Answer. Yes, but there are competing priorities to balance.
Although I have not yet examined this issue in detail, I understand
that in 2006, the United States informed the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) that it would not meet this
deadline, but would accelerate the destruction effort as much as
practical. To date, the Department is on track to destroy 90 percent of
the U.S. stockpile by the CWC deadline.
Question. If confirmed, will you focus your personal attention on
this matter?
Answer. If confirmed, I will look for alternative ways to
accelerate the destruction of the remaining 10 percent of the
stockpile.
space management and organization
Question. What role, if any, do you believe the USD(P) should play
in the establishment of a national security space policy?
Answer. I understand that the recent congressionally-directed
Review and Assessment of the Organization and Management of Space in
DOD has recommended the development of a National Space Strategy. If
this initiative is adopted and I am confirmed, I will consult with
Secretary Gates on the proper role that the USD(P) should play in the
development and coordination of any such policy or strategy.
national guard and reserve role in homeland defense
Question. There is current debate about the role the National Guard
and Reserve should play in defending the homeland.
What role do you believe the National Guard and Reserve should have
in defending the homeland?
Answer. Homeland defense is a total force responsibility. However,
experience has shown the Nation needs to focus on better using the
extensive competencies and capabilities of the National Guard and the
Reserves in support of their priority missions. If confirmed, I will
update my understanding of the roles, missions, and capabilities of the
National Guard and the Reserves and will work to ensure that they have
the equipment, training, and personnel to accomplish their missions,
both at home and abroad, during this time of war.
Question. What role do you believe the Active-Duty Forces should
have in defending the homeland?
Answer. As part of the Total Force, Active-Duty Forces also have
important roles to play in supporting civilian authorities in homeland
defense, particularly in large-scale crises when local and State
responders may lack response capabilities adequate to the task. If
confirmed, I will look into the roles and missions performed by each
element of the Total Force to ensure that we take best advantage of
their competencies to fulfill this critical obligation to protect the
American people.
homeland defense
Question. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is now
responsible for homeland security, but DOD retains responsibility for
homeland defense.
Answer. What do you believe are the principal roles and missions of
DOD for homeland defense, and how do they relate to the roles,
missions, and responsibilities of DHS?
Question. DOD and DHS have complementary and mutually supporting
roles, missions, and responsibilities. DOD is responsible for defending
the United States from attack upon its territory at home and securing
its interests abroad. DOD executes military missions to deter, defend
against, and defeat those who threaten the United States. DHS is
responsible for leading the Nation's efforts to prepare for, protect
against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate against the risk of
natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters; to
secure the Nation's borders, ports, and airports; and to ensure that
the Federal Government works with States, localities, and the private
sector as a true partner in prevention, mitigation, and response. As
necessary, and consistent with the law, DOD provides support to DHS in
the execution of its missions.
reorganization of the office of the under secretary of defense for
policy
Question. If confirmed, what changes, if any, would you propose to
the current organization of the Office of the USD(P)?
Answer. If confirmed, I would anticipate the need to shift some
portfolios to better align the organization with President-elect
Obama's and Secretary Gates' policy objectives. For example, we may
want to consider elevating and realigning strategic portfolios such as
nuclear weapons, countering WMD, space, missile defense, and cyber. We
may also want to consider how best to enhance the policy role in the
PPBE process, for example by elevating the strategy, planning, and
force development functions. Finally, there may be an opportunity to
enhance policy coordination on the issue of Afghanistan and Pakistan,
which currently spans multiple ASDs. If confirmed, I would consult with
the committee in detail on these ideas.
Question. Do you anticipate that any proposed changes would require
changes to existing law?
Answer. No. At this point, none of these potential portfolio
adjustments should require changes to existing law.
private security contractors
Question. Do you believe DOD and other Federal agencies should rely
upon contractors to perform security functions that may reasonably be
expected to require the use of deadly force in highly hazardous public
areas in an area of combat operations?
Answer. I understand the concerns of Congress on this issue and
believe that a comprehensive review of the role of military contractors
on the battlefield is needed in order to set the terms for how they
might be utilized in the future. I also agree with President-elect
Obama's views on the need to improve oversight and transparency in how
private security contractors are utilized and to establish clear
standards regarding accountability, command and control, Rules of
Engagement, and personnel policies. If confirmed, I will work with
civilian and military officials of the Department and others who have
primary responsibility for policy development and employment of private
security contractors.
Question. In your view, has the U.S. reliance upon private security
contractors to perform such functions risked undermining our defense
and foreign policy objectives in Iraq?
Answer. I do believe that several high-profile incidents in Iraq
involving private security contractors have harmed U.S. policy
objectives in Iraq. In December 2007, DOD and the Department of State
agreed on consistent procedures for use of private security contractors
in Iraq; moreover, both Departments have been transitioning to greater
use of local nationals wherever practical. If confirmed, I expect to
work on this issue and will keep Congress informed.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
any private security contractors who may continue to operate in an area
of combat operations act in a responsible manner, consistent with U.S.
defense and foreign policy objectives?
Answer. The use of security contractors in any area of combat
operations must be fully coordinated among all agencies that employ
them. There must be unified procedures and strong oversight for all
such contractors, regardless of which U.S. agency hires them.
Commanders on the ground should have the authority to restrict or
redirect their operations as appropriate. I believe there must be
assured legal accountability for the actions of all security
contractors, not just those employed by the Defense Department.
Question. How do you believe the ongoing operations of private
security contractors in Iraq are likely to be affected by the new SOFA
between the United States and Iraq?
Answer. It is my understanding that since January 1, U.S.
Government private security contractors no longer have immunity from
host nation law. Furthermore, they must comply with host nation
registration and licensing requirements. For all contractors, the SOFA
has meant substantially more liaison and coordination with Iraqi
authorities at all levels.
Question. Do you support the extension of the Military
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act to private security contractors of
all Federal agencies?
Answer. Yes.
contractor performance of information operations
Question. In October 2008, DOD announced a plan to award contracts
in excess of $300 million to U.S. contractors to conduct ``information
operations'' through the Iraqi media. The purposes of this contract
include building up Iraqi public support for the Government of Iraq and
the security forces of Iraq, and undermining Iranian influence in Iraq.
What is your view of the appropriate roles of DOD and the
Department of State in media campaigns to build up Iraqi public support
for the government and security forces of Iraq and undermining Iranian
influence in Iraq?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to become familiar with the
details of these programs, but believe they deserve careful scrutiny.
If confirmed, I would expect to look into these matters and discuss
them with members of the committee.
Question. What is your view on the effectiveness of information
operations conducted by the United States through the Iraqi media?
Answer. See previous answer.
Question. Do you believe that it is appropriate for the United
States to pay for media campaigns to build up support for the
government and the security forces of Iraq at a time when the Iraqi
Government has a surplus of tens of billions of dollars?
Answer. See previous answer.
Question. Do you see a risk that a DOD media campaign designed to
build up support for the government and security forces of Iraq could
result in the inappropriate dissemination of propaganda inside the
United States through the internet and other media that cross
international boundaries?
Answer. See previous answer.
Question. A spokesman for the Iraqi Government has been quoted as
saying that any future DOD information operations in the Iraqi media
should be a joint effort with the Iraqi Government. According to a
November 7, 2008 article in the Washington Post, the spokesman stated:
``We don't have a hand in all the propaganda that is being done now. It
could be done much better when Iraqis have a word and Iraqis can
advise.''
Do you believe that DOD information operations through the Iraqi
media should be conducted jointly with the Iraqis?
Answer. See previous answer.
Question. Under what circumstances do you believe that it is
appropriate for the DOD to conduct information operations in a
sovereign country without the participation and approval of the host
country?
Answer. See previous answer.
detainee treatment policy
Question. Section 1403 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006 provides 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.
In your view, is the prohibition in the best interest of the United
States? Why or why not?
Answer. I believe the prohibition on cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment is clearly in America's best strategic interest
and consistent with our values. During the long history of the Cold
War, when America's way of life was challenged by a powerful competing
ideology, we were ultimately successful, in part, because we held true
to the best ideals and principles that sustained America as a shining
beacon to millions under totalitarian rule. Power in the 21st century
will stem as much from the strength and appeal of our ideas and moral
principles as from our military might. If we are to defeat violent
extremism, we must hold true to those ideas that make this country
great, and continue to inspire the growth of freedom and tolerance
around the world.
Question. Do you believe that the phrase ``cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment'' has been adequately and
appropriately defined for the purpose of this provision?
Answer. I have not received enough information to have an informed
opinion on this question. If confirmed, I expect to work with the DOD
General Counsel on this issue.
Question. If confirmed, will you take steps to ensure that all
relevant DOD directives, regulations, policies, practices, and
procedures fully comply with the requirements of section 1403 and with
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions?
Answer. Yes, I will.
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 DOD
Detainee Program, dated September 5, 2006?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Section 2441 of title 18, U.S.C., as amended by the
Military Commissions Act of 2006, defines grave breaches of Common
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, including torture and cruel and
inhuman treatment.
In your view, does section 2441 define these terms in a manner that
provides appropriate protection from abusive treatment to U.S.
detainees in foreign custody and to foreign detainees in U.S. custody?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I expect to work with the DOD General
Counsel on this issue.
Question. Do you believe that the United States has the legal
authority to continue holding alleged members and supporters of al
Qaeda and the Taliban as enemy combatants?
Answer. Yes, I do as a general matter, but I am not in a position
to comment on specific cases.
Question. Do you believe that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals
convened by the DOD to provide Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO) detainees an
opportunity to contest designation as enemy combatants provide
detainees with appropriate legal standards and processes?
Answer. I have not been briefed on this specific issue. If
confirmed, I expect to work with the DOD General Counsel on this issue.
Question. Do you believe that the Federal courts have the
procedures and capabilities needed to fairly and appropriately review
the detention of enemy combatants, pursuant to habeas corpus petitions?
Answer. It is my understanding that U.S. Supreme Court recognized
that some adjustment to normal habeas proceedings may be necessary in
these cases and that the exact procedures to apply in these cases are
still being considered by the courts.
Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in
reviewing the status of GTMO detainees and determining whether the
United States should continue to hold such detainees?
Answer. If confirmed as USD(P), I would provide policy advice to
the Secretary of Defense regarding the closure of GTMO and the
disposition of the remaining detainee population.
Question. Do you support closing the detention facility for enemy
combatants at GTMO?
Answer. Yes. As both President-elect Obama and Secretary Gates have
stated, the detention facility at GTMO has become a liability for the
United States.
Question. In order to mitigate the risk associated with the release
of GTMO detainees, do you believe DOD should establish some form of
rehabilitation training for enemy combatants held at GTMO?
Answer. I understand that the efforts in Iraq to rehabilitate and
reconcile detainees have been fairly successful. If confirmed as
USD(P), I expect to learn more about whether such a program could be
tailored appropriately and successfully implemented for the population
at GTMO.
Question. What other ways could the United States use to encourage
or entice our allies or other nations to accept detainees from GTMO?
Would monetary support or sharing of technology for monitoring
detainees be helpful inducements?
Answer. If confirmed as USD(P), I would work closely with the
Office of Detainee Affairs and the State Department to seek new ways to
encourage our allies and friends to assist us in transferring those
detainees from GTMO who can be safely returned to their home countries
or resettled in a third country when that is not possible. In some
cases, financial incentives may be appropriate, and increased capacity-
building may be mutually beneficial for this purpose and for broader
collaborative efforts to combat terrorism.
Question. The Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006 authorized the
trial of ``alien unlawful enemy combatants'' by military commission and
established the procedures for such trials.
In your view, does the MCA provide appropriate legal standards and
processes for the trial of alien unlawful enemy combatants?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to review any recommendation from
the DOD General Counsel and the Department of Justice about whether the
MCA strikes the right balance in protecting U.S. national security
interests while providing appropriate legal standards and processes for
a fair and adequate hearing.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that it
would be appropriate to use coerced testimony in the criminal trial of
a detainee?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to review this matter with the
DOD General Counsel and the Department of Justice.
Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in
determining whether GTMO detainees should be tried for war crimes, and
if so, in what forum?
Answer. If confirmed, it is my understanding that I would play no
role in determining which specific detainees should be tried for war
crimes. However, should there be a review of our options for war crimes
trials, I would expect to play a role in advising the Secretary of
Defense on policy matters.
Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in
reviewing the MCA and developing administration recommendations for any
changes that may be needed to that Act?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to play a role in advising the
Secretary of Defense on policy options.
Question. In the past 2 years, significant changes have been made
in Iraq in the way detention operations have been conducted in a
counterinsurgency environment, including through the establishment of
reintegration centers at theater internment facilities.
What do you consider to be the main lessons learned from the
changes to detention operations in Iraq?
Answer. I visited Iraq in February and October of 2008 and was
impressed by the ``COIN Inside the Wire'' approach taken by U.S. forces
there. Particularly as we begin to transition detention operations and
facilities to full Iraqi control, it is vital that we do our best to
ensure that the quality of our facilities and our approach to detainee
operations is maintained, as this line of operation is a critical
component of successful counterinsurgency doctrine and practice. If
confirmed as USD(P), I would be interested in seeing whether these
counterinsurgency based programs can be tailored and applied more
broadly to our detention operations elsewhere.
Question. What should be done to incorporate those lessons learned
into DOD doctrine, procedures, and training for personnel involved in
detention and interrogation operations?
Answer. I believe that a lot of these lessons are being captured
today, and are reflected in new doctrine and directives, FM 3-24
Counterinsurgency in particular. I firmly believe that these lessons
should continue to be gleaned as we continue operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. To a degree perhaps unappreciated in the past, the way we
treat detainees inside operational theaters is an important component
of our overall strategy. If confirmed as the USD(P), I would work to
ensure that these efforts continue in DOD schoolhouses, manuals,
publications, and training, and that these lessons are applied as
robustly as possible in all of our detention operations.
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 USD(P)?
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. 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 of any good faith delay or denial in providing such
documents?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
social science research
1. Senator Reed. Ms. Flournoy, the office you have been nominated
for has been involved in a project called ``Minerva,'' which seeks to
invest in social science and cultural research in support of military
missions and capabilities. What is your assessment of the value of
social science research (cultural anthropology, sociology, et cetera)
to support defense missions?
Ms. Flournoy. Social science research is increasingly valuable to
support defense missions. To meet the varied and complex threats we
face, we need to tap the breadth of cross-disciplinary expertise that
is found within the social sciences.
Secretary Gates has repeatedly spoken on the consequences of
failing to understand the dangers posed by insurgencies and failing
states. In his recent article in Foreign Affairs, for example, he wrote
that: ``No one should ever neglect the psychological, cultural,
political, and human dimensions of warfare.''
2. Senator Reed. Ms. Flournoy, how will you work to strengthen the
Department of Defense's (DOD) in-house capabilities to perform this
kind of research at our network of DOD laboratories and schools?
Ms. Flournoy. I have not had an opportunity to review in detail the
DOD's in-house capabilities for social science research. As such, I
would envision first examining what in-house capabilities exist today
and then seek to ensure that DOD professional military education
institutions and research laboratories have the appropriate curriculum
and relevant programs to perform this kind of research.
importance of information sharing to national security
3. Senator Reed. Ms. Flournoy, the September 11 attacks illustrated
a fundamental failure by our Government to share information
effectively in order to detect and prevent the attack by ``connecting
the dots.'' The 9/11 Commission identified 10 lost ``operational
opportunities'' to derail the attacks. Each involved a failure to share
information between agencies. In the aftermath of the September 11
attacks, major efforts have been made to improve information sharing.
Through legislation and executive orders these efforts were designed to
effect a ``virtual reorganization of Government'' with communities of
interest working on common problems across agency boundaries and
between Federal, State, and local governments, and the private sector.
While we have established the necessary legal structures, I am
concerned that implementation is lacking. What is your view on the
importance of information sharing to our national security and what
steps will you take to improve the Government's ability to share
information in a trusted environment?
Ms. Flournoy. I believe sharing accurate, relevant, and timely
information horizontally among Federal agencies, vertically among
Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector, and with
our international allies and friends is critical to combating terrorism
and ensuring national security, and that current and emergent threats
require a coordinated whole-of-government effort able to bring to bear
all elements of national power. I will strive to ensure that DOD,
consistent with the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004 and the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of
2007, is committed to the trusted sharing of information to enable all
levels of government to do their part in assuring our Nation's
security.
4. Senator Reed. Ms. Flournoy, in the wake of September 11,
Congress and President Bush put enhanced information sharing forward as
a major goal by passing the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 and the 9/11 Commission Recommendations
Implementation Act of 2007. The information-sharing environment
established by this legislation is designed to enable our Government to
use information in new and more powerful ways. While improved
information sharing enhances our national security, it also presents
the risk that the Government will use these powerful new authorities to
acquire vast amounts of data. This has the potential to infringe on
privacy and civil liberties. As the 9/11 Commission said, this increase
in governmental power ``calls for an enhanced system of checks and
balances.'' What steps will you take to ensure that, as information
sharing is enhanced, new and more powerful protections are developed to
safeguard privacy and civil liberties and how will you help make sure
that the American public trusts that the Government will respect their
privacy?
Ms. Flournoy. I believe that the protection of privacy and American
civil liberties is a legal imperative and that we need not compromise
our civil liberties in the pursuit of security. As Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, I will provide careful oversight and policy
guidance on all matters under my purview to ensure that they are
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and the law.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
iraq stabilization
5. Senator Akaka. Ms. Flournoy, the Strategic Framework and Status
of Forces Agreement symbolized a major step toward Iraq assuming full
responsibility for its security. Iraq has witnessed a nationwide
reduction in civilian deaths. According to a DOD report to Congress
released in December 2008, Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq,
the civilian death rate is lower than any time since 2004. Although
these developments are promising, security gains in Iraq remain
fragile. What do you believe are critical activities the military must
accomplish to ensure the stabilization efforts are not undermined after
our military exit Iraq?
Ms. Flournoy. As we plan for a responsible military drawdown in
Iraq, I believe a critical portion of the U.S. military's stabilizing
efforts must continue to be focused on ensuring that the Iraqi
Government assumes control of the entire range of tasks necessary to
organize, train, and equip its security forces. This includes, but is
not limited to, helping our Iraqi partners develop a comprehensive
defense strategy as well as a plan for the modernization and
development of their forces.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
nuclear posture review
6. Senator Bill Nelson. Ms. Flournoy, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181) requires the
Obama administration to conduct a Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). What
role will you have in the NPR?
Ms. Flournoy. As Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, I will
oversee the NPR. I would expect to engage other senior officials in
DOD, as well officials in the Departments of Energy and State, in this
review and to consult fully with members of this committee.
7. Senator Bill Nelson. Ms. Flournoy, how do you propose to
reorganize the DOD Policy office to address nuclear and deterrence
policy issues?
Ms. Flournoy. I would anticipate the need to elevate the way in
which these issues are addressed by the DOD Policy office. I intend to
make recommendations to Secretary Gates on how best to ensure that the
critical issue of nuclear and deterrence policy is handled, and will
certainly speak with committee staff and members on this issue in the
near future.
policy oversight of missile defense agency and ballistic missile
defense
8. Senator Bill Nelson. Ms. Flournoy, since it was created in 2002,
the Missile Defense Agency and its programs have not had much policy
oversight from DOD. If you are confirmed to be the Under Secretary for
Policy, will you ensure that the Missile Defense Agency and the
ballistic missile defense programs of the Department are subject to
thorough policy oversight?
Ms. Flournoy. Yes. If I am confirmed, I will review the
Department's missile defense policy oversight processes to ensure they
are appropriate and effective.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Evan Bayh
troop levels in afghanistan
9. Senator Bayh. Ms. Flournoy, as the U.S. military continues to
draw down our forces in Iraq, how does the new administration propose
to balance the needs of maintaining security in Iraq with its pledge to
increase our troop levels in Afghanistan by as many 30,000
servicemembers?
Ms. Flournoy. As Secretary Gates recently testified, the Department
is preparing a range of options for the President to achieve that
balance, based on the assessments of the commanders on the ground,
United States Central Command, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I look
forward to engaging in the review of these options and in further
discussions with the committee on this critical issue.
10. Senator Bayh. Ms. Flournoy, how do these requirements square
with the readiness levels and operational tempo we have demanded of our
troops?
Ms. Flournoy. The readiness levels and operational tempo of our
troops require the Department's constant attention. Examining rotation
timelines, as well as clearly defining our objectives and strategy in
Afghanistan and Iraq, will be a priority for me. Working with our
allies to increase their contributions to provide a safe and secure
environment in Afghanistan and Iraq will be important. I also believe a
strong interagency plan for Afghanistan can help adjust the demand on
U.S. forces. Finally, Secretary Gates' intent to complete the planned
growth of Army and Marine Corps end strength will also help alleviate
some of the tension between readiness and OPTEMPO.
resources for iraq and afghanistan
11. Senator Bayh. Ms. Flournoy, according to the recently signed
Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq, American combat troops will begin
leaving Iraq very soon. How do you plan to address the significant need
for equipment recapitalization and reset while also weaning the
Department off of supplemental budget requests?
Ms. Flournoy. Equipment recapitalization and reset decisions are
part of the overall balance of choices between succeeding in today's
wars while preventing tomorrow's conflicts. The Department will need to
make these decisions with careful attention to the economic
environment. As the Secretary has stated, the fiscal year 2010 budget
must make hard choices, including what equipment to recapitalize. As
Under Secretary, I will play an active role in helping the Secretary
make such choices.
12. Senator Bayh. Ms. Flournoy, what risks does DOD face by
continuing to rely so heavily on the supplemental process?
Ms. Flournoy. The Department should reinvigorate its ability to
balance risk within defense planning. The supplemental process often
makes integration with our overall defense planning efforts more
difficult. Although supplemental funding may be necessary to meet surge
requirements, the Department should seek to reduce its reliance on
supplementals over time. Failure to do so could increase the risk that
DOD will not be properly balanced for a complex future.
13. Senator Bayh. Ms. Flournoy, given your expertise in
counterinsurgency strategy, how do you plan to advise Secretary Gates,
his deputy, and President-elect Obama on properly resourcing forces
deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan? Specifically, how do you intend to
advise they balance the need for counterinsurgency capabilities of
today with the conventional deterrence capabilities that may be needed
for tomorrow?
Ms. Flournoy. I believe that the United States must be prepared to
respond to a full spectrum of challenges, and maintain balanced
capabilities for irregular warfare, conventional warfare, asymmetric
challenges, and strategic deterrence. My advice will be informed by
discussions with commanders in the field, Combatant Commander and
Service Chief priorities, and a comprehensive review of existing
studies and assessments on these matters.
14. Senator Bayh. Ms. Flournoy, if you were rebaselining the
defense budget by taking into account lessons learned from Iraq,
Afghanistan, and war on terror needs, what weapons systems and training
competencies would be your highest procurement priorities?
Ms. Flournoy. As I have not been formally briefed on the full range
of these issues, it is difficult to speak to specific weapon systems or
training programs. As Under Secretary, I will work with the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and
with the Military Services to ensure that the lessons drawn from
Afghanistan and Iraq are used to develop weapons systems and training
programs that meet our needs in current conflicts as well as our long-
term requirements. In general, however, I agree with Secretary Gates
that DOD clearly needs to pay particular attention to developing
systems and training programs that ensure the U.S. military is postured
for success in counterinsurgency operations, stability operations, and
building the capacity of America's partners and allies.
15. Senator Bayh. Ms. Flournoy, I, along with other members of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, have worked to make sure that Iraq
does not continue to sit on its burgeoning budget surplus while
Americans are forced to go into further debt in order to help rebuild
that country. How well do you believe Iraq is doing paying for its own
reconstruction projects?
Ms. Flournoy. I understand that the Government of Iraq is improving
budget execution and has assumed the bulk of reconstruction costs. The
Government of Iraq spent a total of $36 billion on reconstruction
activities through the end of October 2008, $15 billion more than the
same period of time in 2007. Despite budget revisions resulting from
falling oil prices, the Government of Iraq remains committed to funding
its own reconstruction activities. I will continue to make the transfer
of financial responsibilities to Iraq a priority.
16. Senator Bayh. Ms. Flournoy, do you believe it is necessary for
the U.S. Government to request that Iraq assist in funding joint
operations?
Ms. Flournoy. I do believe Iraq should continue to pay for an
increasing amount of the effort. However, rather than asking the Iraqis
to contribute to the costs of joint operations, I believe there is a
greater benefit in the Government of Iraq funding and developing its
forces in order to assume greater responsibility for its own security
and stability.
ballistic missile capability
17. Senator Bayh. Ms. Flournoy, what is your assessment of the need
for (and feasibility of) a missile defense system designed to counter
Iran's growing ballistic missile capability?
Ms. Flournoy. Iran continues to upgrade its existing ballistic
missile systems and develop new ballistic missiles with increasing
range, accuracy, and lethality. These developments give Iran the
potential to threaten our deployed forces, our friends and allies in
the region and in Eastern Europe, and perhaps at some point the U.S.
homeland, as well as to limit our freedom of action in the region. To
reassure our allies and friends, deter potential aggression, and, if
necessary, defeat a ballistic missile attack, it is prudent to develop
and deploy effective missile defense systems to counter Iran's growing
ballistic missile capabilities.
In doing so, however, we also need to ensure that such systems are
developed in a way that is pragmatic, operationally effective, cost-
effective, and in collaboration with our allies. Missile defense
systems are one tool in our national arsenal, along with diplomacy and
continued multilateral cooperation with our partners and allies, to
counter Iranian ballistic missile capability.
18. Senator Bayh. Ms. Flournoy, do you plan to continue the
development of ballistic missile defense?
Ms. Flournoy. Although the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy is
not responsible for making acquisition programs decisions, if
confirmed, I will review our ballistic missile defense programs along
with other Department officials to ensure we have an appropriate mix of
ballistic missile defense capabilities that are responsive to existing
and emerging threats to our homeland, deployed forces, allies, and
other friendly nations. However, we must ensure that these capabilities
follow a strong testing regime, are effective, and are affordable.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
troop levels in afghanistan
19. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, General McKiernan has spoken of
increasing U.S. troops in Afghanistan by something on the order of four
combat brigades. Do you support this request?
Ms. Flournoy. I support General McKiernan's request for additional
U.S. troops in Afghanistan to improve security and serve as trainers.
As Secretary Gates recently stated, we lack the troops necessary to
provide a baseline level of security in some of Afghanistan's most
volatile areas. The Taliban has increasingly filled this security
vacuum. Additional military presence, along with further development of
the Afghan security forces, will go a long way to help secure the
Afghan people from insurgents and help stabilize the country.
20. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, would increasing the number of
troops in Afghanistan require us to draw down in Iraq faster than we
otherwise might?
Ms. Flournoy. As Secretary Gates recently testified, military
commanders are preparing a range of options for the President's review
to balance drawing down combat forces in Iraq and increasing combat
forces in Afghanistan.
21. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, how large do you believe the
Afghan National Army (ANA) and the Afghan National Police (ANP) should
ultimately be?
Ms. Flournoy. In September 2008 the international community and
Government of Afghanistan agreed to increase the size of the ANA to
134,000. The ultimate goal is for the Afghans to assume primary
security responsibility of their country, and we plan to accelerate the
expansion of the ANA. As we move towards this goal, we will continually
reevaluate the ANA end strength in light of the current security
situation to ensure it is appropriate.
For the ANP, the current end strength agreed to between the
Government of Afghanistan and the international community is 82,000.
The current focus is to improve the quality of the current ANP to allow
them to better secure the people of Afghanistan. The ultimate end
strength of the ANP will also be subject to review and reevaluation
over time.
nato support in afghanistan
22. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, the Afghanistan mission is an
important test of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) out-
of-area capability. Yet, NATO commanders continue to have difficulty
persuading allies to contribute forces to International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) or to provide NATO forces the appropriate
equipment for their tasks. Secretary Gates testified last year that he
is worried about the alliance evolving into a two-tiered alliance, in
which you have some allies willing to fight and die to protect people's
security, and others who are not. How do you assess the contributions
of NATO allies to the war in Afghanistan?
Ms. Flournoy. Afghanistan would be less secure without the
contributions and sacrifices of our NATO allies and other ISAF
partners. Our allies and non-NATO partners contribute to the ISAF
mission in significant ways, with both military and civilian
contributions, and have increased their contributions each year.
Despite this, increasing NATO contributions remains a key part of our
approach to Afghanistan. We must continue to stress to our allies the
U.S. commitment to Afghanistan and the shared responsibility NATO has
to secure and stabilize Afghanistan.
23. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, what steps would you recommend to
persuade NATO nations to increase their efforts in concert with our
own?
Ms. Flournoy. Again, the contributions of our NATO allies are
imperative to success in Afghanistan. President Obama and Secretary
Gates have both called for greater contributions from our NATO allies.
By committing more of our own resources to the challenge, the United
States will be better positioned to persuade our allies to do more. The
new administration's review of Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy should
recommend concrete steps to increase allied contributions.
narco-trafficking in afghanistan
24. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, we have heard estimates that over
50 percent of Afghanistan's gross national product is associated with
the illegal opium trade. Coalition strategies for countering the opium
trade have not been effective to date. In your view, what strategy
would be most effective in reducing opium production and trafficking in
Afghanistan?
Ms. Flournoy. While I have not been briefed in detail on our
counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan, it is my impression that our
counterdrug strategy needs to be better integrated into the broader
effort. Opium traffic in Afghanistan distorts the economy, corrodes the
judicial system, and increases funding for insurgents and incentives
for corruption and criminal violence. An effective approach to
counternarcotics is a key component of a realistic Afghanistan
strategy. I intend to focus on ensuring that this and other elements
are properly addressed.
25. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, what should the role of the U.S.
military forces be in the counterdrug program in Afghanistan?
Ms. Flournoy. Any counternarcotics policy in Afghanistan should
maintain an Afghan lead on counternarcotics operations with U.S.
military forces supporting Afghan security forces. The U.S. military
should continue to build Afghanistan's counternarcotics capacity in
coordination with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and the
Departments of State and Justice in order to help Afghans to become
self sufficient and reliable partners in the fight against illegal
drugs.
26. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, do you believe that DOD should
provide support for counternarcotics operations carried out by other
agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Agency?
Ms. Flournoy. Breaking the narcotics-insurgency nexus is critical
to overall success in Afghanistan. U.S. military forces should provide
support to other agencies in counternarcotics operations. DOD
international counterdrug policy and Rules of Engagement were recently
revised to enable U.S. commanders to support other agencies in
Afghanistan properly.
27. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, what is the appropriate role for
coalition nations and the larger international community in effectively
addressing the counterdrug challenge in Afghanistan and the surrounding
region?
Ms. Flournoy. I support the increased participation of NATO in
addressing the counterdrug challenge in Afghanistan. DOD should
continue to support NATO's role in the coordination and synchronization
of deliberate counternarcotics interdiction operations. I understand
that NATO defense ministers provided new guidance to the ISAF commander
that allows for additional flexibility when conducting counternarcotics
related military operations.
afghan national army
28. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, the goal for increasing the size
of the ANA has been revised from 68,000 to approximately 134,000
soldiers. Do you believe that a force structure of 134,000 is
sufficient to address Afghanistan's growing insurgency?
Ms. Flournoy. In September 2008 the international community and
Government of Afghanistan agreed to increase the size of the ANA to
134,000, with the intent of having an ANA that will be sufficient to
meet Afghanistan's security needs. The ultimate goal is for the Afghans
to assume primary security responsibility of their country, and
accelerating the expansion of the ANA supports this goal.
29. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, would you support a surge of
trainers from the United States and coalition partners into Afghanistan
to accelerate the expansion of the ANA?
Ms. Flournoy. The expanded ANA will require additional trainers and
mentors to meet the needs of a 134,000-strong force. I support a
substantial increase in mentors and trainers as they are critical to
the ANA's development and accelerated expansion.
cross-border attacks from pakistan
30. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, one of the main threats to U.S.
and coalition forces in Afghanistan comes from cross-border attacks by
the Taliban and extremist militants who find safe haven in Pakistan's
border regions. What steps in your view need to be taken to eliminate
the threat posed by Taliban and extremist militants hiding out across
the Afghan-Pakistan border?
Ms. Flournoy. Controlling the movement of extremists across the
Afghanistan-Pakistan border requires a unified effort by governments on
both sides of the border and the support of U.S. and NATO forces in
Afghanistan. As Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, I will work to
improve intelligence-sharing and cross-border coordination and
encourage continued action by Pakistani forces to eliminate the
militant threat within Pakistan.
u.s.-pakistan relations
31. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, the stability of Pakistan has
ramifications for broad U.S. regional interests as well as being an
important underpinning to our success in our war against global
extremists. Which DOD policies regarding Pakistan would you recommend
we sustain; which need to be strengthened; and which would you
recommend for elimination?
Ms. Flournoy. I have not been fully briefed on the entire range of
DOD policies in Pakistan, and am not prepared to make specific policy
recommendations at this time. I do, however, look forward to
participating in an interagency review of Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy
that should address this important question.
32. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, what is your assessment of the
efforts by the Pakistani Government to counter militant groups along
the border with Afghanistan and to combat terrorism in general?
Ms. Flournoy. Although I have not been briefed formally on these
issues, I believe that the democratic Government of Pakistan should be
strongly supported and held accountable for enhancing stability within
its own borders, eliminating safe havens for extremists, and preventing
cross-border attacks. I will support increased measures to enhance
Pakistan's capability to secure its territory and combat terrorism.
chief of the national guard bureau and the joint chiefs of staff
33. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, do you think the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau should be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Why or why not?
Ms. Flournoy. The National Guard has become an integral part of the
military operational force in recent years. As such, ensuring the
National Guard is well integrated into the Defense Department's plans
and policies is imperative. I agree with President Obama and Secretary
Gates that ensuring that the concerns of our citizen soldiers are heard
at the highest levels is particularly important. The Chief of the
National Guard Bureau has only been a four-star position since December
2008. I imagine that the issue of making him a member of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff will be debated in the months to come, and I hope to
participate fully in that debate, make recommendations to the
Secretary, and consult with members of this committee.
``soft power''
34. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, Secretary Gates has called on
Congress to provide more funding for the State Department's Foreign
Service and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Just a few
days ago, Admiral Mullen expressed the same views commenting that our
national security and foreign policy requires ``a whole-of-government
approach to solving modern problems'' and ``we need to reallocate roles
and resources in a way that places our military as an equal among many
in government--as an enabler, a true partner.'' Admiral Mullen went on
to say that ``as an equal partner in government, I want to be able to
transfer resources to my other partners when they need them.'' What
thoughts do you have on these remarks calling for more resources for
civilian agencies responsible for ``soft power,'' including the
Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and Agriculture?
Ms. Flournoy. I stand with the President, Secretary Gates, and
Admiral Mullen in stressing the need for the United States to invest
more heavily in its non-military instruments of national power. The
need for a more integrated approach to achieving our national security
objectives using all elements of national power can only be realized if
we invest in building the capacity of our civilian agencies. As Under
Secretary, I intend to support my interagency counterparts in their
efforts to significantly expand the Government's ``soft-power''
resources and the capacity of civilian agencies to contribute to U.S.
humanitarian, counterinsurgency, and post-conflict efforts.
35. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, should Congress provide greater
flexibility for the military to transfer funding during a crisis?
Ms. Flournoy. Yes. I believe that greater flexibility during, and
before, crises allows DOD and the interagency to better support U.S.
objectives.
al qaeda
36. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, General Hayden, the Director of
the Central Intelligence Agency, has said that ``al Qaeda operating out
of Pakistan is the greatest danger to the United States'' and that ``if
there is a major strike in this country, it will bear al Qaeda's
fingerprints.'' What do you believe is the greatest danger to the
United States?
Ms. Flournoy. Combating terrorism is one of the most pressing
security challenges facing the United States. I agree with General
Hayden that the al Qaeda network--whose leadership is concentrated
within the border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan but whose
propaganda and violent extremist ideology inspire action by associated
movements and potentially ``homegrown'' cells across the globe--remains
an immediate threat to the United States and many of its allies. I am
particularly concerned about terrorists gaining access to weapons of
mass destruction (WMD).
Both President Obama and Secretary Gates have cited the need to
eliminate the terrorist sanctuary in the border regions of Pakistan,
but there is no purely military solution. The Governments of Pakistan
and Afghanistan will be central to defeating the terrorist and cross-
border insurgent groups that threaten the border region and the
international community. To support their efforts, the United States
must have an integrated strategy to promote security, development, and
governance, and to prevent terrorism across the Afghanistan-Pakistan
border. We must also bolster our efforts to keep WMD out of the hands
of terrorists. I intend to work closely with my DOD and interagency
colleagues to examine how best to strengthen U.S. efforts in these
critical areas.
37. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, how would you describe the
current intent, composition, and capabilities of al Qaeda?
Ms. Flournoy. I understand that al Qaeda remains committed to
attacking the United States and its interests both at home and abroad.
Its capabilities, while seriously degraded since September 11, 2001,
remain significant. Surviving al Qaeda leadership have adopted an
increasingly decentralized command and control structure that relies on
the exploitation of modern communications systems to inspire like-
minded regional affiliates and independent cells. Regional affiliates,
such as al Qaeda in Iraq and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, as well
as other al Qaeda efforts in the Horn of Africa and the Arabian
Peninsula, broaden al Qaeda's capability to strike U.S. interests.
38. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, do you believe DOD is adequately
organized to meet this threat?
Ms. Flournoy. DOD has taken many steps to improve its organization
and capabilities to counter the terrorist threat. For example, Special
Operations Command was designated the supported commander for planning
and synchronizing combatant command operations against terrorist
networks. Since the last Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the
Department has made a significant investment in Special Operations
Force capabilities and personnel growth. The general purpose forces are
also taking on increased missions to train and advise the security
forces of our partners and allies to counter terrorist and insurgent
threats.
Many terrorist threats come from countries with which the United
States is not at war, and manifest themselves in ways that cannot be
overcome solely by military means. The responses they demand extend
well beyond the traditional domain of any single government agency or
department. Therefore, DOD works extensively with other departments and
agencies, as well as the National Counterterrorism Center, in the
development of U.S. Government counterterrorism plans and in the
coordination of all elements of national power. These whole-of-
government efforts range from activities to disrupt terrorist
organizations to promoting international partners' capacity to foster
stability, the rule of law, and good governance.
As Under Secretary, I plan to work with the Chairman and the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, the combatant commanders, and my colleagues across the
interagency to review, assess, and refine the Department's organization
to ensure that it meets the President's comprehensive strategy for
combating terrorism.
39. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, do you believe our European
allies are adequately concerned and focused on the threat posed by al
Qaeda?
Ms. Flournoy. The United States and our European allies have a
shared interest in countering transnational terrorism. The major
terrorist attacks in both London and Madrid are just two examples that
highlight the danger of this threat in Europe. Afghanistan would be a
less secure environment without the contributions and sacrifices of our
NATO allies and other international ISAF partners. However, as
President Obama and Secretary Gates have both noted, efforts in
Afghanistan would benefit from greater contributions from our European
allies. In particular, European allies have unique capabilities--such
as law enforcement competencies--that they can bring to bear in
Afghanistan and elsewhere to build the capabilities and capacity of
international partners.
As Under Secretary I will seek to improve U.S. partnerships with
European allies to increase our common ground on emerging threats and
opportunities.
quadrennial defense review
40. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, in your 2006 article titled ``Did
the Pentagon Get the Quadrennial Defense Review Right?'', which
appeared in the Washington Quarterly, you wrote that the 2006 QDR ``did
not include a regular consultation process with the chairmen and
ranking members of the key defense committees in the Senate and the
House of Representatives.'' Do you continue to believe that political
engagement on the QDR is important and, if confirmed, would you
advocate for the consultation that you described? Why?
Ms. Flournoy. I continue to believe regular engagement with all
stakeholders in the Nation's defense enterprise is an important part of
QDRs. The Department should regularly consult with Congress,
interagency partners, defense industry, and key international partners
with whom the United States works to understand and meet the challenges
of today's security environment.
The Department's engagement with Congress throughout the QDR
process is especially important to ensure a smooth transition between
QDR decisionmaking and any related legislation, to include
appropriations. I expect hard choices will have to be made in this QDR
and the support of Congress will be necessary to be successful.
41. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, in that same article you wrote
that ``DOD needs a new and more rigorous approach to defense planning,
one that provides the analytical basis for setting strategic
priorities, allocating risk, and managing portfolio of capabilities.''
Can you expand on your statement with respect to how the Department can
recapitalize or improve efforts on the QDR?
Ms. Flournoy. To be effective, the next QDR must articulate a
comprehensive, long-term vision of U.S. military capabilities and
identify where trade-offs, shifts in investment, or divestment should
be made. I have long believed that DOD needs to enhance its ability to
identify and manage risk across the spectrum of current operations and
likely future requirements. I understand that the Department has made
progress on refining its analytic and capability portfolio management
tools and processes. I am particularly pleased that the 2008 National
Defense Strategy stated that implementing the strategy ``requires
balancing risks, and understanding the choices those risks imply. We
cannot do everything, or function equally well across the spectrum of
conflict. Ultimately, we must make choices.'' I intend to work hard to
further strengthen the Department's defense planning in the QDR and
beyond.
relocation of u.s. marines from okinawa
42. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, the U.S. Government has an
agreement with Japan regarding the realignment of U.S. Marines
currently stationed in Okinawa. Current planning includes the
relocation of about 8,000 marines and their families to the Territory
of Guam. This committee may see in the fiscal year 2010 budget a
substantial request for investment in new facilities to support
movement of the marines to Guam. How do you view the agreement from a
theater-wide strategic perspective?
Ms. Flournoy. The agreement is rooted in a shared regional
strategic perspective between the United States and Japan. As the
westernmost U.S. territory for basing in the Pacific, Guam provides the
strategic flexibility and freedom of action necessary to support
peacetime engagement and crisis response. The agreement with Japan
builds on other posture changes that will support forward-basing of
submarines and transient aircraft carriers, projection of intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance and strike assets, and increased
logistical sustainment capabilities. The relocation to Guam is a key
element in transforming the U.S.-Japan alliance in ways that will
strengthen the political support in Japan for our reduced and
consolidated presence on Okinawa. Overall, these efforts will
strengthen the deterrent effect of U.S. forces and assure our regional
allies of an enduring U.S. forward presence.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Mel Martinez
preemption
43. Senator Martinez. Ms. Flournoy, both the 2008 National Defense
Strategy and the 2006 National Security Strategy reference the act of
preemption. Where do you see the line drawn between preemption and
aggression? How will you ensure the legislature is correctly informed
of military action with enough time for substantive thought and debate?
Ms. Flournoy. The United States has the responsibility to protect
and defend our citizens and allies. Although we do not seek conflict
with other nations, neither should we ignore imminent threats to the
United States. It is critical to consult with Congress and our allies
in situations where the United States faces imminent threats. Precisely
how the legislature is informed and in which situations the United
States would use force are important questions that will need to be
addressed in close consultation with Congress and our partners and
allies. I intend to work closely with counterparts in Congress and
other partners to ensure that U.S. national security objectives and
decisionmaking processes are as transparent as possible.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
afghanistan
44. Senator Collins. Ms. Flournoy, in your answers to the advance
policy questions, you identified the need for the United States to
develop and employ a more effective strategy in Afghanistan and the
surrounding region. Can you provide more detail on your vision for a
new direction for Afghanistan?
Ms. Flournoy. President Obama has made it clear that the
Afghanistan theater should be our top military priority. Secretary
Gates has stated that more troops are needed ``to provide a baseline
level of security in some of the more dangerous areas.'' To that end,
the United States is planning to increase its military presence in
Afghanistan, in conjunction with a large increase in the Afghan
security forces. We should also improve coordination between Afghan and
coalition forces in the field and enable the Afghans to assume the lead
for more operations.
At the same time, as in any counterinsurgency effort, success
requires a commensurate increase in U.S. support to governance, rule of
law, and economic programs. I will work with my counterparts at State,
United States Agency for International Development, and other U.S.
Government agencies to develop a comprehensive, holistic approach in
Afghanistan and the broader region, particularly Pakistan. We should
also support the United Nations in its mission to coordinate among the
more than 40 nations and hundreds of nongovernmental organizations to
help develop a comprehensive approach to reconstruction efforts in
Afghanistan. Unity of effort and the effective application of both
national and international resources will go a long way toward
establishing the kind of sustainable security that is needed to ensure
a successful outcome that is commensurate with U.S. interests.
______
[The nomination reference of Michele A. Flournoy follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
January 20, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Michele A. Flournoy of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy, vice Eric S. Edelman, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Michele A. Flournoy, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Michele A. Flournoy
Michele Flournoy was appointed President of the Center for a New
American Security (CNAS) in January 2007. Prior to co-founding CNAS,
she was a Senior Adviser at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, where she worked on a broad range of defense policy and
international security issues. Previously, she was a distinguished
research professor at the Institute for National Strategic Studies at
the National Defense University (NDU), where she founded and led the
university's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) working group, which was
chartered by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop
intellectual capital in preparation for the Department of Defense's
2001 QDR. Prior to joining NDU, she was dual-hatted as Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction and
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy. In that capacity,
she oversaw three policy offices in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense: Strategy; Requirements, Plans, and Counterproliferation; and
Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasian Affairs. Ms. Flournoy was awarded the
Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service in 1996, the
Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service in 1998,
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs Joint Distinguished
Civilian Service Award in 2000. She is a member of the Aspen Strategy
Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Institute of
Strategic Studies, the Executive Board of Women in International
Security, and the Board of the Institute for Defense Analysis. She is a
former member of the Defense Policy Board and the Defense Science Board
Task Force on Transformation. In addition to several edited volumes and
reports, she has authored dozens of articles on international security
issues. Ms. Flournoy holds a B.A. in social studies from Harvard
University and an M.Litt. in international relations from Balliol
College, Oxford University, where she was a Newton-Tatum scholar.
______
[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 Michele
Flournoy 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.)
Michele Angelique Flournoy.
2. Position to which nominated:
Under Secretary of Defense (Policy).
3. Date of nomination:
Intention to nominate issued January 8, 2009.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
December 14, 1960; Los Angeles, CA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to William Scott Gould.
7. Names and ages of children:
William Alexander (Alec), 11.
Victoria Morgan, 9.
Aidan Campbell, 6.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Balliol College, Oxford University, M.Litt. International
Relations, 1986 (09/1983-06/1986).
Harvard University, B.A. Social Studies, 1983 (09/1979-06/1983).
Beverly Hills High School, High School Diploma, 1979 (09/1975-06/
1979).
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Center for a New American Security, President and Co-Founder, 01/
2007-Present.
Center for Strategic and International Studies, Senior Adviser-
International Security Program, 12/2000-12/2006.
Institute for National Strategic Studies-National Defense
University, Distinguished Research Professor, 09/1998-12/2000.
Office of the Secretary of Defense-Department of Defense, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategy and Threat Reduction and Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Strategy, 05/1993-09/1998.
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.
Office of the Secretary of Defense-Department of Defense, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategy and Threat Reduction and Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Strategy, 05/1993-09/1998.
Defense Policy Board, 1998-2001.
U.S. STRATCOM Strategic Advisory Group, 2004-2007.
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.
Center for a New American Security, President and Co-Founder.
W. Scott Gould and Michele Angelique Flournoy Revocable Trust Co-
Trustee.
Institute for Defense Analyses, Member-Board of Directors.
Women in International Security, Member-Executive Board.
Ava partners, Managing Director (clients below):
MPRI, Speaker
BAE Systems, Inc., Consultant
Booz Allen Hamilton, Consultant
Hicks & Associates, Consultant
Lockheed Martin, Consultant.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Institute for Defense Analses, Trustee, 2007-present.
Women in International Security, member of the Executive Board,
1999-present.
Council on Foreign Relations, member, 1998-present.
International Institute for Strategic Studies, former member.
Aspen Strategy Group, member, 2002-present.
Christ Church, Georgetown, parishioner and member of the Vestry,
2006-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.
Provided policy advice to Kerry, Clinton, and Obama campaigns.
(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.
06/16/08, Obama for America, $1,000
09/29/07, Reed Committee, $1,000
06/30/07, Hillary Clinton for President, $500
06/22/06, Reed Committee, $1,000
08/18/04, Democratic National Committee, $200
07/09/04, Kerry Victory 2004, $500
14. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Joint Distinguished Civilian Service Award by the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2000.
Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service, 1998.
Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service, 1996.
Newton-Tatum Scholar to Balliol College Oxford, 1983-1985.
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 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.
Michele Flournoy.
This 13th day of January, 2009.
[The nomination of Michele Flournoy was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on February 5, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on February 9, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Jeh Charles Johnson by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense (DOD)
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and the chain of command by clearly
delineating the combatant commanders' responsibilities and authorities
and the role of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These reforms have also
vastly improved cooperation between the Services and the combatant
commanders in the strategic planning process, in the development of
requirements, in joint training and education, and in the execution of
military operations.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions based on your experience in DOD?
Answer. At this time I have no proposals to amend any provision of
the Goldwater-Nichols Act. If I am confirmed and if I identify possible
changes that I think would be beneficial, I will propose those changes
through the established process.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. See my prior answer.
relationships
Question. What is your understanding of both the formal and
informal relationship between the General Counsel of DOD and the
following offices?
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The General Counsel is the Secretary's principal advisor on
the wide variety of legal issues facing by DOD. I hope and expect to
consult with the Secretary and his personal staff on these issues on a
regular basis.
Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. The General Counsel should work closely with the Under
Secretaries, both personally and through the General Counsel's staff,
to provide them and their respective offices with timely and quality
legal advice.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. Likewise, the General Counsel should work closely with the
Assistant Secretaries, both personally and through the General
Counsel's staff, to provide them and their respective offices with
timely and quality legal advice.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. I am aware that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has his
own dedicated Legal Counsel, and that a provision in the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008 codified the
existence of this position through a new section 156 in title 10,
U.S.C., and that this provision in law also provided that the Legal
Counsel be a one-star officer. See ``NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008,'' Pub.
L. No. 110-181, Sec. 543, 122 Stat. 3, 115 (2008). While the Chairman
relies primarily upon his Legal Counsel for legal advice, the Legal
Counsel and the DOD General Counsel should work together on the broad
range of matters that affect DOD.
Question. The Judge Advocates General.
Answer. As General Counsel of the Air Force from October 1998 to
January 2001, I believe I worked in a collegial and collaborative
fashion with The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force and his staff
to deliver effective legal service and advice to Air Force leaders. If
confirmed as General Counsel of DOD, I hope and expect to resume that
positive working relationship with all Judge Advocates General and the
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
I am aware that The Judge Advocates General are responsible for the
administration of military justice within their respective Services,
and that senior leaders within the DOD should be mindful of the
principles and restraints of unlawful command influence. Finally, I am
aware that in 2004, title 10 was amended to direct that ``no officer or
employee of DOD interfere with the ability of the Judge Advocate[s]
General to give independent legal advice to'' the leadership of their
respective military departments. See 10 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3037, 5148,
8037 (2003), as amended by the Ronald Reagan NDAA for Fiscal Year 2005,
Pub. L. No. 108-375, Sec. 574, 118 Stat. 1811, 1921 (2004).
Question. The Legal Advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
Answer. See my answer above concerning the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs. In addition, I am aware that in 2008, title 10 was amended to
direct that ``no officer or employee of DOD may interfere with the
ability of the Legal Counsel to give independent legal advice to the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and to the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.'' See Duncan Hunter NDAA for Fiscal Year 2009, Pub. L. No. 110-
417, Sec. 591, 122 Stat. 4356, 4474 (2008). I understand that current
practice is for the DOD General Counsel and the Chairman's Legal
Counsel to meet frequently to discuss issues of mutual concern and to
exchange information. If confirmed, I hope and expect to continue that
practice.
Question. The Staff Judge Advocates to the Commanders of Combatant
Commands.
Answer. It is my understanding that the DOD General Counsel's
relationship to the staff judge advocates of the combatant commands is,
for the most part, through the Chairman's Legal Counsel.
Question. The General Counsels of the Military Departments.
Answer. As a former General Counsel of the Department of the Air
Force, I am familiar with this relationship. The General Counsels of
the Army, Navy, and Air Force serve as the chief legal officers of
their respective departments, and each report to the Secretary of their
respective departments. There is no direct reporting relationship to
the DOD General Counsel, but the DOD General Counsel is the chief legal
officer of DOD. The DOD General Counsel should meet regularly and work
closely with the Army, Navy, and Air Force General Counsels. If
confirmed, I will ensure that we work together closely.
Question. The Counsels for the Defense Agencies.
Answer. As I understand it, the DOD General Counsel is the Director
of the Defense Legal Services Agency (DLSA), and the General Counsels
of the defense agencies and DOD field activities are part of DLSA, and
thus, report to the DOD General Counsel in his or her capacity as DLSA
Director.
Question. The Counsel to the Inspector General (IG).
Answer. I am aware that a provision in the NDAA for Fiscal Year
2009 amended the IG Act of 1978 to establish a ``General Counsel to the
IG of DOD.'' See Duncan Hunter NDAA for Fiscal Year 2009, Pub. L. No.
110-417, Sec. 907, 122 Stat. 4356, 4569 (2008). This new law, in
substance, changed the relationship between the DOD General Counsel and
the DOD IG's legal advisor, who reports directly to the DOD IG and
performs duties assigned by the DOD IG. If confirmed, I hope and expect
to work closely with the IG's General Counsel to provide timely and
quality legal advice to our respective clients.
Question. The Joint Service Committee on Military Justice.
Answer. The DOD General Counsel designates a non-voting
representative to the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice.
Question. The Comptroller General.
Answer. As I understand it, an agency head may request an opinion
from the Comptroller General on the obligation and disbursement of
public funds, and the DOD General Counsel may submit such questions to
the Comptroller General on behalf of the Secretary of Defense. I
understand that, on an informal basis, DOD General Counsel's office
enjoys a very good relationship with the Comptroller General's office,
which includes informal consultation. If confirmed, I intend to
continue that relationship.
Question. The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
Answer. The law states that the Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces ``is located for administrative purposes only in the DOD,''
which emphasizes the Court's judicial independence from DOD. See 10
U.S.C. Sec. 941. I understand that, traditionally, the DOD General
Counsel serves as an informal DOD liaison with the Court, and may be
asked by the President to recommend candidates for appointment to the
Court.
Question. The Code Committee established under Article 146 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Answer. As I understand it, the Code Committee consists of the
Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, The
Judge Advocates General of the Military Departments, the Judge Advocate
General and Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard, the Staff Judge Advocate
to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and two recognized authorities
on military justice appointed by the Secretary of Defense from public
life. The DOD General Counsel has no formal relationship to the Code
Committee. However, I am told that the General Counsel may provide
informal support as the Code Committee desires, and informs the Code
Committee with respect to the activities and recommendations of the
Joint Service Committee on Military Justice.
Question. The Attorney General.
Answer. The Attorney General is the chief legal officer and law
enforcement authority of the United States. The DOD General Counsel
must work closely with the Attorney General and his staff to fulfill
their respective duties.
Question. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Department of
Justice.
Answer. The OLC issues formal legal opinions that can and do affect
the operations and policies of the various agencies of the executive
branch. The DOD General Counsel must, therefore, work closely with the
OLC to ensure the best possible legal advice is provided to officials
of DOD.
Question. The Office of Legal Adviser at the Department of State.
Answer. The Departments of State and Defense must work together on
many matters in furtherance of the national security of the United
States. Therefore, it is necessary for the DOD General Counsel and the
Legal Advisor at the Department of State, and their staffs, to consult
with each other on legal issues of mutual interest.
qualifications
Question. Section 140 of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the
General Counsel is the chief legal officer of DOD and that the General
Counsel shall perform such functions as the Secretary of Defense may
prescribe.
What background and expertise do you possess that you believe
qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I am a lawyer in good standing at the Bar of the State of
New York and the District of Columbia. I am admitted to practice in a
variety of Federal courts around the country, including the U.S.
Supreme Court. I am a trial lawyer and litigator at Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP in New York City. I am a Fellow in the
American College of Trial Lawyers.
I have served in public office twice. From January 1989 to December
1991, I was an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern
District of New York, where I prosecuted public corruption cases. From
October 1998 to January 2001, I served as General Counsel of the
Department of the Air Force, following nomination by the President and
confirmation by the Senate. In that position, I worked in a
professional and collaborative fashion with the more than 1,000 Judge
Advocates General and civilian lawyers in the Air Force to accomplish
many things for our common client. This also included working closely
with the DOD General Counsel and attorneys within that office. In 2007,
I was nominated by the New York State Commission on Judicial Nomination
to be Chief Judge of the State of New York. The incumbent, Judith Kaye,
was reappointed by the Governor.
While in private law practice, I am active in civic and
professional affairs. I was a member of the Ethics Committee and chair
of the Judiciary Committee of the New York City Bar Association. I am
also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect
that the Secretary of Defense will prescribe for you?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I hope and expect that Secretary Gates
and his senior staff will call upon me for legal advice and guidance on
the wide variety of matters that cross his desk.
legal opinions
Question. If you are confirmed, would the legal opinions of your
office be binding on all lawyers within DOD?
Answer. The DOD General Counsel is the chief legal officer of DOD.
Consequently, the legal opinions of the Office of the DOD General
Counsel are the controlling legal opinions of DOD, with the exception
of lawyers in the Office of the DOD IG General Counsel, who are
explicitly exempted from the scope of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 140, by virtue of
section 907 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2009. As stated before, I am
also mindful of the recent changes in law that prohibit any officer or
employee of DOD from interfering with the ability of the Judge
Advocates General to give independent legal advice to the leadership of
their respective military departments.
Question. How will you ensure that such legal opinions are
available to lawyers in the various components of DOD?
Answer. Opinions of the Office of the DOD General Counsel are
disseminated throughout DOD in the ordinary course of business, both
electronically and in hardcopy format using normal departmental
distribution processes. If confirmed, I expect to continue this
practice.
Question. If confirmed, are there specific categories of General
Counsel legal opinions that you expect to reconsider and possibly
revise? If so, what categories?
Answer. If confirmed, one of my objectives is to assess whether the
DOD General Counsel's legal opinions currently in effect need to be
reconsidered or revised.
Question. What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in the
development and consideration (or reconsideration) of legal opinions by
the OLC of the Department of Justice that directly affect DOD?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to work with the OLC in the
development, consideration, and reconsideration of OLC legal opinions,
while recognizing that the ultimate responsibility for the development
of those opinions resides with the Department of Justice.
Question. What actions would you take in response to an opinion
issued by OLC with which you disagreed as a matter of proper
interpretation of the law?
Answer. If OLC issued an opinion with which I materially disagreed,
I would not hesitate to inform OLC of the extent and nature of my
disagreement, mindful, again, that the Attorney General is the chief
legal officer of the United States and that his or her legal opinions
are controlling throughout the executive branch.
independent legal advice
Question. In response to attempts within DOD to subordinate legal
functions and authorities of the Judge Advocates General to the General
Counsels of DOD and the military Services, Congress enacted legislation
prohibiting any officer or employee of DOD from interfering with the
ability of the Judge Advocates General of the Military Services and the
legal advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide
independent legal advice to the Chairman, Service Secretaries, and
Service Chiefs. Congress also required a study and review by outside
experts of the relationships between the legal elements of each of the
military departments of each of the military departments.
What is your view of the need for the Judge Advocates General of
the Services, the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine
Corps, and the legal advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to provide independent legal advice to Service Secretaries,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air
Force, and the Chief of Naval Operations?
Answer. This is my view: I respect and admire the role our Nation's
military lawyers play for DOD. I appreciate that military lawyers,
given their training and experience, may have a perspective that
civilian lawyers do not have, particularly in matters of military
operations, military personnel, and military justice. Further, as
General Counsel of the Air Force from 1998 to 2001, I believe I worked
in a collegial and collaborative fashion with the Judge Advocate
General of the Air Force and his staff, and greatly respected his role
and the advice he had to offer to the leadership of the Air Force.
I believe that the Judge Advocates General of the military
departments, the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine
Corps, and the Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff should provide their best independent legal advice to the
Secretaries of the military departments, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and the Service Chiefs, as appropriate. That advice
should be informed by the views of the Department of Justice, the DOD
General Counsel, and the Military Department General Counsel concerned.
Question. What is your view of the responsibility of judge
advocates within the Services and joint commands to provide independent
legal advice to military commanders?
Answer. It is the responsibility of judge advocates within the
Services and joint commands to provide legal advice to military
commanders that is independent of improper external influence. Also, as
a practical matter, judge advocates must be depended upon to provide
timely and effective day-to-day legal advice to military commanders in
the field, without seeking the approval and input of the DOD General
Counsel for that advice. However, the DOD General Counsel is the senior
legal officer of the Department. Therefore, judge advocates' advice
should be informed by the views of the Department of Justice, the DOD
General Counsel, the General Counsel of the military department
concerned, and the Judge Advocate General concerned.
Question. If confirmed, would you propose any changes to the
current relationships between the uniformed judge advocates and General
Counsels?
Answer. I am not aware at this time of any changes that I would
propose to the current relationships between the uniformed Judge
Advocates and General Counsels.
detainee issues
Question. Section 1403 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2006, provides
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.
In your view, is the prohibition in the best interest of the United
States? Why or why not?
Answer. In my view, this prohibition is in the best interest of the
United States, the national security interests of the United States,
and is consistent with fundamental American values.
Question. Do you believe that the phrase ``cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment'' has been adequately and
appropriately defined for the purpose of this provision?
Answer. I am not fully informed to provide an adequate response to
this question. If I am confirmed, this is something I expect to review
carefully.
Question. What role do you believe the General Counsel of DOD
should play in the interpretation of this standard?
Answer. I believe the General Counsel should play a primary role in
advising on the standards governing the treatment of persons detained
by the U.S. military, including in any interpretation, if necessary, of
the standard quoted above.
Question. What role do you believe the Judge Advocates General of
the military Services should play in the interpretation of this
standard?
Answer. The Judge Advocates General of the military departments
should play a prominent role in the interpretation of this standard and
other matters related to the treatment of detainees. I believe The
Judge Advocates General and the military lawyers they lead bring an
important and essential perspective to these and many other matters,
and they play a vital role in supporting the operating forces
worldwide. As I stated before, judge advocates must be depended upon to
provide timely and effective day-to-day legal advice to military
commanders in the field. If confirmed, and if called upon to offer any
guidance on this standard, I hope and expect to consult the Judge
Advocates General and the Chairman's Legal Counsel for this guidance.
Question. If confirmed, will you take steps to ensure that all
relevant DOD directives, regulations, policies, practices, and
procedures fully comply with the requirements of section 1403 and with
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 DOD
Detainee Program, dated September 5, 2006?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Section 2441 of title 18, U.S.C., as amended by the
Military Commissions Act of 2006, defines grave breaches of Common
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, including torture and cruel and
inhuman treatment.
In your view, does section 2441 define these terms in a manner that
provides appropriate protection from abusive treatment to U.S.
detainees in foreign custody and to foreign detainees in U.S. custody?
Answer. Yes. If I am confirmed, I expect to review this issue
closely.
Question. Do you believe that the United States has the legal
authority to continue holding alleged members and supporters of al
Qaeda and the Taliban as enemy combatants?
Answer. Yes. As a general matter, the United States is authorized
to detain those individuals determined to be enemy combatants. See,
e.g., Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) and the Authorization for
Use of Military Force, 115 Stat. 224. I cannot comment, legally or
factually, on the circumstances of the detention of specific
individuals, which, in many cases, is the subject of pending
litigation.
Question. Do you believe that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals
convened by DOD to provide Guantanamo detainees an opportunity to
contest designation as enemy combatants provide detainees with
appropriate legal standards and processes?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I expect to examine this issue
carefully.
Question. Do you believe that the Federal courts have the
procedures and capabilities needed to fairly and appropriately review
the detention of enemy combatants, pursuant to habeas corpus petitions?
Answer. I am familiar with the Supreme Court's decision in
Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008). It is also my understanding
that the exact procedures that will apply in the habeas cases that
follow the Boumediene decision are still being considered by the
District Court for the District of Columbia. I do not now have a
personal belief about this issue. If confirmed, I will work closely
with the Department of Justice to propose enhancements to current
procedures and capabilities that may be necessary.
Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in
reviewing the status of Guantanamo detainees and determining whether
the United States should continue to hold such detainees?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to provide legal advice to the
Secretary of Defense on the status of the Guantanamo detainees and
determinations whether the United States should continue to hold such
detainees.
Question. The Military Commissions Act of 2006, authorized the
trial of ``alien unlawful enemy combatants'' by military commission and
established the procedures for such trials.
In your view, does the Military Commissions Act provide appropriate
legal standards and processes for the trial of alien unlawful enemy
combatants?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to carefully review whether the
Military Commissions Act strikes the right balance between protecting
U.S. national security interests and providing appropriate legal
standards and processes for a fair and adequate hearing.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that it
would be appropriate to use coerced testimony in the criminal trial of
a detainee?
Answer. If confirmed, I anticipate looking carefully at whether use
of coerced testimony is ever appropriate in the criminal trial of a
detainee.
Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in
determining whether Guantanamo detainees should be tried for war
crimes, and if so, in what forum?
Answer. Under the current structure, the General Counsel has no
role in determining whether any particular Guantanamo detainee should
be tried for war crimes. Rather, the Convening Authority makes the
decision on which cases are referred to a military commission. If
confirmed, I anticipate reviewing the current process to determine
whether to recommend any changes to it.
Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in
reviewing the Military Commissions Act and developing administration
recommendations for any changes that may be needed to that Act?
Answer. If confirmed, I anticipate reviewing the Military
Commissions Act to determine whether to recommend any legislative
proposals to change it.
Question. What is your understanding of the relationship between
the General Counsel of DOD and the legal advisor to the convening
authority, the chief prosecutor, and the chief defense counsel for the
military commissions?
Answer. It is my understanding that, for reporting purposes, these
individuals are all under the cognizance of the Office of the General
Counsel. The legal advisor to the convening authority reports to the
Deputy General Counsel (Legal Counsel). Consistent with the Regulation
for Trial by Military Commissions, the chief prosecutor reports to the
legal advisor. The chief defense counsel reports to the Deputy General
Counsel (Personnel and Health Policy).
contractors on the battlefield
Question. U.S. military operations in Iraq have relied on
contractor support to a greater degree than any previous U.S. military
operations. The extensive involvement of contractor employees in a
broad array of activities--including security functions--has raised
questions about the legal accountability of contractor employees for
their actions.
Do you believe that current DOD regulations appropriately define
and limit the scope of security functions that may be performed by
contractors in an area of combat operations?
Answer. I know that both President-elect Obama and Secretary Gates
are concerned about the oversight and accountability of private
contractors in areas of combat operations. I am not now familiar with
the specific provisions of the Department's regulations in this area,
but I recognize that this is an important issue. If confirmed, I will
make review of the regulations one of my priorities.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to such
regulations?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review these regulations and, if
appropriate, make recommendations for changes.
Question. Do you believe that current DOD regulations appropriately
define and limit the scope of contractor participation in the
interrogation of detainees?
Answer. As stated above, I am not now familiar with the specific
provisions of the Department's regulations in this area, but I
recognize that this is an important issue. If confirmed, I will make
review of these regulations one of my priorities.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to such
regulations?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review these regulations that would
pertain to this matter and, if appropriate, make recommendations for
changes.
Question. In October 2008, DOD announced a plan to award contracts
in excess of $300 million to U.S. contractors to conduct ``information
operations'' through the Iraqi media.
In your view, is DOD's use of private contractors to conduct
information operations through the Iraqi media appropriate?
Answer. I am not fully familiar with the Department's use of
private contractors to conduct information operations. If confirmed, I
will review this issue. I recognize that this issue requires close
scrutiny.
Question. Under what circumstances do you believe that it is
appropriate for DOD to conduct information operations in a sovereign
country without the knowledge and support of the host country?
Answer. I do not have enough information about information
operations at this point to comment on when it would be appropriate for
DOD to conduct such operations in a sovereign country without the
knowledge and support of that country. If confirmed, I will study these
matters carefully and ensure that DOD directives and policy on
information operations are compliant with U.S. law. Again, I recognize
that this is an issue that requires close scrutiny. I note also that in
dealing with the media, DOD Public Affairs has an obligation to
disseminate truthful and accurate information about military
activities, consistent with security guidelines, to both domestic and
international audiences.
Question. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76
defines ``inherently governmental functions'' to include
``discretionary functions'' that could ``significantly affect the life,
liberty, or property of private persons''.
In your view, is the performance of security functions that may
reasonably be expected to require the use of deadly force in highly
hazardous public areas in an area of combat operations an inherently
governmental function?
Answer. From my prior experience as General Counsel of the Air
Force, I am generally familiar with OMB Circular A-76. I am also
familiar with section 832 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2009 which
provides the sense of Congress, regarding performance by private
security contractors of certain functions in areas of combat
operations. This is a sensitive and controversial area, which, if
confirmed, I will study carefully.
Question. In your view, is the interrogation of enemy prisoners of
war and other detainees during and in the aftermath of hostilities an
inherently governmental function?
Answer. I am not now in a position to provide an informed view on
this subject. I am generally familiar with OMB Budget Circular A-76 and
am familiar with section 1057 of NDAA for Fiscal Year 2009, which
reflects the sense of Congress regarding the interrogation of detainees
by contractor personnel. Again, if confirmed, I will study this issue
carefully.
Question. What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in
addressing the issue of what functions may appropriately be performed
by contractors on the battlefield?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to study this issue carefully and
provide the appropriate legal advice and guidance.
Question. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) was
enacted in 2000 to extend the criminal jurisdiction of the U.S. courts
to persons employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces outside the
United States.
In your view, does MEJA provide appropriate jurisdiction for
alleged criminal actions of contractor employees in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and other areas of combat operations?
Answer. I am generally aware of the provisions of the MEJA of 2000,
Pub. L. No. 106-523, 114 Stat. 2488 (2000), as amended. See 18 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 3261-67. I am also aware that there have been legislative
initiatives, including a bill introduced by then-Senator Barack Obama
in February 2007, to explicitly cover MEJA's jurisdiction over
contractors for Federal agencies other than DOD. I expect this
legislative proposal will become a position of the new administration.
I understand and appreciate the importance of appropriate
accountability over all persons in support of our Armed Forces wherever
located. If confirmed, I will give high priority to achieve that
objective.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to MEJA?
Answer. I am not now in a position to offer specific legislative
changes to MEJA. If confirmed, I will give high priority to the
Department's role in supporting this important law and provide advice
when and where improvements are needed.
Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in
developing administration recommendations for changes to MEJA?
Answer. If confirmed, to the extent that DOD develops
recommendations for changes to MEJA to improve upon this law and its
implementing procedures, I hope and expect to provide that necessary
support. It is my understanding that the Office of the DOD General
Counsel has been, since the enactment of MEJA, an integral player in
implementing the act itself, and the processing of cases to the
Department of Justice for consideration.
Question. Section 552 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2007 extended
criminal jurisdiction of the military courts under the UCMJ to persons
serving with or accompanying an Armed Force in the field during time of
declared war or a contingency operation, such as our current operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In your view, does the UCMJ provide appropriate jurisdiction for
alleged criminal actions of contractor employees in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and other areas of combat operations?
Answer. I strongly support the position that civilians serving with
or accompanying our Armed Forces overseas who commit crimes should be
appropriately held accountable. I do not now have an informed view
about whether the UCMJ currently provides the appropriate
jurisdictional reach.
Question. What is your view of the procedures agreed upon by the
DOD and the Department of Justice to reconcile jurisdictional
responsibilities under MEJA and the UCMJ?
Answer. I am aware generally that there are procedures to reconcile
these responsibilities reflected in a Secretary of Defense memorandum
of March 10, 2008. If confirmed, I intend to examine whether this
memorandum strikes the appropriate balance in the exercise of criminal
jurisdiction.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the UCMJ to
ensure appropriate jurisdiction for alleged criminal actions of
contractor employees?
Answer. I am not now prepared to offer specific suggestions or
recommendations. If confirmed, I will examine this issue.
military justice matters
Question. Article 6 of the UCMJ gives primary jurisdiction over
military justice to the Judge Advocates General.
What is your understanding of the General Counsel's functions with
regard to military justice and the Judge Advocates General?
Answer. In general, the DOD General Counsel has no direct role to
play in specific military justice cases, or cases that may have
military justice implications. Decisions in military justice cases are
made by the commander of the accused, the convening authority, the
military judge, and court members. The Service Courts of Criminal
Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces provide
appellate review of cases arising under the UCMJ, as does the U.S.
Supreme Court through writs of certiorari. The Secretary of Defense
becomes involved only in military justice in limited circumstances, and
the General Counsel provides legal advice to the Secretary in those
circumstances. The General Counsel, like the Secretary of Defense and
other senior civilian and military officials in the Department, must
avoid any action that may constitute unlawful command influence. I
share the courts' oft-stated view that unlawful command influence is
the ``mortal enemy'' of military justice.
See also my answers above concerning the Joint Service Committee on
Military Justice and the Code Committee.
Question. In your view, how should the General Counsel approach
military justice matters--both in terms of specific cases and general
policy issues to provide useful advice without generating problems of
unlawful command influence?
Answer. See my answers above to the preceding question concerning
the role of the General Counsel.
prevention of and response to sexual assaults
Question. As required by section 577 of the Ronald W. Reagan NDAA
for Fiscal Year 2005, DOD issued a new policy for the prevention of and
response to sexual assaults involving members of the Armed Forces.
What is your assessment of the DOD policy as it pertains to the
legal issues surrounding the investigation and prosecution of sexual
assault cases?
Answer. I believe this is a very important issue and I intend to
review it carefully if I am confirmed as General Counsel. I am aware of
a Victim Witness Assistance Program to help victims of sexual assault
navigate the military justice process.
Question. What is your view of the provision for restricted and
unrestricted reporting of sexual assaults?
Answer. I dealt with this issue to some extent as General Counsel
of the Air Force. Unrestricted reporting means law enforcement
involvement and investigation that will ensue upon a report of sexual
assault; restricted reporting allows a victim to disclose the details
of the assault to specific individuals and receive medical treatment
and counseling without involving law enforcement or triggering an
automatic investigation. As I understand it, the goal of restricted
reporting is to give the victim the support and confidence eventually
to come forward with an unrestricted report so the offender can be held
accountable. In all, there must be a balance between the need for the
prosecution of sexual offenders on the one hand and the privacy and
physical and mental well-being of the victim on the other. Finding the
right balance is a delicate task. I do not now have a view about
whether DOD has found that right balance.
Question. What is your understanding of the adequacy of DOD
oversight of military service implementation of DOD and Service
policies for the prevention of and response to sexual assaults?
Answer. I am currently unfamiliar with the adequacy of DOD
oversight.
religious activity in the armed forces
Question. What is your understanding of current policies and
programs of the DOD and the Military Services regarding religious
practices in the military?
Answer. My understanding is that the Secretary of Defense and his
staff provide overall policy guidance, and the Secretaries of the Army,
Navy, and Air Force provide supplemental guidance.
Question. In your view, do these policies accommodate the free
exercise of religion and other beliefs without impinging on those who
have different beliefs, including no religious belief?
Answer. I have not been in DOD for 8 years and, at this time, am
not in a position to evaluate whether the current policies accommodate
these important interests imbedded in our Constitution. I appreciate
the importance of this issue. If confirmed, I hope and expect to review
this issue in detail.
Question. In your opinion, do existing policies and practices
regarding public prayers offered by military chaplains in a variety of
formal and informal settings strike the proper balance between a
chaplain's ability to pray in accordance with his or her religious
beliefs and the rights of other servicemembers with different beliefs,
including no religious belief?
Answer. See my answer to the prior question.
law of the sea
Question. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) is currently pending in the Senate.
What are your views on accession by the United States to UNCLOS?
Answer. Like the President-elect and the current administration, I
support U.S. accession to the UNCLOS. My understanding is that there
are important national security interests that are to be furthered by
U.S. accession. If confirmed, I look forward to working within the new
administration and with the Senate towards favorable action on the
Convention during the 111th Congress.
Question. From a national security standpoint, what do you see as
the legal advantages and disadvantages of the United States being a
party to UNCLOS?
Answer. As I understand it, the Convention secures important
freedom of navigation rights upon which our maritime forces must be
able to rely without question. By not being a party to the Convention,
the United States has had to rely on customary international law, which
is not universally accepted and can change over time in ways that may
not be in the best interests of the country. Being a party to the
Convention places these important navigational rights on the strongest
legal footing as treaty rights, and gives the United States a seat at
the table in treaty-based institutions.
I do not see national security disadvantages of being a party to
the Convention. Some suggest that being a party could subject our
maritime forces to the jurisdiction of international tribunals. The
Convention, however, expressly permits a party to exclude from
international dispute settlement those matters that concern ``military
activities,'' and the United States could assert the exclusive right to
determine what constitutes a military activity.
Question. In your view, is customary international law alone
sufficient to safeguard U.S. navigational and overflight rights and
freedoms worldwide?
Answer. No. See my prior answer.
processing the annual dod legislative request
Question. One of the current responsibilities of the General
Counsel of DOD is to coordinate the Department's legislative program
and to provide the Department's views on legislative proposals
initiated from outside the Department
If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure that the
Department's legislative proposals are submitted in a timely manner to
ensure ample opportunity for consideration by Congress before mark-up
of the NDAA?
Answer. I understand that over the past 3 years, the Office of
General Counsel has restructured the Department's Legislative Program
specifically to ensure that the Department transmits the annual
National Defense Authorization Bill to Congress immediately after the
President transmits his budget to Congress. If confirmed as DOD General
Counsel, I will personally monitor this progress, and assess whether
improvements in the process can be made.
Question. What actions would you take, if confirmed, to ensure
Congress receives the Department's views on other proposed legislation
in a timely manner?
Answer. When I was General Counsel of the Air Force, I was appalled
at the slow turnaround time in responding to many letters from
Congress. I recall one that took almost a year.
I am told that, over the past 2 years, the Office of General
Counsel has worked closely with the Office of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Legislative Affairs and OMB to improve the Department's
responses to requests for views on congressional bills. If confirmed, I
will work to ensure that the Department provides Congress with timely
views on proposed legislation.
judicial review
Question. What is your understanding of the appropriate role of the
Article III courts in the review of military activities?
Answer. The role of Article III courts in review of military
activities has been addressed repeatedly by the Supreme Court and lower
Federal courts. Historically, the courts have afforded great deference
to the military in the conduct of its affairs. See, e.g., Loving v.
United States, 517 U.S. 748, 767 (1996); Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S.
1, 4, 10 (1973); Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1953).
However, that deference is not without limits, and since September 11,
2001, the Supreme Court has found it necessary to assert itself in
matters of national security and the conduct of military affairs. For
example, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 535-36 (2004), Justice
O'Connor stated ``whatever power the United States Constitution
envisions for the executive in its exchanges with other nations or with
enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a
role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.''
client
Question. In your opinion, who is the client of the General Counsel
of the DOD?
Answer. DOD is the client.
legal ethics
Question. What is your understanding of the action a DOD attorney
should take if the attorney becomes aware of improper activities by a
DOD official who has sought the attorney's legal advice and the
official is unwilling to follow the attorney's advice?
Answer. Every DOD attorney is under an obligation to faithfully
comply with all applicable laws and regulations. One such regulation,
DOD Directive 5505.06, ``Investigations of Allegations Against Senior
Officials of the DOD,'' requires referral to the DOD IG of senior
official misconduct, including allegations of a violation of criminal
law or conflict of interest law. If a DOD attorney learns of improper
activities by an official who has sought his or her legal advice but is
unwilling to follow it, the attorney should immediately notify his or
her legal supervisor (or the senior lawyer in the next higher level of
his or her organization) for review and appropriate action by that
higher level attorney. This is the appropriate avenue to escalate
concerns to ensure that corrective action is promptly taken.
Question. Do you believe that the present limits on pro bono
activities of government attorneys are generally correct as a matter of
policy or does the policy need to be reviewed?
Answer. To my knowledge, the present limits on pro bono activities
are appropriate. That said, I am aware that there are a number of
opportunities for DOD attorneys to be involved in many types of pro
bono activities. If confirmed, for example, I intend to encourage DOD
attorneys to participate in bar association activity. I believe that
involvement by DOD attorneys in professional legal associations
contributes to professional development.
Question. In your view, do the laws, regulations, and guidelines
that establish the rules of professional responsibility for attorneys
in DOD provide adequate guidance?
Answer. With respect to professional responsibility rules in DOD, I
am aware that all DOD attorneys are required to be licensed to practice
in a State, the District of Columbia, or a United States commonwealth
or territory. DOD attorneys must also adhere to the highest standards
of professional conduct, including compliance with the rules of
professional conduct of their State bar(s) and any supplemental
requirements imposed by their DOD component. If confirmed, I will
examine the adequacy of the professional responsibility rules for
lawyers in the Office of the DOD General Counsel and the DLSA, and make
appropriate modifications or issue supplemental guidance if warranted.
role in the officer promotion process
Question. In your view, what is the role of the General Counsel of
DOD in ensuring the integrity and proper functioning of the officer
promotion process?
Answer. It is essential that the integrity and independence of the
promotion selection process be maintained. Based on my prior experience
as General Counsel of the Air Force, I know that the Secretary of each
Service, in consultation with his or her own general counsel and Judge
Advocate General, has the initial responsibility to ensure that the
promotion selection process for both regular and Reserve officers is in
compliance with law and DOD policy. I am also aware that all reports of
promotion selection boards are reviewed by the Office of the DOD
General Counsel prior to final action on the report by the Secretary or
Deputy Secretary of Defense. If the DOD General Counsel determines that
a promotion selection board fails to conform to law or policy, it would
be the duty of the General Counsel to inform the Secretary or Deputy
Secretary of Defense of the irregularities and to recommend appropriate
corrective action. Further, in providing advice to the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the General
Counsel should ensure that officer promotion policies promulgated in
DOD regulations fairly and accurately reflect provisions of law set out
in title 10.
Question. What is the role of the General Counsel of DOD, if any,
in reviewing and providing potentially adverse information pertaining
to a nomination to the Senate Armed Services Committee?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Office of the DOD General
Counsel reviews all nomination packages pertaining to general and flag
officers with attributed adverse information before the package is
forwarded to the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense for approval.
The General Counsel ensures that any adverse information attributed to
such officers is supported by evidence in the associated reports of
investigation. I am informed that the DOD General Counsel frequently
provides specific advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the
Secretary of Defense concerning difficult or unusual cases. The General
Counsel also shares responsibility for ensuring that adverse
information communicated to the Armed Services Committee is provided in
an accurate, comprehensive, and timely manner. Further, I am advised
that the DOD Office of General Counsel is actively involved in ensuring
that the Armed Services Committee is notified in a timely manner about
recently initiated investigations involving officers pending
confirmation.
litigation involving the department of defense
Question. In your opinion, what is the relationship between DOD and
the Department of Justice with respect to litigation involving DOD?
Answer. The Department of Justice has statutory responsibility to
represent the United States, its agencies, and its officers, including
DOD, in all litigation matters. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 516. However, DOD
attorneys work directly with counsel at the Department of Justice in
cases in which DOD, or one or more of its components or officials, is a
party or has an interest. DOD attorneys review pleadings before they
are filed with the courts, conduct and direct discovery, participate in
making major litigation decisions, and in some cases serve as members
of trial teams.
Question. In your view, does the Department need more independence
and resources to conduct its own litigation or to improve upon its
current supporting role?
Answer. If confirmed, I am sure I will review this issue.
court of appeals decision
Question. On January 4, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of National
Center for Manufacturing Sciences v. Department of Defense, 199 F. 3d
507 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The court concluded that ``Because of the
existence of 10 U.S.C. section 114, it is clear that any monies
appropriated for National Center for Manufacturing Sciences by Congress
for research must be authorized before they can be appropriated and
distributed''; and ``Because 10 U.S.C. section 114(a)(2) requires
authorization of these funds before they become available,
appropriation alone is insufficient.''
What is your view of the court's decision in this case and its
implications regarding the obligation of funds that are appropriated,
but not authorized?
Answer. I am generally aware of this case. It was decided while I
was General Counsel of the Air Force. In addition, I am aware that
there is doubt about whether funds can be utilized that are
appropriated but not authorized. In my experience, situations where
funds have been appropriated but not authorized are often complex and
may involve unique statutory language. As a result, if confirmed, I
hope and expect that the Department, and the DOD General Counsel, will
continue its practice of working closely with our oversight committees
whenever this situation appears to be presented.
role in military personnel policy matters
Question. What role, if any, should the General Counsel play in
military personnel policy and individual cases, including cases before
the Service boards for the correction of military records?
Answer. The potential range of issues that might require legal
advice from the DOD General Counsel's office is very broad. The Office
of General Counsel provides legal advice with respect to policy issues
pertaining to military personnel, working closely with the Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, which has
overall responsibility for departmental guidance for the correction
boards.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next General Counsel of DOD?
Answer. Regardless of the substantive issues facing the Department,
the military and civilian attorneys in the Department must work
collaboratively to provide the highest quality, timely service to the
Department and its leadership.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to work closely with both the senior
civilian and military attorneys across the Department to build the
critical relationships necessary to successfully serve our clients in
the highest traditional of public service.
most serious problems
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the General Counsel of DOD?
Answer. There is always room for improvement, but I believe the DOD
General Counsel's office is one of the finest law offices I have
encountered, with many talented, dedicated, and extraordinary career
professionals. Since I last worked in the Pentagon, the challenges
facing DOD General Counsel have become far more complex in the post-
September 11 world. It will be the highest honor of my professional
career to lead this fine group of men and women in meeting those
challenges.
Question. What management actions and timelines would you establish
to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will encourage the Department's senior
civilian and military attorneys to work collaboratively to provide
timely legal advice of the highest quality to our clients.
Question. What do you see as the greatest legal problems facing the
Department in the coming year?
Answer. The world has changed since I last worked in the Pentagon
in January 2001, and my single greatest reason for wanting to return to
public service is to help combat international terrorism. I was a
personal witness to the events of September 11, 2001. We must imagine,
prepare for, and try to prevent the next attack, not the last one, and
the greatest challenge of the DOD General Counsel going forward will be
to find legal solutions and the best legal advice to promote our
national security while safeguarding our individual liberties and
American values.
Question. Does the Office of the General Counsel have the resources
to deal with these problems and do its everyday work?
Answer. If confirmed, I will assess whether the resources available
to the DOD General Counsel are sufficient to perform the tasks
described above.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, 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
DOD?
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. 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?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
guantanamo bay reviews
1. Senator Akaka. Mr. Johnson, DOD conducts Administrative Review
Boards at Guantanamo Bay (GTMO) to determine if a detainee will be
released, transferred, or retained. According to a Pentagon spokesman
on the GTMO issue, ``Since 2002, 61 former detainees have committed or
are suspected to have committed attacks after being released from the
detention camp.'' This number has increased since a March 2008 Pentagon
report cited 37 former detainees had been suspected of terrorist
activities. In your view, to what extent has the Administrative Review
Boards been able to establish effectively mitigation of risk that a
released/transferred detainee will return to the fight?
Mr. Johnson. I am aware of Administrative Review Boards and the
role they play. However, I do not have enough information about
Administrative Review Boards at this point to comment on their
effectiveness, including whether Administrative Review Boards
effectively consider the risk that a detainee will ``return to the
fight.'' If confirmed, I expect to examine this issue carefully as part
of the detainee review ordered by the President.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
sexual assaults in iraq and afghanistan
2. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Johnson, untold numbers of sexual
assaults have been committed in Iraq and Afghanistan by executive
branch contractors and employees. In 2007, I sent letters regarding
sexual assault to the Secretaries of Defense and State and the Attorney
General. On December 13, 2007, I wrote to Secretary of Defense Gates,
requesting that he launch an investigation by the Defense Department's
Inspector General (DOD/IG) into rape and sexual assault cases in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Following my letters, the DOD/IG stated that the Army
Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigated 41 sexual assaults in
Iraq in 2005, 45 sexual assaults in 2006, and 38 sexual assaults in
2007. These numbers are limited to only 3 years' worth of
investigations by the Army in Iraq. They do not include investigations
for both theaters of operations nor all the Services operating in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Consequently, there could be many additional
investigations and assaults that have not been investigated. Also,
because the DOD/IG would not provide information on the status of its
investigations, it remains unclear how many of these cases have been
prosecuted and/or processed within the military or criminal justice
systems. If confirmed, how will you work with your counterparts at the
Departments of State, Justice, and other executive branch departments
with regard to contractor crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Mr. Johnson. Regrettably, as you state, there have been reported
cases of sexual assaults committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. By any
measure, these numbers are unacceptable. Even one case of sexual
assault is one too many. In 2004, DOD created the Sexual Assault and
Prevention Office to establish policy and procedures to address the
various issues and difficulties encountered by victims of sexual
assault worldwide. I understand also that attorneys of the Office of
the General Counsel have been instrumental in providing legal advice
and guidance in the development and implementation of those various
policies. I am told that attorneys in the Office of the General Counsel
work closely with Department of Justice officials on all reported cases
of crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan where there is the
possibility of prosecution under the Military Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction Act or other Federal criminal jurisdiction, and cases
involving civilians during contingency operations for which the
recently-expanded jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
is available. If I am confirmed, I will see to it that the Office of
the General Counsel will continue to be in the forefront of these
efforts to hold accountable those who commit crimes while serving with
or accompanying the Armed Forces outside the United States, as well as
civilian contractors or employees of other Federal agencies whose
employment relates to supporting the DOD mission overseas.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Mark Pryor
breakdown of communication
3. Senator Pryor. Mr. Johnson, the Senate Armed Services Committee
report of its Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody
discovered a fundamental breakdown in communication between the
respective Services' Counsels and that of DOD General Counsel. Such a
breakdown could even be interpreted as General Counsel's blatant
disregard for the opinion and counsel from the uniformed services. I
believe the committee's report is quite clear about this correlation.
As General Counsel to the Secretary of Defense, how will you establish
a better working relationship with the Services to keep such a
breakdown in communication from ever happening again?
Mr. Johnson. I was General Counsel of the Air Force from October
1998 to January 2001. As such, I appreciate the role the Service
General Counsels play and their importance within the overall DOD legal
community. Further, while Air Force General Counsel, I had extensive
experience working in a collegial and collaborative fashion with The
Judge Advocate General of the Air Force and his staff to deliver
effective legal service and advice to the Air Force's leadership. If
confirmed as General Counsel of DOD, I intend to continue that kind of
positive working relationship with all Judge Advocates General and the
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
As I stated during my testimony on January 15, my approach to legal
analysis includes hearing from other senior counsel, such as The Judge
Advocates General, as well as junior military and civilian lawyers
working on the issue. Moreover, if I know that the Department's
military lawyers have a strong view on a matter, I have in the past,
and expect in the future, if confirmed, to include The Judge Advocates
General collaboratively in discussions and deliberations on such
issues. I believe that having the input of a cross-section of the
Department's lawyers is important to being able to provide the best
legal advice to the senior civilian and military leadership.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
detainees
4. Senator McCain. Mr. Johnson, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005
provides 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. Do you agree that this standard applies to all
detainees in U.S. custody, including those detained by the military but
who may be subject to interrogation by other U.S. Government agencies?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
5. Senator McCain. Mr. Johnson, if confirmed, how do you intend to
ensure the standard is followed by U.S. forces worldwide?
Mr. Johnson. If confirmed, as part of the detainee review ordered
by the President, I intend to examine thoroughly all detainee-related
regulations and directives to ensure that this standard is clearly and
effectively communicated throughout the Department and to U.S. forces
worldwide.
guantanamo bay
6. Senator McCain. Mr. Johnson, President-elect Obama has said he
wants to close the military detention facility at GTMO. If confirmed,
how would you go about executing the President-elect's policy? How
would you approach this challenge?
Mr. Johnson. The President has directed the closure of the
detention facilities at GTMO, in an Executive order signed on January
22, 2009. If confirmed, I expect to provide legal advice to the
Department as it works closely with other departments and agencies to
implement all aspects of this important Executive order.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
guantanamo bay
7. Senator Collins. Mr. Johnson, President-elect Obama has
indicated his desire to close the detention facility at Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay. What would be your recommendation to Secretary Gates as
to what to do with the detainees once GTMO is closed?
Mr. Johnson. The President has directed the closure of the
detention facilities at GTMO, in an Executive order signed on January
22, 2009. If confirmed, I expect to provide legal advice to the
Department as it works closely with other departments and agencies to
implement all aspects of this important Executive order. At this point,
I do not have specific recommendations for Secretary Gates about what
to do with any remaining detainees once GTMO is closed. In my view,
decisions concerning the detainees should be guided by several
principles: adherence to the laws and American values; public safety;
bringing to justice those detainees who can and should be prosecuted;
and the risk of recidivism, i.e., the risk that a detainee released or
transferred could return to the fight.
______
[The nomination reference of Jeh Charles Johnson follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
January 20, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Jeh Charles Johnson, of New York, to be General Counsel of the
Department of Defense, vice William J. Haynes II, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Jeh Charles Johnson, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Jeh C. Johnson
Jeh Charles Johnson is a partner in the New York City-based law
firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP.
Mr. Johnson's career has been a mixture of successful private law
practice (as an experienced trial lawyer) and distinguished public
service (as a Federal prosecutor and presidential appointee). In
private practice, Mr. Johnson has personally tried some of the highest
stakes commercial cases of recent years. At age 47, he was elected a
Fellow in the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers. His
experience as a trial lawyer began in 1989-1991, as an Assistant United
States Attorney in the Southern District of New York, where he
prosecuted public corruption cases.
In 1998, Mr. Johnson left Paul, Weiss for 27 months when President
Clinton appointed him General Counsel of the Department of the Air
Force. In 2004, Mr. Johnson served as Special Counsel to John Kerry's
presidential campaign. He was also actively involved in Barack Obama's
presidential campaign as an advisor on national security and
international law issues. In January 2007, Mr. Johnson was nominated by
the bipartisan New York State Commission on Judicial Nomination to be
Chief Judge of New York. The incumbent Judith Kaye was reappointed by
Governor Spitzer. Mr. Johnson was rated ``well-qualified'' for the
position by the New York State Bar Association--the highest rating it
can give.
While in private practice, Mr. Johnson is active in professional
and community activities. From 2001-2004, he was Chair of the Judiciary
Committee of the New York City Bar Association, which rates and
approves all the Federal, state and local judges in New York City. He
now serves on the Executive Committee of the City Bar.
Mr. Johnson is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the
American Law Institute. He currently serves on the Board of Governors
of the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute and the Board of
Advisors of the National Institute of Military Justice. Mr. Johnson is
a past or present director or trustee of Adelphi University, the
Federal Bar Council, the Fund for Modem Courts, the New York Community
Trust, the Legal Aid Society, the Delta Sigma Theta Research and
Education Fund, the Vera Institute, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law, the New York Hall of Science, the Film Society of
Lincoln Center and the New York City Bar Fund, Inc. in 1995-1997.
Mr. Johnson graduated from Morehouse College in 1979 and Columbia
Law School in 1982.
______
[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 Jeh Charles
Johnson in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Jeh Charles Johnson.
2. Position to which nominated:
General Counsel of the Department of Defense.
3. Date of nomination:
Intention to nominate issued January 8, 2009.
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 11, 1957; New York, NY.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Dr. Susan M. DiMarco.
7. Names and ages of children:
Jeh Charles Johnson, Jr. (born September 19, 1994).
Natalie Marguerite Johnson (born December 6, 1995).
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Morehouse College, August 1975-May 1979, B.A. 1979.
Columbia University School of Law, August 1979-May 1982, J.D. 1982.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Associate; Sullivan & Cromwell; 125 Broad Street; New York, NY;
September 1982-October 1984.
Associate; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; 1285
Avenue of the Americas; New York, NY; November 1994-December 1988.
Assistant United States Attorney; One Saint Andrews Plaza; New
York, NY; January 1989-December 1991.
Associate, then partner; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
LLP; 1285 Avenue of the Americas; New York, NY; January 1992-October
1998.
Adjunct lecturer of law (in trial practice) (volunteer, part-time);
Columbia University School of Law; 435 West 116th Street; New York, NY;
January 1995-April 1997.
General Counsel of the Department of the Air Force; Room 4E856;
1740 Air Force Pentagon; Washington, DC; October 1998-January 2001.
Partner; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; 1285 Avenue
of the Americas; New York, NY; January 2001-present.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Transition Team for President-elect Barack Obama, November 2008-
December 2008.
Transition Team for NYS Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, November
2006-December 2006.
Congressional Intern, The Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr.;
Poughkeepsie, NY; May 1980-August 1980.
Senate Intern; The Honorable Daniel P. Moynihan; Washington, DC;
May 1978-August 1978.
Congressional Intern; The Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr.; Washington,
DC; July 1977.
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; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP (law firm).
Board of Governors, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute.
Director, Federal Bar Foundation.
Member and Executive Committee member, New York City Bar
Association.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
See the response to question 11 above.
Member, American Bar Association.
Fellow, American College of Trial Lawyers.
Member, Counsel on Foreign Relations.
Member, Rockefeller Center Club (lunch club).
Member, Nisi Prius (lunch club).
Member, Bradford Swim & Tennis Club (local club for family in New
Jersey).
Member, American Law Institute.
Member, Sigma Pi Phi fraternity.
Member, National Institute of Military Justice.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
Member, Dutchess County (New York) Republican Committee (1980-
1981).
Member, New York County Democratic Committee (1993-1994).
Delegate, Democratic National Convention (2008).
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
National Finance Committee, Obama for America (2007-2008).
New York State Counsel to Obama for America (2008).
Special Counsel, John Kerry for President, Inc. (2008).
See also the response 13(c) below.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
10/18/2008, Nebraskans for Kleeb $500.
10/05/2008, Jill Morgenthaler for Congress, $250.
09/30/2008, Linda Stender for Congress, $500.
09/26/2008, New Jersey Democratic State Committee, $5,000.
09/23/2008, Bill Richardson for President Inc., $1,000.
09/16/2008, Democratic National Committee, $28,460.
07/31/2008, Hillary Clinton for President, $2,300.
07/29/2008, Friends of Kevin Parker, $1,000.
07/24/2008, Obama Victory Fund, $2,300.
07/09/2008, Committee to Re-Elect Eric Adams, $1,000.
05/29/2008, Friends of Mark Warner, $2,300.
05/07/2008, Lautenberg for Senate, $1,000.
04/23/2008, People for Chris Gregoire, $500.
04/22/2008, Andre Carson for Congress, $2,000.
04/20/2008, Senate 2008, $2,000.
04/01/2008, Patrick Murphy for Congress, $2,300.
03/29/2008, Paul Hodes for Congress, $1,300.
03/31/2008, Gillibrand for Congress, $500.
03/21/2008, Waltner for Congress, $500.
03/11/2008, Al Franken for Senate, $1,000.
03/07/2008, Karim Camara, $1,500.
02/13/2008, Cyrus Vance, Jr. for District Attorney, $1,000.
12/31/2007, Paul Hodes for Congress, $1,000.
12/01/2007, John Hall for Congress, $500.
09/30/2007, Friends of Dick Durbin Committee, $500.
09/25/2007, Democratic Governors Association, $500.
09/25/2007, Linda Stender for Congress, $1,000.
09/18/2007, Our Common Values PAC, $500.
08/21/2007, Citizens for Harkin, $2,000.
07/09/2007, Conyers for Congress, $2,000.
06/13/2007, Friends for Gregory Meeks, $500.
05/31/2007, Patrick Murphy for Congress, $2,300.
03/27/2007, Friends of Jim Clyburn, $1,500.
03/01/2007, Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc. General Election Legal and
Accounting Compliance Fund, -$2,000.
02/09/2007, Linda Stender for Congress, $300.
01/23/2007, Obama for America, $2,300.
12/11/2006, Hopefund Inc., $4,000.
11/04/2006, Harold Ford Jr. for Tennessee, $1,500.
09/21/2006, Harold Ford Jr. for Tennessee, $2,000.
09/07/2006, Linda Stender for Congress, $1,600.
08/18/2006, Richardson for Governor, $1,000.
08/04/2006, James Webb for U.S. Senate, $2,100.
06/25/2006, Patterson for Attorney General, $200.
06/17/2006, Linda Stender for Congress, $500.
06/15/2006, Hopefund Inc., $1,000.
06/12/2005, Democratic National Committee, $2,000.
06/07/2006, Spitzer 2006, $2,000.
06/06/2006, Menendez for Senate, $2,100.
06/06/2006, Menendez for Senate, $2,100.
05/26/2006, Friends of Hillary, $1,000.
05/20/2006, Lee Harris for Memphis, $250.
04/13/2006, Democratic National Committee, $1,000.
03/28/2006, Bill Nelson for Senate, $1,000.
03/20/2006, David Yassky for Congress, $250.
02/06/2006, Harold Ford Jr. for Tennessee, $1,000.
12/06/2005, Friends of Rahm Emanuel, $2,000.
11/07/2005, Cam Kerry Committee, $500.
11/02/2005, Spitzer 2006, $1,000.
05/15/2005, Spitzer 2006, $1,000.
04/25/2005, Carol March for Mayor, $250.
04/13/2005, Deval Patrick, $500.
01/08/2005, Mark Green for Attorney General, $1,000.
11/23/2004, Jun Choi for Assembly, $100.
09/12/2004, Kerry-Edwards Victory 2004, $1,000.
07/08/2004, Obama for Illinois Inc., $250.
06/08/2004, Obama for Illinois Inc., $250.
06/06/2004, Garodnick for New York, $1,000.
05/19/2004, Spitzer 2006, $1,000.
05/07/2004, Max Sandlin for Congress, $100.
04/23/2004, Texas Fund, $500.
04/05/2004, Rahm Emanuel for Congress, $1,000.
03/01/2004, Rangel for Congress, $100.
14. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Recipient, DOD Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service, 2001.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
``Mock Juries, Why Use Them?'' Litigation Magazine (article on use
of mock juries, written in July 2008, to be published).
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
[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.
Jeh Charles Johnson.
This 12th day of January, 2009.
[The nomination of Jeh Charles Johnson was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on February 5, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on February 9, 2009.]
NOMINATIONS OF DR. ASHTON B. CARTER TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS; DR. JAMES N. MILLER, JR.,
TO BE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY; AND AMBASSADOR
ALEXANDER R. VERSHBOW TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 2009
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 Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed,
McCaskill, Hagan, Begich, Burris, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions,
Chambliss, Thune, Burr, and Vitter.
Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Madelyn R. Creedon,
counsel; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member; Mark
R. Jacobson, professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling,
counsel; Peter K. Levine, general counsel; William G.P.
Monahan, counsel; Russell L. Shaffer, counsel; and William K.
Sutey, professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Joseph W. Bowab, Republican
staff director; Pablo E. Carrillo, minority investigative
counsel; Richard H. Fontaine, Jr., deputy Republican staff
director; Paul C. Hutton IV, professional staff member; Daniel
A. Lerner, professional staff member; David M. Morriss,
minority counsel; Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional staff
member; Christopher J. Paul, professional staff member; and
Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Kevin A. Cronin, Jessica L.
Kingston, and Christine G. Lang.
Committee members' assistants present: Jay Maroney,
assistant to Senator Kennedy; Christopher Griffin and Vance
Serchuk, assistants to Senator Lieberman; Elizabeth King,
assistant to Senator Reed; Christopher Caple, assistant to
Senator Bill Nelson; Jon Davey, assistant to Senator Bayh;
Gordon I. Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb; Michael Harney,
assistant to Senator Hagan; Brady King, assistant to Senator
Burris; Anthony J. Lazarski, assistant to Senator Inhofe;
Lenwood Landrum and Sandra Luff, assistants to Senator
Sessions; Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss;
Jason Van Beek, assistant to Senator Thune; Dan Fisk and Brian
W. Walsh, assistants to Senator Martinez; Chris Joyner and
Kevin Kane, assistants to Senator Burr; Michael T. Wong,
assistant to Senator Vitter; and Chip Kennett, assistant to
Senator Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody. The committee
today considers the nominations of Ashton Carter to be Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
(AT&L); James Miller to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy; and Alexander Vershbow to be Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Security Affairs.
Each of our nominees has a long track record of public
service. Dr. Carter served as Assistant Secretary of Defense
for International Security Policy from 1993 to 1996. Since that
time he's continued to serve as a member of the Defense Science
Board and the Defense Policy Board, co-chair of the Review
Panel on Future Directions for the Defense Threat Reduction
Agency, member of the National Missile Defense White Team, and
a member of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on
International Security and Arms Control.
Dr. Miller served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Requirements, Plans, and Counterproliferation Policy from
1997 to 2000 and as a professional staff member for the House
Armed Services Committee from 1988 to 1992.
Mr. Vershbow is a career foreign service officer who has
served as Ambassador to the Republic of Korea from 2005 to
2008, as Ambassador to Russia from 2001 to 2005, and as
Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
from 1998 to 2001.
We welcome our witnesses and we welcome their families to
today's hearing. Senior Department of Defense (DOD) officials
put in long hours every day. We appreciate the sacrifices that
our nominees and their families--and we emphasize that--are
willing to make to serve their country.
Dr. Carter, if confirmed, will assume leadership of DOD's
acquisition organization at a particularly difficult time.
According to recent estimates, the Department's 95 Major
Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) have exceeded their
research and development budgets by an average of 40 percent,
seen their acquisition costs grow by an average of over 25
percent, and experienced an average schedule delay of almost 2
years.
Last summer, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
reported that cost overruns on these major acquisition programs
now total $295 billion over the original estimates, even though
we have cut unit quantities and reduced performance
expectations on many programs in an effort to hold down costs.
These problems are the consequence of the Department's
continuing failure to develop reasonable cost and schedule
estimates at the beginning of program, failure to establish
realistic performance expectations, failure to use mature
technologies, and failure to avoid costly changes to program
requirements, production quantities, and funding levels in the
middle of ongoing programs.
Over the last few years, these problems have been
compounded by an alarming lack of acquisition planning across
the Department, the excessive use of time and materials
contracts, undefinitized contracts and other open-ended
commitments with DOD funds, and a pervasive failure to perform
contract oversight and management functions necessary to
protect the taxpayers' interest.
Dr. Miller will join DOD when almost 200,000 U.S. soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines are deployed in harm's way in Iraq
and Afghanistan alone. Dr. Miller will play a key role in
facing the challenge of managing the transition between two
ongoing wars, drawing down in Iraq as we build up in
Afghanistan. He will help shape our policies in other key areas
around the world, from countering the potential threat of a
nuclear Iran to developing a common approach with our
international partners for addressing North Korea. He will also
help lead the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which
should get underway in the near future.
Ambassador Vershbow when he becomes Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Security Affairs will have the
responsibility for helping to develop the Department's policies
relating to Iraq, the Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Eurasia.
In this capacity he will oversee our relations with our NATO
partners who are contributing to coalition operations in
Afghanistan, Kosovo, and elsewhere. He is also likely to play a
key role as we seek to improve our relations with Russia, a
country where he served with distinction as Ambassador for 5
years.
I look forward to the testimony of our nominees on these
issues.
Senator McCain is on his way, and in a way it's a break
that he's a little bit late because that gives us an
opportunity to call on Senator Lieberman, who has another
responsibility as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee in just a few minutes. So we're
going to call on you, Senator Lieberman, for your introduction.
We're delighted you're here.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Senator Lieberman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate your courtesy. I'm sorry that I can't stay for the
hearing because we have one in Homeland Security and some
nominees.
I must say, this gives me a different perspective on the
committee and the staff, being at this lower altitude.
Chairman Levin. We hope you'll remember that. [Laughter.]
Senator Lieberman. Exactly. I was going to say, I will show
you more than the normal respect than I do from this altitude.
Thank you. I'm here to introduce and to support the
nomination of Dr. Ash Carter, but I must say that these are
three remarkable individuals. We are very fortunate that they
are prepared to serve our country, and I think it shows
President Obama's good judgment and really high standards in
making these picks.
I must say as a U. Conn. [University of Connecticut]
Huskies fan that my confidence in the President's judgment has
been shaken somewhat by his failure to put the Huskies in the
Final Four for the NCAA [National Collegiate Athletic
Association] brackets.
Chairman Levin. He has a lot on his plate, so I think it's
understandable.
Senator Lieberman. I understand. My confidence has been
shored up by these three nominees.
I am here to introduce Ash Carter. I suppose that my
constituency claim to Ash is that he spent 4 great years of his
life in New Haven, CT, at college. But we've come to know each
other very well over the ensuing years. I'm proud to consider
him a friend. I've greatly benefited from his thinking on
matters of national security. He has an extraordinary CV, which
is before you: a double major, interestingly, in medieval
history and physics at Yale; then a Rhodes scholarship and a
doctorate at Oxford in theoretical physics.
Of course, he comes to us now from his position on the
faculty at the Kennedy Center at Harvard. He served on the
Defense Science Board from 1991 to 1993, and then as Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. He was
in that position for 4 years, during his tenure led the multi-
billion dollar Cooperative Threat Reduction, the Nunn-Lugar
Program supporting the removal of nuclear, biological, and
chemical weapons from the former Soviet Union; and worked very
closely with former Defense Secretary William Perry.
He really brings a remarkable array of talents to this
position of Under Secretary of Defense for AT&L. He combines
both program execution experience with remarkable capability to
both formulate and see through policy transformations. Ash
Carter understands that the acquisition part of this position
is of intense interest to members of this committee, to
Congress, to the country, because of the persistent overruns in
the cost of systems that we are acquiring. He understands our
concern about the number and quality of acquisition personnel.
I think he really will bring a tough, fresh, pro-taxpayer, pro-
national security view to this work.
As I say, he has remarkable policy judgment and policy
experience, which I think will benefit the Department overall
on some of the major questions about, particularly in a
resource-constrained environment, which systems should we
acquire. For instance, how can we through the acquisition
process implement the high hopes of the Goldwater-Nichols joint
warfighting vision, which has been realized in many ways and
still not fully in acquisition.
I can go on a long time about Ash Carter. I will just say
that I think we're very fortunate in him and his wonderful
family that's with him, and that he's agreed to come back to
Washington to serve our Nation. We will all be better and safer
as a result of it, and of course I hope that our committee will
recommend him favorably to the Senate.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. Your
introduction's not only significant to Dr. Carter, it's very
significant, of course, to us. Thank you for working this into
your schedule. Senator Kennedy also has an introduction for Dr.
Carter and we'll put a copy of that statement into the record
here.
Prepared Statement by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
It's a privilege to welcome Ash to the Senate Armed Services
Committee and I look forward to his confirmation as Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. I know that Ash has
impressive plans for the Department of Defense and I look forward to
working with him on a range of issues.
Ash brings a wealth of experience to this position both from the
private sector and his role as Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Policy under President Clinton. Most recently,
he's been Ford Foundation Professor of Science and International
Affairs at the Kennedy School at Harvard, where he led the faculty as
Chair of the Department of International Relations, Security and
Science. He is also a trustee at the Mitre Corporation and an adviser
at MIT's Lincoln Laboratory and Draper Laboratory.
Ash has been a respected leader in national security for many
years. Now more than ever, the Nation needs his skills and commitment.
I strongly support his nomination, and I look forward very much to his
confirmation by the Senate.
Senator McCain.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks, Senator Lieberman, for introducing our nominees
today. Dr. Carter and Dr. Miller each have previously served in
the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and Ambassador
Vershbow, you have a distinguished career of service in the
Foreign Service. I thank you all for your willingness to serve
in these extraordinary positions of importance in DOD.
Dr. Miller and Ambassador Vershbow, I expect that they're
awaiting your arrival. Your responses to the committee's
advance policy questions (APQs) reflect, I believe correctly,
the high priority that must be placed on achieving success in
Iraq and Afghanistan. I look forward to working with you.
Dr. Carter, the need for comprehensive acquisition reform
at DOD is an imperative. The American people can't afford the
costly weapons procurement failures and mismanagement we've
seen in the past. If confirmed as Under Secretary of Defense
for AT&L, obviously you must ensure that acquisition
decisionmaking is fiscally sound and responsive to our national
security imperatives.
Perhaps no two programs reflect the problems in DOD
procurement more than the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
program and the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. The
cost of the JSF program has increased 47 percent since 2001,
from $65 million to $105 million per aircraft. What's even more
troubling is that we don't know how much higher the cost of the
program will go because the program is scheduled to buy 360
aircraft under a cost reimbursable contract, with only 2
percent of its development flight testing completed and
critical technologies essential for the program remaining
immature.
Similarly, the FCS program, according to GAO, is ``unlikely
to be executed within the Department's $159 billion cost
estimate.'' In fact, consensus is emerging that the cost of
that program is likely to balloon to over $200 billion. Yet,
having already invested billions in that program, the Army is
in many respects closer to the beginning of development than it
is to the end.
Adding to the existing litany of failed or failing major
defense programs, the status of the JSF and FCS programs lead
to the unavoidable conclusion that the current acquisition
process is broken. I won't go into the presidential helicopter
issue.
Unless difficult decisions are made and serious reform
measures undertaken, our ability to provide for our national
security will be over time fundamentally compromised. The
endless cycle of runaway costs, prolonged delivery schedules,
and poor performance in the acquisition of major weapons has in
my view mired us in a form of unilateral disarmament.
Dr. Carter, your cumulative experience and expertise in a
wide range of defense-related matters is notable. However, I do
have concerns about your lack of in-depth experience in
acquisition-related matters. I'll look forward to your telling
us about that. By the same token, I understand that experience
alone is no guarantee of success in the arena you're about to
enter.
I sincerely hope that you will bring needed clarity of
vision and skill in management to this position. I look forward
to your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator McCain.
Now, we do expect Senator Reed to be here at any moment to
make his introduction of Dr. Miller, but we are going to
proceed and if he is able to get here he will make that
introduction at that time.
I would suggest, Ambassador Vershbow, that you now move
over one seat to your right and shift your name plate for us.
I will ask you first for your opening statements. Dr.
Carter, let me call on you first, and then I'll ask you the
standard questions when you're all done with your statements.
Dr. Carter.
STATEMENT OF ASHTON B. CARTER, PH.D., NOMINEE TO BE UNDER
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS
Dr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members. Thank you for
giving me the opportunity to appear before you as the nominee
for the position of Under Secretary of Defense for AT&L. I
thank Senator Lieberman for introducing me, and my wonderful
wife Stephanie and my daughter Ava and my son Will for their
support.
I'm humbled, but challenged, by the magnitude of President
Obama's, Secretary Gates', and this committee's needs for this
job in these times, times in which the world is perilous, but
moreover when the perils are changing rapidly, times of severe
budget pressures against a background of economic crisis, and
times of poor performance in how we conceive and buy the
defense systems we need, poor performance that is widely
acknowledged.
What is not changing is that the world looks to the United
States to use its power for good, and that power depends in the
first measure on the impressive quality of the soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines who make up our military, but
importantly also on the equipment and technology they have.
I seek the consent of this committee and the Senate for
this job. The constitutional phrase is ``advice and consent.''
I certainly require your consent. But in view of the challenges
to the Department, I'm going to need your advice, too. Some of
that advice is contained in your legislation, the Weapons
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. I've read it carefully and I
endorse its aims. If confirmed, I pledge to you, Mr. Chairman,
to you, Senator McCain, and the other members of this committee
to benefit from your long experience and dedication in this
field.
The job of Under Secretary of Defense for AT&L has several
dimensions and I'd like to address each one briefly in turn.
First and foremost is to get under control the many troubled
programs that are supposed to be supporting our troops, present
and future. As this committee well knows, too many of these
programs are failing their cost, schedule, and performance
expectations, and some are failing even more fundamentally the
test of whether they are needed for the future military
challenges we are most likely to face.
The state of these programs is not acceptable to the
warfighter or to the taxpayer, and job one for the person who
occupies the position for which I appear before you as the
nominee is to get them under control.
I've had 25 years of experience working with and for DOD
and its supporting defense industry and laboratories. I began
my work in DOD with Secretary Caspar Weinberger on technical
aspects of space, nuclear, command and control, and strategic
defense programs in the 1980s. In the 1990s I was privileged to
serve as Assistant Secretary of Defense.
In between government service, I have been a faculty member
at Harvard's Kennedy School, director of its largest research
center, and chair of the International and Global Affairs
Faculty, a senior partner of Global Technology Partners, and a
consultant and adviser to defense companies, to DOD
laboratories and Federally Funded Research and Development
Centers (FFRDCs), a member of the Defense Science Board and of
DOD's Threat Reduction Advisory Council.
I believe I know the security challenges this Nation faces,
the needs and workings of DOD, the nature of the defense
industry and the demands upon it, and the views and policies
laid down by this committee. I believe I know how to work with
all parties over time to find the right path out of the woods
for these many troubled programs, and if confirmed, I will try
to do just that.
A second challenge for the incumbent of this job is to
reform the acquisition system itself so we don't get ourselves
into this situation again. One problem among many that
Secretary Gates has stressed and that is just unacceptable in
time of war is the apparent inability of the acquisition system
to provide systems in months rather than years or even decades.
I concur with Secretary Gates that there is no silver
bullet that will fix defense acquisition, and indeed the many
troubled programs in DOD today--and Senator McCain has named
two of them--have each its own history and reasons for getting
into trouble, and no changes to the acquisition system itself
can substitute for good sense, good discipline, alignment of
what we buy with what our strategy requires, and above all good
people performing the acquisition function. But it's also true,
to paraphrase Eisenhower, that the right system might not
guarantee success, but the wrong system guarantees failure.
I participated in many panels and studies that have
assessed the defense acquisition system going back to the
1980s. I've even written a few books about it. I've also served
for nearly 2 decades as a board member and consultant to the
MITRE Corporation, which is DOD's systems engineering and
acquisition support FFRDC. I've a strong familiarity with the
acquisition practices and key programs of DOD and the
Intelligence Community and also a strong commitment to reform.
A third critical responsibility of this job is to oversee
the science and technology (S&T) efforts of the Department. As
a physicist, I have a deep appreciation for the fact that S&T
is the key source of this Nation's comparative advantage in
military affairs. But this advantage is not a birthright and
needs constant attention, especially in a world where the
science and engineering base outside of defense and outside of
this country is growing rapidly.
I keep closely abreast of the development in defense
technology, among other ways, through my affiliations with the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory and
the Draper Laboratory and through membership in various panels
of the National Academy of Sciences. If confirmed, I will be
committed to preserving DOD's technological edge.
Fourth and finally, the Under Secretary of Defense for AT&L
plays a key role in our nuclear deterrent and in other
strategic issues--missile defense, space, and cyber. I've been
deeply involved in technical aspects of nuclear weapons and
missile defense since the 1980s, when I worked on technical
aspects of MX missile basing in the Strategic Defense
Initiative. I conducted the 1994 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)
for President Clinton and, through the Nunn-Lugar program for
which I had responsibility, worked to de-nuclearize Ukraine,
Kazakhstan, and Belarus. More recently, I have served as expert
working group chair for the Commission on the Future Strategic
Posture of the United States, the so-called Perry-Schlesinger
Commission.
As far as missile defense is concerned, that was the first
area of defense technology I ever worked in, assessing the
possibility that lasers or neutral particle beams could
intercept ascending ballistic missiles from space. I've written
and edited two technical manuals on missile defense and for the
last 10 years I've been a member of the Missile Defense
Agency's (MDA) White Team.
If confirmed, I will use this background to inform and
implement the Nation's policies on these important programs in
consultation with this committee.
In sum, Mr. Chairman and members, I believe I have
experience and demonstrated commitment relevant to each of the
several dimensions of the important job for which you are
considering me. But even more, I have a strong desire to help
President Obama, Secretary Gates, and Congress put DOD on a
solid strategic, programmatic, and budgetary path, where our
troops and the taxpayer expect it.
I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Dr. Carter.
Now, Senator Reed, we'll call on you to introduce Dr.
Miller.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACK REED, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
RHODE ISLAND
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
McCain, and my colleagues. I'm delighted to be able to
introduce Dr. James Miller, the President's nominee for Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Dr. Miller has a
distinguished academic career, a B.A. at Stanford and a
master's and doctorate in public policy from the Kennedy School
of Government at Harvard University. He has served on the Hill
as a staff member for the Armed Services Committee in the House
of Representatives from 1988 to 1992. He served in the Pentagon
as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Requirements,
Plans, and Counterproliferation Policy. He has advised the
Defense Science Board. He's been recognized for his service.
He brings to this task both great academic preparation and
great practical experience, both in DOD and here on Capitol
Hill. He has been working for the last several years, not only
with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, but
also for the Center for New American Security. He's been
thoughtfully pursuing the whole range of policy issues which
will confront both himself and Secretary Flournoy. He has the
experience, the qualifications, and the character to do a
remarkable job.
I also want to recognize the fact that he is supported by
an extraordinarily strong and decent family. His wife Adele is
here. He has four of his five children here: Zoe, Colin, Lucas,
and Adrienne. The fifth daughter, Allison, is at Pomona
College, I guess watching this on some type of webcast, I'm
told. His mother is here, Doris Miller; his sister Amy
Lockhart; his nephew James Leipshur; and a special family
friend, Brooks Hoffman. So I think if it were a simple show of
hands, he'd be confirmed.
I am delighted to be here and I want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman and Senator McCain, for graciously allowing me to
introduce the nominee. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. I know how much Dr. Miller appreciates your
introduction, and we do too. I'm sure we'll now call on him to
live up to that introduction. Dr. Miller.
STATEMENT OF JAMES N. MILLER, JR., PH.D., NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY
UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY
Dr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, and
members of the committee. I'm very grateful to Senator Reed for
his kind introduction and for his strong leadership on national
security over the years. I do want to also thank members of my
family whom he introduced for being here and for their love and
support.
It is a great honor to be here before you today as
President Obama's nominee for Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy. I want to thank President Obama for nominating me
and I want to thank Secretary Gates, Deputy Secretary Lynn, and
Under Secretary Flournoy for their support.
As the chairman noted, with over 200,000 soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines deployed in harm's way in Afghanistan and
Iraq and more around the world, it is a critical time for the
country. Even as our military strives to succeed in current
operations, it must also prepare for a wide spectrum of
possible conflicts overseas, while coping with challenges in
cyber space and outer space, and at the same time preparing to
support the defense of our homeland.
Secretary Gates has often talked about the need for a
strategy that balances between the many competing demands on
our military. If confirmed, I look forward to assisting in
developing and refining such a strategy and in applying it in
support of sound policy decisions that strengthen our military
and that protect our Nation. If confirmed, I expect to spend
much of my first year on the QDR and on congressionally-
mandated reviews on nuclear posture, missile defense, and space
policy, among others.
I believe that my background in government, the private
sector, academia, and as director of studies at a think tank,
as Senator Reed referred to, as well as time I have spent
advising the Department in other capacities, has prepared me
well for these major reviews and for the myriad other issues
that would arise during my tenure.
If confirmed, an important part of my job would also be
assisting the Under Secretary in managing and leading the
policy organization as a whole and helping to improve its
effectiveness and its capacity to cope with the very complex
strategic environment. I believe that my experience over the
past 2 decades plus in the Pentagon and in both the private and
nonprofit sectors provides a solid foundation for leading and
managing in OSD Policy.
I started my professional career over 20 years ago working
for Les Aspin as a staffer on the House Armed Services
Committee and had the great honor to serve during the Clinton
administration as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. If
confirmed, I will be humbled by the privilege to serve my
country again, this time during a time of war.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, and members of the
committee. I look forward to any questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Dr. Miller.
Now Ambassador Vershbow.
STATEMENT OF HON. ALEXANDER D. VERSHBOW, NOMINEE TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
AFFAIRS
Ambassador Vershbow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator
McCain, and members of the committee. It's an honor for me to
appear before this committee as President Obama's nominee for
the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Affairs. I'm very grateful to the
President, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy for supporting
my candidacy for this important position.
I'm very pleased that my wife Lisa, who's been my partner
during our 32-year journey in the foreign service, is here
today. Unfortunately, our two grown sons, Benjamin and Gregory,
weren't able to travel from New York and Boston to attend this
hearing, but some close friends are here with their kids to
represent ours.
If confirmed for this position, I look forward to working
with this committee and with other Members of Congress to shape
a bipartisan policy toward the many national security
challenges that confront our Nation, our allies, and our
friends, and to seize the many opportunities that exist to
resolve conflicts and establish a more peaceful world.
The portfolio of the Assistant Secretary for International
Security Affairs is a daunting one as it encompasses defense
relations with the countries and international organizations of
Europe, including NATO, the Middle East, and Africa. If I'm
confirmed, among the many issues on which I'll advise the
Secretary and Under Secretary, I see a number of especially
urgent priorities:
Implementing the President's strategy to end the war
in Iraq, draw down our forces, and develop a normal
long-term security relationship with a sovereign,
democratic Iraq;
Combatting terrorism, preventing weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) proliferation, and strengthening
security and stability across the Middle East;
Transforming NATO to meet the challenges of the 21st
century, while ensuring the success of the alliance's
current International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)
mission in Afghanistan;
Promoting a more cooperative security relationship
with Russia in areas of common interest, while also
strengthening the security and independence of other
European partners; and
Developing the role of our new Africa Command
(AFRICOM) in helping build the capacity of African
nations and organizations to address security
challenges on the continent.
I believe that my 32 years of experience in the foreign
service equip me to deal with these and the many other security
issues that are among the responsibilities of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.
Throughout my State Department career I have worked very
closely with DOD in shaping and implementing U.S. policy for
the former Soviet Union and NATO, in contributing to U.S.
efforts on nonproliferation and counterterrorism, and in
managing a wide range of international conflicts and crises.
Over the years I've had the privilege of working closely
with the U.S. military in U.S.-Soviet arms negotiations, in two
tours of duty at NATO when the alliance acted to end the
conflicts in former Yugoslavia, and most recently in keeping
the peace on the Korean Peninsula. I've come to respect the
courage, vision, and dedication of our Armed Forces and I've
become a true believer in the importance of close civil-
military coordination in meeting today's threats. Indeed, I
think our success in Iraq and Afghanistan depends critically on
our ability to craft a comprehensive strategy that integrates
all the tools of national power, military and civilian, in
support of our objectives.
If confirmed, I will strive to embody the spirit of
Defense-State cooperation that the President and Secretary
Gates have called for.
Once again, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this
committee, I am honored to appear before you today. I look
forward to hearing your views and ideas, both today and in the
future, and I would be pleased to answer your questions. Thank
you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Ambassador.
Let me now ask you all the standard questions. Have you
adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts
of interest?
Dr. Carter. Yes.
Dr. Miller. Yes.
Ambassador Vershbow. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Dr. Miller. No.
Dr. Carter. No.
Ambassador Vershbow. No.
Chairman Levin. Will you ensure your staff complies with
deadlines established for requested communications, including
questions for the record in hearings?
Ambassador Vershbow. Yes.
Dr. Carter. Yes.
Dr. Miller. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Dr. Miller. Yes.
Ambassador Vershbow. Yes.
Dr. Carter. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
Ambassador Vershbow. Yes.
Dr. Carter. Yes.
Dr. Miller. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify upon request before this committee?
Dr. Carter. Yes.
Dr. Miller. Yes.
Ambassador Vershbow. Yes.
Chairman Levin. 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?
Ambassador Vershbow. Yes.
Dr. Miller. Yes.
Dr. Carter. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
We'll have an 8-minute round.
First for you, Dr. Carter. This year John Young, who's the
current Under Secretary of Defense for AT&L, wrote a memo in
which he stated that many of the problems we've encountered in
the acquisition of major weapons systems are attributable to
programs that have a poor foundation at milestone B, which is
the starting point for major development and manufacturing
design.
He said that: ``Fundamentally, these programs move past
that milestone with inadequate foundations built upon
artificially low cost estimates, optimistic schedules and
assumptions, immature design or technology, fluid requirements,
and other issues.''
Now, as you've mentioned in your opening comments and as
you're aware of, Senator McCain and I have introduced a bill,
S. 454, that's designed to help put MDAPs on a sound footing
from the outset by addressing program shortcomings in the early
phases, particularly of the acquisition process. Dr. Carter,
you've already commented on this, but generally would you agree
with John Young's assessment that many of our acquisition
problems arise out of programs that are built on unreasonable
cost and schedule estimates, unrealistic performance
expectations, and immature technologies?
Dr. Carter. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. If you are confirmed, will you work with us
to enact legislation which addresses those problems?
Dr. Carter. Absolutely.
Chairman Levin. By the way, we are going to have a markup
on that bill next Thursday morning.
You've worked long and hard in the missile defense area,
and one of the issues which has arisen is whether or not we
should have exempted or should continue to exempt missile
defense programs from many of the most basic requirements of
the DOD acquisition system. Until now, missile defense programs
are not considered to be acquisition programs and therefore
they're not required to have requirements validated by the
Joint Requirements Oversight Council. They're not required to
undergo analyses of alternatives and business case analyses;
they're not required to obtain independent certification of
technological maturity; they're not required to receive
milestone approval from AT&L; they're not required to have
formal baselines for system cost, schedule, and performance;
and they're not required to track and report on deviations in
planned acquisition costs and program schedules. They're also
not required to develop comprehensive test plans leading up to
operational test and evaluation.
Do you believe, Dr. Carter, that the MDA programs should be
subject to cost and schedule baselines against which
performance can be measured?
Dr. Carter. I do.
Chairman Levin. Do you believe that the principle of fly-
before-you-buy should apply to missile defense programs as it
is to other defense acquisition programs? In other words,
should missile defense programs be subject to operationally
realistic testing before they're fielded?
Dr. Carter. I think missile defense, like other programs,
should be subject to such testing, yes.
Chairman Levin. Will you, if confirmed, review the current
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation reports on missile
defense testing, including classified portions, and inform the
committee of your views of any concerns and your assessment,
including any corrective steps that you feel are necessary to
ensure that our ground-based missile defense program is
operationally effective, suitable, and survivable?
Dr. Carter. Absolutely, I will.
Chairman Levin. This question will go to any or all of you.
Throughout the Iraq war we've used private security contractors
to perform a wide variety of security functions that require
the use of deadly force in a hostile environment. To some
extent this was done out of necessity because we didn't have
sufficient troops to provide needed security. However, the
extensive use of private security contractors in Iraq resulted
in some abuses, including the September 2000 shooting incident
in Baghdad.
Would you agree that DOD needs to undertake a comprehensive
review of whether, and to what extent, it is appropriate for
contractors to engage in functions that require them to make
discretionary decisions about the use of deadly force outside
of the military chain of command and on a routine basis? So
first, do we need to undertake that comprehensive review? Let
me call first on Dr. Miller, let me ask you.
Dr. Miller. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe we do.
Chairman Levin. Okay. Dr. Carter?
Dr. Carter. I would agree with that, absolutely.
Chairman Levin. Ambassador?
Ambassador Vershbow. Yes, I agree as well, Senator.
Chairman Levin. This is for you, Dr. Carter, going back to
the acquisition bill that we've introduced. One of the
provisions in that bill is the provision that relates to
putting some teeth in the Nunn-McCurdy statute, which already
exists. We would establish a presumption that a program that
exceeds its critical cost threshold would be terminated unless
it can be justified from the ground up.
In your response to one of our APQs, you stated that you
believe that the current statutory provision provides the
authorities that are needed and that you do not see the need
for any changes at this time. Now, on this question, this is
what GAO had to say earlier this month about this issue. DOD's
tendency to initiate programs with unrealistic cost estimates
based on a lack of knowledge and overly optimistic assumptions.
This is GAO speaking--``reinforced by an acquisition
environment in which there are few ramifications for cost
growth and delays. Only in very rare instances have programs
been terminated for poor performance. When the Department
consistently allows unsound, unexecutable programs to begin
with few negative ramifications from poor outcomes,
accountability suffers.''
According to GAO, tougher requirements for programs that
exceed Nunn-McCurdy thresholds could force programs ``to be
more candid and upfront about potential costs, risks, and
funding needs, increasing the likelihood of successful program
outcomes.''
Would you agree with the GAO assessment?
Dr. Carter. I would, and I'd add a little bit to that and
say that staring a Nunn-McCurdy breach in the face is and ought
to be a disciplining factor, for any program manager.
What I meant in the APQ was that as I understand it the
Department now has the authority to terminate a program if it
makes a Nunn-McCurdy breach. Also it's true, as I understand
it, that programs can breach the thresholds for reasons other
than poor management. That's not to say that in many cases poor
management isn't the reason, but sometimes it's for other
reasons that they breach the threshold. So some flexibility in
how the Department responds to the fact of a breach is
appropriate.
But, that said, the terror factor, I can tell from program
managers I know, about facing a Nunn-McCurdy breach is there
and is real and is a healthy factor.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Vershbow, you have extensive experience in Korea
and relations with North Korea. What do you think the
implications are and what it means that the North Koreans have
announced that they're going to have another ``missile test''?
Ambassador Vershbow. Senator, although I'm not going to be
dealing with Korea if confirmed for my proposed position, I
have been working that very----
Senator McCain. I would think that North Korean activity
may pose a threat to our security in the Pacific and in the
region.
Ambassador Vershbow. Indeed, and it's something that we
need to ensure that our allies, even far away from Korea,
recognize. The proliferation of ballistic missile technology
and nuclear weapon technology from North Korea is a global
threat.
I think that their announced intentions to launch a
ballistic missile, ostensibly to launch a satellite, which we
can't yet confirm, is an effort to escalate the pressure on the
United States and the international community to legitimize
North Korea's possession of these kinds of technologies and
their nuclear weapons programs. At the same time, it is clearly
going to be inconsistent with the two United Nations Security
Council resolutions that were adopted in 2006. So it's clearly
going to be a serious provocation and, as I think Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton said just yesterday, ``there will be
consequences.'' I'm not yet in my position, so I can't say what
those consequences will be, but it will be a very serious act.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
Dr. Carter, your experience in weapons acquisition is?
Dr. Carter. Senator, I've been working for 25 years in and
with DOD, the defense industry, and defense laboratories on
defense programs. That's where I began my career. That's the
background I come from in physics. I know that we have
interacted some over the years on policy questions as well, but
most of my career in this field has been devoted to and
involved in programs and defense technology.
Senator McCain. Dr. Carter, the Defense Business Board has
warned that DOD's procurement plan is ``unsustainable,'' and
with respect to the Department's budget decisions that
``business as usual is no longer an option.'' The board found
that DOD can only meet its priorities if it makes hard budget
decisions on its largest and costliest acquisition programs.
Do you agree with that viewpoint as expressed by the
Defense Business Board?
Dr. Carter. I do.
Senator McCain. Can you give the committee some insight
into how you intend to address unfunded acquisition commitments
that are currently in the DOD's procurement plan?
Dr. Carter. Thank you for that question, because I rather
suspect those unfunded commitments are large, and when I assume
this job, if I assume this job, one of the first things I'm
going to want to do is look program by program through the
pipeline of programs that we have and try to get in front of
the process that we've experienced over the last few years of
discovering, oops, all of a sudden midway through a program,
how much trouble it's in.
Senator Levin quoted what we know now about MDAPs and the
cost overruns in the MDAPs. I'm not sure that's the end of the
story, and one of the things I would do, if confirmed, is see
whether there isn't more to that iceberg.
Senator McCain. Do you believe we should have a policy of
no cost-plus contracts?
Dr. Carter. Ideally, one would like to get into a situation
where by the time one gets to the procurement phase of a
program the program's parameters, technical and production,
manufacturing, engineering, and so forth, are well enough known
that one can have a competition of that kind. Earlier in a
program, or in a program that is inherently riskier
technologically, it may just not be possible to anticipate
exactly what it's going to cost until one gets into it.
So I would say in answer to your question that in earlier
phases of a program that kind of contracting might not work. In
later phases it should be our aspiration to do that kind of
contracting.
Senator McCain. You would agree there's been a dramatic
consolidation of major defense contractors and corporations
since your early days in the Pentagon?
Dr. Carter. Absolutely. In fact, I was at the so-called
``last supper,'' the famous last supper that Les Aspin and
Secretary Bill Perry, John Deutch, and I attended along with
the defense industry leaders of that time. There were, I
suppose, 16 of them around the table. It's Norm Augustine who's
called it the ``last supper,'' because he famously turned to
two industry leaders to his left and his right at that time and
said: ``Next year one of the two of you won't be here.'' We
went down from 16 to 5.
Senator McCain. The point is, with this consolidation it's
hard to have true competition.
Dr. Carter. Exactly right.
Senator McCain. So the conundrum is that you have basically
an uncompetitive or very dramatically changed competitive
environment than we had some years ago. The result has been, at
least evidence might suggest, that with the lack of
competition, combined with a cost-plus contract environment,
the initial cost proposals made are usually far less than even
those who are competing for the contract believe. Is there any
validity to that suspicion?
Dr. Carter. I think there is validity to the suspicion that
low-balling goes on in programs. It's also true that there are
fewer primes now. I do think that competition is the great
discipliner, and it's still possible to have competition even
in the defense industry that we have. The bill that the
chairman and you have introduced makes note of that and
suggests some ways that can be done.
For example, even if competition at the production phase is
not possible, competition at earlier phases in the programs
might still be possible. You can have competition below the
prime levels, at the levels of the subcontractors who are
building the subsystems. So I think there are various ways that
we can keep competition alive even in the defense system and
it's necessary to do that.
Senator McCain. You really believe that?
Dr. Carter. I think it's not something that can be done
across the board, but I think it's something that can be done
very substantially, and it certainly would be my aspiration, if
confirmed, to get as much competition as we possibly can.
Senator McCain. I appreciate your support for the
legislation that Chairman Levin introduced. Updating of the
Nunn-McCurdy law is one of the real intents of this. But I'm
not positive we're really getting at the magnitude of the
problem. Do you share that concern? Including a change in
attitude inside the Pentagon?
Dr. Carter. I think the bill's provisions get at the heart
of the matter as regards programs in their early phases, which
as I understand it, is its intent. Now, if I'm confirmed,
that's not going to be my only problem. There are all these
programs that are well past that stage. The mistakes were made,
whatever they were, back in the past and you can't start all
over again.
So you have the problem that we are where we are, with lots
of problems, programs, that had your provisions been in place
when they were born wouldn't be where they are now. But they
are where they are now. So that's a separate problem, which I
understand the bill wasn't intended to address.
But as regards programs in their early phases, it seems to
me it touched on all of the things that we now know are
problems in early phases of programs and if addressed would
lead to results later in phases of the program that would be
very different from the ones we're facing today.
Senator McCain. I'm very pleased to join Chairman Levin on
this effort. But I also think that unfortunately, as you say,
there are some, as I mentioned in my opening comments, such as
FCS, JSF, and others that are already huge, big ticket items. I
just don't see the funding being there to continue these
programs that have already been initiated.
I'm sure you share that view and I look forward to working
with you on it. I thank you, Chairman Levin.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator McCain.
Let me first thank Senator Reed for taking the gavel for an
hour or so, and call on Senator Begich.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have a few questions. Dr. Carter, I'm going to follow up
on Senator McCain's comments. The issue of acquisition is one
of those complex problems, especially when you're developing
new technology. I come from a little different perspective, I
think, on this, and that is in the first phase--and I think you
said this--in the technology development, because we're really
testing technology which is unknown in a lot of cases. So the
costing of it is going to be always very difficult.
If you asked Bill Gates in the early days of Microsoft what
he thought it would cost to develop, or you go to Google or you
go to any of the technology companies, they would tell you one
thing and what really happened was much different, because
you're dealing with the unknown.
I think then as you move down the path, how do you then,
once the technology is developed, ensure that the
competitiveness, as you describe, continues to stay in play?
But do you subscribe to that thought, that the technology part
is going to be always very difficult? Maybe I'm missing
something, but every time I talk to private sector companies in
a variety of technology developments it's always very
difficult.
Am I missing the boat there?
Dr. Carter. No, Senator, I wouldn't say you're missing the
boat at all. It gets back to something that Chairman Levin
raised earlier. I'm sorry, Senator McCain did. In an early
stage of a program, if it's an ambitious program--and we want
to have technologically ambitious programs--it's fair to not
exactly know where you're going and what you're getting into.
That's the nature of the beast.
So fair enough, and that's the point about cost-plus
contracts and those phases. But the ambition of the program
ought to be to get itself to a point where before it goes into
production it's resolved all those technology issues. So you
need to get yourself to a point where you do understand the
technology you're dealing with, what it's going to cost, how
it'll perform, and what schedule you can produce it.
That's the point at which a different kind of contract
instrument might become appropriate. I should also note that in
the legislation that was referred to earlier, one of its
provisions is to strengthen the Department's discipline in
making sure that before it passes into those later phases it
really has done the job of understanding the technology.
But you're absolutely right. I'm a scientist and if you
knew where you were going that wouldn't be science.
Senator Begich. It wouldn't be science. You'd know the
answer.
Again I just wanted to follow up, and then I have a couple
more questions. But I'm a former mayor. I'm a mayor that
happens to be a Senator. As a mayor, you always have to think
7, 10 steps down the road. We continually use technology to
develop those early stages, but once we've figured out what
we're going to do and how we're going to do it, even with the
sole contractor, you could be very competitive by putting in
systems that reward price control. I would hope that, in your
new position, there would be an opportunity, that there's a
reward opportunity for price control, because sometimes in a
noncompetitive environment that the almighty dollar becomes
very competitive to achieve as much as they can.
So let me ask you--I'm going to read a comment in your 1984
book. It seems like every week we talk about missile defense
and as a Senator from Alaska, I have a great interest in this
issue. In your book titled, ``Ballistic Missile Defense''
(BMD), you stated: ``Ideally, an actual BMD deployment in the
United States would be preceded by three stages of analysis: a
study of the underlying technology; an assessment of the
technology effectiveness when embodied in a specific system,
assigned a specific defense goal; and a judgment of the
desirability or need of the defense.''
Twenty-five years later after you've written that book, do
you think we have done that with the missile defense system,
those three stages?
Dr. Carter. Missile defense has come a long way since then.
But I would say that those three steps applied to missile
defense today are as appropriate as they were then. In fact,
they really apply to any program, and missile defense, as was
mentioned earlier, needs to be looked at in the way that other
programs are.
The only thing I'll say is at that time the mission was so
different. The mission was to defend the whole country, as
President Reagan's aspiration was to defend the whole country
against 3,000 equivalent megatons of Soviet throw weight. So
that was a pretty daunting mission. Today we're looking at a
mission that is much more modest than that, defending ourselves
against North Korean or Iranian missile threats which are far
less formidable than was the Soviet Union's, and therefore the
job's easier, in addition to us having behind us 25 years of
technology development.
Senator Begich. I think you answered--my second question
was going to be that, in regards to other major systems, that
those three stages should also be utilized?
Dr. Carter. Absolutely.
Senator Begich. Just to reiterate that.
Dr. Carter. Yes, Senator.
Senator Begich. Another quick question, if I can. I guess
it again goes to the issue--and I think you hit it and maybe we
can elaborate a little bit on missile defense and how you see
it as a shield and how it fits into our overall defense policy
for homeland as well as deployed forces and others, as you
mentioned, North Korea and Iran. Can you elaborate a little bit
more on that, how you see it in the big picture?
Dr. Carter. I can. I presume that is going to be addressed
by the Department in a systematic way in its QDR that Dr.
Miller will be conducting. But just to anticipate some aspects
of it, today, unlike in the time when we were facing the Soviet
missile threat, we are in the protection against nuclear attack
sense as concerned about non-state actors and rogue state
actors as we are concerned about established nuclear powers, as
was the case with the former Soviet Union.
There are a lot of ways that they might introduce nuclear
weapons into our country, of which a ballistic missile is only
one. In fact, terrorists are unlikely to use that method. So I
would say that we have to have walls as well as a roof to our
defense. I've been involved in many programs aimed at building
those walls as well. I think there's a balance question.
Senator Begich. So it's a piece of the equation, what level
is the question.
Dr. Carter. Certainly missile defense fits into that
portfolio, and then we have to balance that mission area, which
is defending ourselves against nuclear attack, against all the
other mission areas we have, like Iraq and Afghanistan and so
forth. I understand that's a complicated cocktail or portfolio,
and Dr. Miller's going to sort it all out if he's confirmed.
Senator Begich. You've led to my question for Dr. Miller,
since he's been so quiet there, I didn't want to leave him
alone here. But you gave him the lead-in to a question you must
have read here that I have.
Dr. Miller, you're going to be doing the QDR and the NPR.
What are your thoughts on the value of the QDR and the NPR for
defense? But also, add a little missile defense to that on top
of it. You can thank Dr. Carter for setting that up for me.
Thank you, Dr. Carter.
Dr. Miller. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Dr. Carter.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Miller. Senator, the QDR has been mandated as a key
part of the Department's planning and preparation. Several have
been conducted, going back to the early 2000s and a little bit
before, in fact into the 1990s. The NPR has been similarly
conducted several times. The Missile Defense Review and the
Space Policy Review will be new this time around and will need
to be integrated into that, into that broader set of issues.
Sir, my view is that it makes terrific sense for, at least
every 4 years, to take a fresh look from starting principles,
from strategy to broad policies, and then looking at the full
range of programs and other activities in the Department, the
organization of the Department as well, which is a key function
of the QDR, and applying that across the board to the nuclear
area, to missile defense, and so forth.
Senator Begich. Very good. My time is up. Mr. Ambassador, I
did have questions. We'll submit those in writing to you, and I
thank you all very much for being here. I have to go to another
committee. But thank you for those answers.
Senator Reed [presiding]. Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm in the same
situation that Senator Begich is, that we have two simultaneous
hearings, fortunately in the same building here.
There are two oversights in the introduction of both Dr.
Miller and Dr. Carter that I'd like to correct for the record
now. One is that, in the case of Dr. Carter, that Bill Perry
was the best man at his wedding. The other was, Dr. Miller,
that during your tenure as professor at Duke University, two of
my kids were your students. You didn't know that, did you?
Let me ask a question of each one of you, if you don't mind
responding. It's a three-part question. About a year ago there
was a communique from NATO leaders that stated: ``We therefore
recognize the substantial contribution to the protection of
allies from long-range ballistic missiles to be provided by the
planned deployment of the European-based United States missile
defense assets.''
Of course, we've been busy putting that together. However,
there is uncertainty now, and I've seen several things that
have come from Poland. Right now they're in a holding pattern,
not sure what to do. However, Foreign Minister Sikorski said:
``We hope we don't regret our trust in the United States.''
Now, the three-part question to each one of you. First,
what in your opinion is the importance of the European site to
the United States and NATO? Second, what impact would it have
if we discontinue this program? Third, what impact would there
be if there is a delay in this program? You can answer in any
order.
Dr. Carter. I'll take a shot first, Jim. First I'll try to
answer the question from the perspective of the job for which
you're considering me, which is the acquisition perspective, if
I may, and then Dr. Miller can answer it from the policy
perspective.
From the acquisition perspective, the importance of the
site is that it is intended principally to protect the
continental United States from a ballistic missile attack of
long range from Iran. It would also have some capability in the
current configuration to defend parts of Western Europe against
intermediate range. So the importance of the site is that it is
between Iran and us, and that's why it was selected.
The second and third parts had to do with the impact of
delay, and Jim can address the geopolitical questions of the
impact of delay. From a purely technical point of view, when
one is considering deployment of a missile defense, there's
always a tradeoff. You look at the threat and you don't want to
deploy too late after the threat develops. On the other hand,
the longer you wait the better the system is that you can
deploy.
Now, we find ourselves with respect to Iran in a situation
where they're not there yet in terms of an intercontinental
ballistic missile threat. From that point of view, just purely
speaking technically, one wouldn't have to have a defense in
the field until the threat was in the field. With every passing
year we'll get a little better. So the longer we wait, the
better the system. But if you wait too long, you don't have the
system in the field by the time the threat develops.
I would say that's the tradeoff purely from a program point
of view in terms of the timing. So the need is Iran and the
question of timing becomes a tradeoff----
Senator Inhofe. Are you saying then that you don't think we
should proceed with that development and give a communication
to the Governments of Poland and the Czech Republic?
Dr. Carter. No, I'm not saying that. I'm just speaking from
the acquisition point of view we have to be ready while the
threat isn't there yet. We have to be there before the threat
is. That argues for early deployment. The longer we wait, the
better the system we could have, which would argue for being
able to wait if you chose to wait.
I realize there are many factors other than these only that
go into the question of whether you deploy now or don't deploy.
But purely from a technical point of view, that would be the
tradeoff.
Senator Inhofe. Dr. Miller?
Dr. Miller. Senator, the question of the use of the system,
I'd just say that I concur with Dr. Carter's assessment of the
purpose with respect to defending the United States and a
significant portion of Europe.
The impact of the delay, let me say two things. The first
is that President Obama has reportedly suggested that if the
Iranians were to delay or in fact verifiably stop their efforts
at pursuing nuclear weapons then that would change the
calculation, and then that is something that should be
considered as a possible opportunity to improve the technology
of the system and to consider its future.
The second thing I say about delay is that one of the
issues associated with the system, as you suggested, is its
impact on our relations with the Czech Republic, Poland in
particular, and with the rest of NATO, and the perceptions of
Russia of that and the degree to which the United States
continues to stand by its allies. Clearly that is an essential
element of what the United States should consider in going
forward and in the timing of the system.
Senator Inhofe. I don't want to go any further with this.
I'm using up all my time and I didn't want to do that. But I
can cite a lot of examples where the National Intelligence
Estimate has been wrong. I agree, Dr. Carter, most people
believe that capability is not there, but the consequences of
being wrong are just unbelievable, and I think we need to be
thinking in those terms. I'd like to be able to carry this on.
I have two other areas real quickly. I've been concerned
about all of our aging everything. I'm talking about our Navy
fleet, our KC-135s, our tanker capability. Everything that we
have out there is aging. I'd have to say--and this is probably
for you, Dr. Carter--it doesn't make sense to continue to spend
money in maintaining these systems. There are several studies,
business plan studies, that are on record right now, that I'm
sure you've looked at, and I'd ask you to look a little bit
deeper, as to the cost of maintaining what we have as opposed
to getting in new systems. I think of the KC-X as one example,
and others.
Do you have any thoughts about our aging fleets and how you
want to approach them? That would include ground equipment,
air, everything else that we have.
Dr. Carter. Thank you. My only thought is that I share your
concern. With every passing year, everything gets a year older.
If confirmed, I know that that's one of the first things that I
have to do, look at these----
Senator Inhofe. Let's do that. Then for the record, I would
like to get from you some of these studies that have been made,
because one of the problems, of course, is our accounting
system that we have here. You can't do things that you would do
if you were in the private sector in terms of taking care of
these problems, because that's not the way the system works.
Dr. Carter. Yes, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
First, the Department of Defense considers business cases to exist
in several documents, usually including the Analysis of Alternatives
(AoA), Acquisition Strategy, Independent Cost Estimates, funding
profiles, and Technology Readiness Assessments. Second, the Department
of Defense uses such ``business cases'' to support certifications
required by title 10, section 2366b. I have included three examples of
business cases for the Joint High Speed Vessel (TAB A), Joint Precision
Approach and Landing System (JPALS), and Global Combat Support System-
Army (GCSS-A).
Joint High Speed Vessel
Business Case Analysis: The business case for the Joint High Speed
Vessel (JHSV) is made in the following documents, which when viewed
together support the four provisions in section 2366b that are required
to be certified based on a business case analysis. The documents are:
JHSV AoA dated April 2006 (copy of executive summary
attached at TAB A).
JHSV Capability Development Document (CDD) dated
January 27, 2007.
JHSV Acquisition Strategy dated July 19, 2007, with
Revision 1 dated July 8, 2008.
JHSV Program Office Cost Estimate dated July 18, 2008.
JHSV Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) completed in
November 2008.
The Program Objective Memorandum 2010 Budget Estimate
Submission.
Joint Precision Approach and Landing System
Business Case Analysis: The business case for the JPALS program is
based on the following documents, which when viewed together support
the four provisions required to be certified based on the business case
analysis in section 2366a. The documents are:
Initial AoA for JPALS by the Air Force, August 1997;
Updated AoA validated by the Air Force Requirements for
Operational Capability Council on November 17, 2005 (copy of
executive summary attached at TAB B).
Evaluation of JPALS AoA (Sufficiency Review), Office
of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Program Analysis and
Evaluation, December 19, 2007.
Prior to the Joint Capabilities Integration and
Development System Process, JPALS requirements documented in
the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) approved
Precision Approach and Landing Capability (PALC) Mission Need
Statement, JROCM Ser# 108-95, August 29, 1995.
PALC Initial Capabilities Document Ser# 717-88-07,
JROCM Ser# 208-05, September 19, 2005.
JPALS CDD validated by the JROC, JROCM Ser# 056-07,
March 16, 2007.
Service Cost Position (SCP), by Naval Air Systems
Command 4.2, delivered to the OSD Cost Analysis Improvement
Group (CAIG), February 15, 2008 (updated April 7, June 3, and
June 19).
OSD CAIG ICE, CAIG brief on April 1, 2008 (updated
June 17); report dated June 25, 2008.
Fiscal Year 2009 President's Budget (PB09)--JPALS
Program funding.
JPALS Acquisition Strategy (AS), June 2008.
Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA), by Director,
Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), March 13, 2008.
Program Support Review, by Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (Acquisition and
Technology)/System & Software Engineering, January 10-11, 2008;
Briefing report dated April 7, 2008.
Global Combat Support System-Army
Business Case Analysis: The business case for the GCSS-A program is
made in the following documents, which when viewed together support the
four provisions required to be certified based on the business case
analysis in section 2366a. The documents are:
GCSS-A AoA validated October 24, 2005; revalidated May
25, 2007 (copy of executive summary attached at TAB C).
GCSS-A CDD, dated June 13, 2006.
PB09, February 4, 2008.
GCSS-A AS Army Acquisition Executive signature dated
April 2, 2008, pending final signature by the Missile Defense
Agency.
GCSS-A Economic Analysis and SCP from the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics & Technology)
dated April 28, 2008.
GCSS-A CAIG ICE dated May 17, 2008.
[Tabs A, B, and C are for official use only and are retained in the
committee files.]
Senator Inhofe. The last thing I'd like to ask you, Dr.
Carter, is on the question of the shelf life of some of our
nuclear weapons. You and I talked about that in my office. Do
you think that we can continue to have something that we
believe will work without conducting underground testing? I
think also about the credibility that we have in our other
countries, as to whether they look at us and some of the stuff
that we have there in our nuclear weaponry, and can we keep
that credibility without underground testing? Real quickly, can
I have your thoughts on that?
Dr. Carter. A safe and reliable stockpile is critical. I
understand that's partly the responsibility of the person in
this job. The national laboratory directors, who understand the
physics of these weapons, are required every year to give an
answer to your question about whether the existing stockpile is
safe and reliable in the absence of underground testing.
There is a program, the Stockpile Stewardship Program,
that's been going on for quite a long time. My understanding--
I'll learn more if and when I get in this job--is that their
judgment is that the Stockpile Stewardship Program has allowed
them so far to give an answer yes to that question. They can't
see forever into the future, but for now their answer would be
yes.
Senator Inhofe. You would follow their guidance, then?
Dr. Carter. Yes. In fact, I believe it's required under the
law that we follow their guidance.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Based on the order of arrival, I will now ask my questions.
I had the privilege of introducing Dr. Miller and his
family and I want to welcome Ambassador Vershbow, but I want to
say a particular word about Dr. Carter. I've had the privilege
of knowing Ash for many years. He has an extraordinary
intellectual range, from theoretical physics to medieval
history, but is also terribly pragmatic, practical, and has the
common sense that is necessary.
I think one of the things that, Ash, commends you to the
job is not only do you have great technical knowledge, but you
also understand the institutional and cultural politics and
policies that will make your job--make your tenure, I think,
very successful, so welcome.
Dr. Miller, one of the challenges that we have and you have
particularly is dealing with the current situation, but looking
ahead, and looking down the road to those places where problems
will occur in the future. One of the issues that seems to be
universal is the lack of capacity in many places in the world
for effective governance, for effective control. It's seldom
the marquis issue. It's not as pressing as a crisis in Iran or
Afghanistan, et cetera. But in the longer run it might be one
of the most significant challenges we have.
Could you give us your thoughts on how you and Secretary
Flournoy are going to deal with this issue of capacity-
building, particularly in places that now seem obscure. But
Somalia was obscure, Afghanistan was obscure, et cetera.
Dr. Miller. Senator, thank you. Secretary Gates has noted
in the National Defense Strategy that the prospect of
challenges arising from states that are troubled is probably at
least as significant a challenge for the security environment
as the challenges that may arise from strong states.
This has been a growing focus of DOD, first within Iraq and
Afghanistan, and then more broadly a look at building partner
capacity at least since the last QDR. Congress has certainly
played an important role if you look at the authorities for the
so-called sections 1206, 1207, 1208, that give the authority to
provide resources through DOD in operations where there's
counterterrorism and where the United States is involved in
stability operations for section 1206, in moving money to the
State Department's Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction
and Stabilization for section 1207, and then for the Special
Operating Forces for section 1208.
All those authorities are relatively new and all worth
looking at closely in terms of how they can be tailored most
effectively. In addition then, there is the Commander's
Emergency Response Program funds and others. It is an area that
as the United States draws down its forces in Iraq over the
coming years, it's an area where I would expect the Department,
and I would hope the Nation, to provide significant attention,
and where building the capacity of the State Department and
U.S. Agency for International Development and other agencies is
a critical step in that, as is working with our partners, our
allies, in helping these countries that are struggling, sir.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Ambassador Vershbow, if I could get your response to this,
because I think part of your duties will touch upon this,
particularly engaging our allies in this same capacity-building
effort?
Ambassador Vershbow. Thank you, Senator. Yes, I agree with
what Dr. Miller just said. It is just as important in looking
at some of these post-conflict situations or at unstable parts
of the world, to help on the civilian side with the capacity-
building for more effective governance. It ranges across the
spectrum from helping with economic development, developing
effective judicial institutions, police, rule of law.
I think all of these things require a comprehensive effort
by different parts of our government, and I think that the
legislation that Dr. Miller referred to, section 1206, section
1207 in particular, were designed well to require close State-
Defense coordination, even a dual-key approach to the
implementation of these programs, because we're really all in
this together.
I think that some of the problems we had early on in Iraq
reflected, I think, insufficient attention to these issues of
governance. I think we've begun to work more closely with the
Iraqis to get it right in that regard, and I think that's one
of the reasons why the trends are more favorable in Iraq, and I
think we now are turning our attention to Afghanistan, where
there are similar problems of weak governance.
So yes, Senator, you've identified a very critical problem,
and I think my background, having been at the State Department
and now moving over to DOD, I hope, if confirmed, will help me
in creating this kind of integrated approach.
Senator Reed. Let me follow up with a question about
Afghanistan, which is the necessity of more decisive and robust
engagement by NATO. A corollary to that would be the recent
announcement that France is rejoining NATO. Can you comment on
both those issues?
Ambassador Vershbow. Yes, Senator. I think that it's been
very helpful that NATO has stepped up to the challenge in
Afghanistan and contributed to the ISAF coalition. We haven't
always gotten quite as many troops as we had hoped, but I think
one shouldn't underestimate the importance of the contributions
that they made and the sacrifices that our allies have made. On
a per capita basis, for example, Canada has taken more
casualties than the United States. So I think the spirit of
we're all in this together, shared risk, has been on display in
Afghanistan.
Looking ahead, it's not clear how many more troops we will
be able to get from our allies, but I think that as we look to
trying to do better in Afghanistan, we will be looking to our
allies, if they can't contribute more on the military side, to
contribute more on the civilian side, where the list of tasks
is almost infinite as to what kind of contributions they could
make.
As for French reintegration, I think this is a very
important and positive step. The French have been good allies
even when they weren't fully integrated in the military command
structure, contributing sizable forces in Bosnia and Kosovo,
and they have sizable forces on the ground in Afghanistan.
So I think bringing them fully into the military structure
and the planning structure, which would mean that they would
have more forces committed to NATO, assigned to NATO, will
hopefully enhance NATO's effectiveness in the future.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Dr. Carter, you have an extraordinarily difficult
challenge, as both Senator Levin and Senator McCain outlined.
Senator McCain particularly talked about the concentration of
the industry, the sense that you might be outgunned. I want to
bring that down to a very practical, operational level. Let me
ask you the question: Are there sufficient system engineers,
acquisition professionals, people capable to go one-on-one with
industry, that has the capacity through their incentive
structures and their ability to recruit to mount a significant
number of people, experts in an area?
Maybe the pathway to a better acquisition system is having
on our side of the table more depth, more professional, better
supported individuals.
Dr. Carter. First of all, thank you for your kind words.
Senator Reed. I was going to say that at Yale we deal with
history and theoretical physics with the same course, but----
Dr. Carter. Two separate things, but maybe this job is the
perfect union.
Senator Reed. It's the perfect--yes, alchemy, too.
Dr. Carter. But I appreciate all you've taught me and I
thank you for your kind words.
Your question really goes to the heart of things. Actually,
this committee has received some testimony in the last couple
of weeks that I thought was excellent on this very subject of
systems engineering and, more generally, the competence and
size of the government workforce to manage this much money and
programs that are this complicated.
I do have that concern. I know that this committee has
taken some action in that regard, and it's a subject that, if I
am confirmed, I intend to take very seriously because, as I
said earlier, you can have all the great paper acquisition
system you want and if you don't have the right people to do
it--systems engineering is a particularly important thing. A
lot of people don't relate to systems engineering very well,
but it's the ability to look at the whole task from early on,
concept development and technology development, right through
sustainment, and look at all of its aspects.
There are organizations in the Services and OSD that do
that, and I've been associated with some of them. For a long
time our ballistic missile programs were managed by the
Ballistic Missile Office out at San Bernardino, CA, which is a
perfect example of a systems engineering organization that
dealt with all offensive ballistic missiles end to end. It's a
very important skill set.
Dr. Kaminski testified on this subject a couple of weeks
ago on the basis of a study he did for the National Academy of
Sciences, and if I'm confirmed, you bet it's a serious concern,
because one person isn't going to be able to do it, however
hard I work.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Senator Chambliss.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you as well as your families for your
willingness to continue or come back, as the case may be, into
public service. We appreciate that very much.
I want to pick up, Dr. Carter, on what Senator Reed was
talking about and what Senator McCain was talking about
earlier. That is this issue of competition that you and I had a
chance to visit about. As we have downsized, we do note that
there are not only limited chances for competition, but also
increased chances of conflict of interest. In the Levin-McCain
bill there is a provision that would require the contract for
the performance of systems engineering and technical assistance
functions contain a provision prohibiting the contractor or any
affiliate from having a direct financial interest in the
development or construction of the weapon system or its
components.
At face value this provision would seem to prohibit a
company from performing any systems engineering and technical
assistance (SETA)-related work that you just talked about on a
contract for which they are prime or subcontractor. Given that
over the last several years the larger defense contractors have
bought up many of those smaller contracts for systems
engineering that traditionally supplied the support, this
provision may have the effect of prohibiting much of the
systems engineering expertise from being available at DOD.
Now, the current provisions in the Federal Acquisition
Regulation allow for avoidance, neutralization, or mitigation
of significant potential conflicts of interest. At face value,
the bill would simply require avoidance. Do you believe that
strict avoidance is all that's necessary, or do mitigation and
neutralization of conflicts of interest--could they be
appropriate in some instances?
Dr. Carter. I'm not sure I can give you a fully complete
answer to that. That's something I'd like to get in and take a
look at if I am confirmed. But I understand the question
entirely. These large firms are now both making stuff and
involving themselves in the process by which we decide as a
government what we're going to buy and what it's going to look
like, and that is the very clear possibility for the fact and
at a minimum the appearance of a conflict of interest.
It's another form of organizational conflict of interest,
the other one being the ``make versus buy'' question in a large
and integrated firm. I see quite clearly the potential for
conflict there. I am also aware within companies of their
attempts to build firewalls between the organization that's
doing the SETA work and the organization that will do the other
work. I think from the outside looking in, those firewalls are
always questionable.
But the only reason I can't give you a clear answer is that
there is a countervailing factor, which is we do need that SETA
work done. If, as Senator Reed said, we can't do it within the
walls of government, then how are you going to get it done? If
excellent SETA work can be done by those companies, one doesn't
want to lose access to that competence.
So somehow we have to get access to it without the conflict
of interest, and you're asking me how to do that and I'm saying
I don't know. I can't give you a good answer as I sit here
today, but I know that you want and deserve a good answer, and
that would be something I would try to give you in time if I
were in the job.
Senator Chambliss. As Senator Levin said, we're going to
take up this bill it looks like next Thursday. I don't know the
answer either. That's why I'm asking you, because we need to
solve this, obviously, to make your job easier and make sure
that we have the ability to inject that competition that is so
sorely needed to do what Senator McCain suggested earlier, and
that is try to get these costs under control.
This train wreck that was coming 10 years ago is here with
respect to certain systems, and we have other train wrecks down
the road that are going to make it very difficult for you to
operate within the budget if we don't make sure we have that
competition there.
If you have any thoughts on it between now and next week, I
wish you'd let me know.
Dr. Carter. May I add just one thing?
Senator Chambliss. Sure.
Dr. Carter. So as not to have nothing at all to help you,
what the provision is, as I understand it, as drafted, is it
requires more transparency. That certainly is necessary and
clearly required. In addition to that, I can't say more. But to
the extent that that's what is provided for in this draft
legislation, I think it's absolutely appropriate.
Senator Chambliss. Again, you and I discussed the issue of
multi-year contracts. I'm a big fan of multi-years. I wish we
could do more of them. What are your thoughts on multi-year
contracts?
Dr. Carter. I think there are, as we discussed, Senator,
instances when multi-year contracting is appropriate and cost
effective, and in those instances I would, if I were in this
job, recommend that multi-year procurement be followed. I
understand that there are other considerations in multi-year
contracting, but where it is cost effective--and I think there
are examples where it can be cost effective--my job would be to
say what was cost effective.
Senator Chambliss. We have two depots in my State. I have
an opportunity to visit those depots regularly, at Warner
Robbins and at Albany. Our folks do great work there, both on
the military side and the civilian side. You're familiar with
the 50-50 rule. You're also familiar with the fact that there's
some discussion that's ongoing relative to changing the way
modification work is incorporated in the 50-50.
Assuming that this discussion does continue, I want a
commitment from you that you will dialogue with the committee
and particularly me about any changes that might be forthcoming
to the 50-50 relative to that modification within our depots,
before any changes are made.
Dr. Carter. Absolutely, I give you that commitment.
Senator Chambliss. Dr. Miller and Ambassador Vershbow,
earlier this week, General Craddock testified before this
committee and in his written testimony he recommended
maintaining two heavy brigade combat teams (BCTs) in Europe. I
would like the thoughts of both of you on troop levels and
composition for European Command, and how do you think we need
to posture ourselves in Europe in response to Russia as well as
our commitments to allies, threats of WMD proliferation, and
transnational terroristic threats?
Dr. Miller. Senator, the plan change to take those
additional two heavy BCTs out of Europe is the product of a
global posture review conducted by the previous administration,
something like 6 years ago now. I think that what's happened in
the mean time is that the world has changed. We're obviously
now at war in Iraq and Afghanistan in significant ways. As we
begin the transition from Iraq over the coming years and as we
rebalance in Afghanistan as well, my view is that it merits
taking a fresh look, not just at the question of these two
heavy BCTs, but a fresh look at the global posture across the
board.
I would anticipate, if confirmed, it would be something I
would hope to engage in as part of the QDR.
Senator Chambliss. Ambassador?
Ambassador Vershbow. Senator, I fully agree with what Dr.
Miller just said about the importance of taking a fresh look at
the overall global force posture. In the case of the
recommendation by our Supreme Allied Commander, General
Craddock, I think it is important to take a look at that. It's
under review, as I understand, right now. Clearly there have
been some significant developments even in the last year,
including the Russia-Georgia war, which has cast new light on
the critical importance of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty,
especially for our new members in Central and Eastern Europe.
So I think it is appropriate to look at this question in
the context of our global force posture review.
Regarding potential cooperation with Russia in dealing with
trans-national terrorist threats--that was your second
question, Senator?
Senator Chambliss. Yes.
Ambassador Vershbow. I think we've had reasonably good
cooperation with Russia over the years, even as some other
aspects of our relationship have become more difficult. I think
that the Russians certainly recognize that some of the most
serious threats to their own security are the same as the ones
that we worry about: instability to their south, Islamic
fundamentalism, and of course the conflict in Afghanistan is
very close to their own borders.
We've had a good counterterrorism working group with the
Russians that has identified potential areas of cooperation.
But I think there's more that we could do. I think there are
some areas where we see the Russians taking a stance that could
be more constructive. Iran is one example. I hope that as we
try to expand those areas of cooperation we can do more with
the Russians than we have in the past.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Senator Hagan.
Senator Hagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank each and
every one of you for your interest and commitment to service in
our government.
Dr. Miller, I too had a son who graduated from Duke,
although he was there much later, after you left. Sorry he
didn't get to take your classes.
In North Carolina we have a large number of resettled
refugees from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and they
talk to me frequently about the extreme violence in the eastern
region of their home country. Last week, General William Ward,
the Commander of AFRICOM, provided our committee with an update
on the dire security situation in the east. He spoke about the
ongoing military operations against the various rebel groups in
that region, which according to reports his command helped to
plan.
I was wondering, Ambassador Vershbow and Dr. Miller, if you
could provide the committee with your views on the situation in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo and any update on the
assistance that AFRICOM recently provided in supporting the
multilateral military operation; and also if you can keep me
and my staff updated on any decisions that are being made
involved in decisions related to the Congo.
Ambassador Vershbow. Thank you, Senator. I think that
you've identified an important issue that highlights the fact
that security problems on the African continent are going to
become an increasing focus for the United States in the coming
years. I think that the fact that we decided to consolidate our
resources focused on Africa in the form of the new AFRICOM was
a very important initiative. The design of that has, I think
rightly, tried to take a more integrated approach between
civilian and military instruments of power.
Since I'm not yet confirmed, I don't have a very up-to-date
insight into exactly how deeply involved we were in the recent
operations. I do understand that there was some planning
assistance involved.
I think that the trends in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo have been positive as they've begun to recover from a
decade of conflict and civil war. But I think that our
provision of security assistance in targeted ways can help them
get over the remaining hurdles. Thus far I think we've been
focused on helping them reform their own defense sector and
provide capacity-building assistance. But I need to get more
deeply into the subject, if confirmed for this position, and I
look forward to keeping in touch with you and your staff on
this issue.
Senator Hagan. Thank you.
Dr. Miller. Senator, I would just add that, to pile onto
what Ambassador Vershbow had to say, that the work of AFRICOM,
working with other agencies of the Government--including State
and the U.S. Agency for International Development, in
situations where it's not quite so dire and where those
personnel are able to get in is, I believe, a critical part of
U.S. capabilities for making improvements on the African
continent.
The use of targeted aid and the support of AFRICOM in terms
of planning operations I think is also a very important
instrument. I, like Ambassador Vershbow, don't have insights
into exactly what happened, but I also will commit, if
confirmed, to work with you and your staff to keep you updated.
Senator Hagan. Thank you.
I have another question, about the oil bunkering. Your
responses to the committee's APQs--and this is to Ambassador
Vershbow and Dr. Miller again--you discussed your intent to
work with the State Department to develop strategies to counter
the serious problem of oil bunkering in the Niger Delta. In
particular, you emphasized maritime security and military
capacity-building.
Given our growing dependence on West African countries for
our energy requirements, I was pleased to see your interest in
working on this issue. Ambassador Vershbow and Dr. Miller, can
you expand on your answer to the committee? I'm particularly
interested in knowing whether you believe we can overcome the
issue of systemic corruption in Nigeria and successfully
building the Nigerian military's capacity to respond to this
threat, and whether you think any near-term progress can be
made on this issue?
Ambassador Vershbow. Senator, I will confess that this is a
subject on which I need to learn a lot more about.
Senator Hagan. Okay.
Ambassador Vershbow. But from what I've been briefed thus
far, I'm told that the assistance programs that we've carried
out with the Nigerian military are going well, that the level
of professionalization is improving. So I think with persistent
effort over several years, we should be able to help them deal
with the corruption issue.
But this is again an area where I may need to delve more
deeply into the subject.
Senator Hagan. Okay.
Dr. Miller. Senator, the problem of oil bunkering and
lawlessness in the Niger Delta is longstanding and serious. The
assistance that the United States can provide I think is
important, but I think it's essential to understand that this
the problem has deep roots in the history and regionally in
this area of the Delta and with the Nigerian military facing
other challenges as well, security challenges in the north. We
should expect to make progress and we should work to make
progress, but we should expect that it will be challenging. The
question of corruption is certainly longstanding and one where
the United States will have to pay attention as it works with
the government.
Senator Hagan. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin [presiding.] Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to all of you for your willingness to serve the
country. I appreciate your appearing before the committee this
morning and responding to the questions that we have.
As I conveyed to Dr. Carter in a meeting in my office, I
have an interest in long-range strike capability and I would
like to pose a question to Dr. Carter as well as Dr. Miller,
regarding that subject, and refer to an article that was
published in the January-February edition of the Foreign
Affairs Journal, in which Secretary Gates wrote that ``The
United States' ability to strike from over the horizon will be
at a premium'' and will ``require shifts from short-range to
long-range systems, such as the Next Generation Bomber (NGB).''
Dr. Carter, I also wanted to note that you had written a
piece titled ``Defense Management Challenges for the Next
American President'' for Orbis, which is a journal published by
the Foreign Policy Research Institute. Your piece was in the
winter 2009 edition of that publication, and in that piece you
write about what you quote as ``prudently hedging'' against the
down side scenario of competitive or aggressive behavior by
China.
You write that: ``A more specific focus of prudent hedging
is to frustrate Chinese efforts in counter-air, counter-
carrier, counter-space, and counter-information capabilities.''
When you speak of frustrating Chinese efforts in counter-air
capabilities as part of what you term the ``China hedge,'' do
you think those efforts should include development of the NGB,
which is expected to be able to penetrate air space that is
protected by highly advanced air defense systems?
Dr. Carter. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the reference
to both Secretary Gates's statement and to that article.
There are several dimensions to frustrating Chinese anti-
air capabilities which are relevant in a number of situations,
the Taiwan Strait contingency being one. That article also
refers to the possibility, which I certainly don't hope for and
I personally consider unlikely, but still one to be taken
seriously, that China's evolution takes it in a direction that
brings it to a position of antagonism with the United States.
That needs to be a little piece of our planning and our
technology and program work that hedges against that
eventuality. That was the thrust of the article.
The NGB would certainly be in that portfolio of things. I'm
sorry I'm not in a position to speak specifically to the NGB
program now. I have not had access to that program in the
course of the pre-confirmation process. So that's something
I'll be able to look into if and when confirmed.
I noted from our conversation the importance of that
program in your mind as well as mine. When I get access to it,
if you'll allow me, I'd like to come back and tell you what I
found.
Senator Thune. Good. I appreciate that. I understand you're
somewhat limited at this point in time in what you can say
about it.
Dr. Miller, in your view, how does the NGB and long-range
strike capability fit into our national security strategy and
the new QDR?
Dr. Miller. Sir, I certainly agree with the quote that you
provided from Secretary Gates with respect to the importance of
long-range capabilities. More broadly, I'd say that over time
it's worth considering a shift in balance, shorter range to
longer range, and also not across the board from any systems,
manned to unmanned as well, because unmanned provides longer
duration, persistence, and some other advantages.
Like Dr. Carter, I have not had an opportunity to look into
the details of the program and its capabilities, but we
certainly expect that it would be an important issue in the
QDR.
The question of shorter-range and long-range aviation
overall takes up a tremendous amount of the overall
procurement, research and development procurement budget of the
Department. So it's certain to be an area of attention in the
QDR, pretty much without question, sir.
Senator Thune. As you perhaps know, the 2006 QDR did call
for fielding the NGB by 2018. I guess I would be interested as
you have an opportunity to begin to review some of those time
lines, your thoughts about whether or not that's something we
can continue to keep on schedule.
We are somewhat concerned about the age of the bomber fleet
today, the B-52s, B-1s, B-2s, and some of the limitations that
are imposed on those as assets that can be used in different
operations and theaters, and the need for long-range strike and
the need for range and payload that bombers can deliver. So my
view is that the NGB is an important piece of our national
security strategy, and I hope that you will come to that
conclusion when you have an opportunity to review it more
completely.
One other question, with regard to the missile defense
systems. I know some of that ground's been covered already and
so I'll try not to be redundant. But I think the question has
to do with capability and reliability. I think I mentioned, Dr.
Carter, in our discussion as well that the system has
demonstrated considerable success during test flights and,
according to the MDA, across all missile defense systems
programs. Thirty-seven of 47 hit-to-kill intercepts have been
successful since 2001.
Now, in the past 2 years, 13 of 15 intercepts have been
successful, and we've had a couple combatant commanders in
front of the committee, Admiral Keating and General Renuart,
who testified earlier that they're confident the ground-based
missile defense system would work if North Korea ever fired a
missile at us. In fact, Admiral Keating went so far as to say
that we have a high probability of knocking down a North Korean
missile fired at us.
The President, however, has said that missile defense
should be deployed only after ``the technology is proved to be
workable.'' If confirmed, the three of you are going to have
considerable influence on the future of this system, and I'd
like to get your thoughts on that.
Dr. Carter, are you confident about that capability at this
point?
Dr. Carter. Senator, I'm not confident of that as I sit
here today. Clearly it's something, given the quote you made
from the President, that if I am confirmed, I need to get in
and get a look at.
I do have some familiarity, however, with that as a
consequence of my beat on the National Missile Defense White
Team, and the technical effectiveness of the system has grown
steadily over time, that's to be expected with the evolution of
technology. There are really two questions to ask about the
effectiveness of the ground-based system against a North Korean
threat.
The first is whether, if the North Koreans, which is
likely, at first do not have any special so-called
``penetration aids'' or gimmicks on board their missile, but
they're just trying to get it over here, what is the chance of
an intercept in that case? We've done a lot of testing that
bears upon that question. I think that General Renuart and
General Chilton--I don't want to put words in their mouth, but
I think that they anticipate, particularly if one has the
option of shooting several times at an incoming primitive
missile, of having a good chance, as you said, of being
successful.
The question of the next generation--or a ballistic missile
accompanied with penetration aids gets a lot more difficult. In
fact, it's inherently difficult for a passive infrared sensing
missile defense system to deal with that circumstance. Now,
that wouldn't be what the North Koreans started with first.
That becomes another question.
I think both the first issue, dealing with North Korea in
the near-term, and the second issue, dealing with them in the
far-term, are in the intent of the President's statement, and
if I'm confirmed, I'll get in there and get to the bottom of it
and discuss it with you as we go.
Senator Thune. If I might, Mr. Chairman, just to the other
members of the panel. Dr. Miller and Ambassador Vershbow, what
would you plan to do about the European missile defense site,
the so-called third site, that has been something that has been
of great focus here in the last few years, and more recently in
the last few weeks as discussions have gotten to more of an
elevated level about that particular site.
Dr. Miller. Senator, let me first provide a very brief
answer to the earlier question and agree with Dr. Carter, but
also note how much has changed over the last couple decades
from when I worked on the Hill previously. The defense of the
country clearly needs to be top priority of all departments,
including DOD. There is no such thing as a perfect defense
against all threats.
We have to expect adversaries to adapt, including North
Korea, as Dr. Carter suggested. In looking at the system's
capabilities for our National Missile Defense Security and how
those should be adapted over time is a fundamental issue.
I say that because, when you talk about the European site,
so-called ``third site,'' that is an issue as well. It will be
addressed, I would expect, as part of another review of the
congressionally-mandated review of the Missile Defense Review,
but also in the context of discussions with Poland and the
Czech Republic. The United States had previously made an offer
to Russia to have some involvement, some cooperation with the
system. I expect that it would make sense to me to have
continued engagement with Russia on that question; then also to
have a look at what Iran does and whether it's willing to
verifiably stop its nuclear activities, and what that does for
the threat and how that comes into the mix.
I expect that there'll be extensive consultations with our
allies on this question and with Russia on this question over
the coming weeks and months.
Senator Thune. Ambassador, anything to add?
Ambassador Vershbow. Senator, I endorse what my colleagues
have said. If confirmed for my job, I will be approaching this
issue, obviously, from the political perspective. I will leave
the issue of technical evaluation of the effectiveness of the
systems to my colleagues.
I think it is important that the NATO alliance has endorsed
missile defense. I think we've come a long way in reaching
consensus that there is an emerging threat that affects not
only the United States, but our allies in Europe; and I think
that our newer allies in Poland and the Czech Republic have
taken important risks in agreeing in principle to the third
site.
As I understand it, our overall policy on missile defense
is now under review, so I can't really speak authoritatively as
to precisely what we may do. But I would underscore what Dr.
Miller said, that when it comes to the third site in Europe the
driving factor is the emerging threat posed by Iran, both its
pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability and its ability to
marry that capability to long-range ballistic missiles.
Now, of course if we were, as others have said, able to
eliminate that threat in a verifiable way, we'd have to look at
the situation in a different light. But we're far away from
achieving that goal, and so I think it's going to be a very
important issue, on which we will need to continue to consult
with our allies and of course with Congress.
The Russians have made a lot of complaints about the
proposed third site. I believe that if one looks carefully at
the geography and the technical capabilities that are being
considered, this system poses no threat to Russia. It's
directed at Iran. But I think the way forward--and this is
something that Chairman Levin has spoken about just recently--
could be to try once again to pursue cooperation in missile
defense with Russia, which faces similar threats, may have some
technological contributions to make to some kind of combined
architecture. I think this could be a way of reinvigorating
NATO-Russia cooperation, which has not fulfilled its early
promise.
So there's a lot of different dimensions to this issue. The
policy is under review. I think we'll want to continue to take
on board the views of this committee and other Members of
Congress.
Senator Thune. Thank you, and I appreciate your
observations. I agree when you have NATO endorsing it, the
Czechs and Poles have invested and risked a lot on this, and I
would hope that it's something that we don't walk away from.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to have to be real brief because I have to run to
the floor. So I have two questions for Dr. Carter. Doctor,
several acquisition programs have experienced cost overruns,
including Nunn-McCurdy breaches and schedule delays and the
like, and we all want to turn this negative trend around. What
would you consider to be the essential principles of
acquisition reform that could help do this, and specifically
what are your thoughts about how competition can contribute to
that?
Dr. Carter. Thank you, Senator. I think I'd start, with
respect to the reform part of your question, with the
observation of Secretary Gates, and he said a few weeks ago
with respect to acquisition reform: There is no silver bullet.
What he meant by that--and I completely agree--is that as we
look at the programs that are in trouble, as you noted--I think
you said several; I wish it were only several; it's many
severals that are in trouble--and you go back through their
lifetime and do the diagnosis, how did we get to where we are,
what went wrong, there are a number of different things that
you can point to.
So there isn't one common denominator, but there are some
things that keep popping up. One is the size and quality of the
acquisition workforce, the people who do this job, from
contracting to systems engineering and so forth, on the
government side. That seems to be a frequent offender.
Another one--and I'm committed to try to fix that problem
and this committee has already taken some action in that regard
in years past, long before I came along for nomination, to deal
with that. Other causes, I won't go through them all, but
they're almost all covered in the draft legislation that is
coming out of this committee, the Weapons Acquisition Reform
Act of 2009. They have to do with, in addition to systems
engineering, better cost estimation, including paying attention
to cost estimates once you get a cost estimate, technology
development, technology maturity, technology readiness at the
early stage of a program, and your second point, which is
competitiveness.
I believe that competitiveness is the single most powerful
tool the government has to get good value. We have a system in
which we don't make our weapons inside the government. We
contract with the private sector for them, and competition is
the great discipliner. It's not always possible to have
competition in programs because there aren't always many
manufacturers of the things that we need in defense. There's
been some consolidation of the industry over the last couple
decades. But even in those cases, it's usually possible to have
competition far enough into the program to discipline it, that
is through the development phase. It's also possible, even if
you can't have competition at the level of the prime contractor
throughout the lifetime of the program, to maintain a
competition at lower tiers of the program that supply
subsystems.
So in all these ways we need to keep looking for ways to
keep competition alive, because that's the great discipliner
that gives value to the warfighter and to the taxpayer. I'm
committed to looking for those vehicles to keep competitiveness
alive and, as I said, some of them have already been suggested
by this committee.
Senator Vitter. I'm concerned about several examples of
that, and one near the top of my list is JSF and the issue of
engines. Congress has repeatedly pushed for competition in that
area and has inserted that into the budget, and DOD has
repeatedly resisted and never itself put that into the budget.
Would you support having that in the budget and continuing
that competition because of the discipline, particularly long-
term, it would provide?
Dr. Carter. I understand exactly why some have favored an
alternative engine for JSF, and I also understand the other
argument. Let me just spell the two out. But the net of it is
that I don't have access to the information now that allows me
to make this tradeoff. But if you have two engines, you have
the value of competition. On the other hand, you're paying for
two programs.
So where does that come out? That's a quantitative question
essentially and I don't have access to the information to allow
me to make that assessment.
Senator Vitter. I'd urge you to focus on that as soon as
possible. I'm going to propound some more detailed questions
about that as your nomination is pending. I believe that the
Pentagon's decision, based on what I know, is based on a very
short-term calculus of those pros and cons you're talking
about, not a project life calculus, and I'm concerned about
that, and I think competition there would really bring some
rigor to that program, and I think a lot of folks, not just
those directly involved, but the prime and other folks
involved, support that.
I'll be propounding some more detailed questions, but I'd
love for you to look at that.
Dr. Carter. I absolutely will look into it and try to
answer the questions.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Vitter.
Senator McCaskill, are you ready?
Senator McCaskill. I am. I just have one brief area I want
to cover, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank Dr. Carter for spending some time with me
in my office yesterday. I want to just for the record of this
hearing talk about some of the things we talked about
yesterday, most specifically contracting as it relates to
operations in a contingency and the problems that have occurred
in Iraq and before that in Bosnia, the same problems; and make
sure that we have on the record your commitment to realize that
that's a very important part of your responsibility at DOD.
Specifically, I would like you to speak briefly about what
you would envision your plans as it relates to the drawing down
of the contract force in Iraq. It is a huge undertaking to draw
down that contract force and to do it in a way that is cost
effective for the American taxpayer and that we get value out
of the stuff that we've paid for that these contractors have is
a big concern of mine. I have not yet heard anyone really
address this issue that shows that there's a lot of planning
going into it and a lot of forethought about how we can do it
in a way that works for the American taxpayer, because frankly
not much about contracting has worked either for the American
military in terms of getting stuff we need at the best value,
or the American taxpayer.
Dr. Carter. Thank you, Senator, and I appreciated your
giving me the time yesterday. I do absolutely share your
concern. This is a big subject, contractors, the use of
contractors in contingency operations, when that's appropriate
and how to manage them.
My own view is, as I shared with you yesterday, it's
unavoidable. We can't do it all ourselves. But there's a
question of what activities are appropriate to contract out and
then contracting competently so that there is no waste, fraud,
and abuse and there's effective and efficient contracting. I
think that there's reason for concern in recent years in
dealing with Iraq and also Afghanistan about all those
questions, you're absolutely right.
Also, another point you made which I agree with: Once you
have all of these folks working for you and the need goes away
or the need changes, are you able to move them from one place
to another or move them off the government payroll when the
contingency's over?
The last thing I'll say, I'll say for everyone, but I said
yesterday, is I'm highly aware that the title of the job for
which you're considering me is ``AT&L,'' and that's not an
afterthought in a time of war. Secretary Gates has expressed
his determination to supply the troops in the field the way
they deserve. We have a big job to move equipment out of Iraq
and into Afghanistan, and I realize I will be involved in that
and that's a huge task, and to deal with this question of
contingency contracting and contractors on the battlefield. As
I said to you yesterday, that's something I know I need to get
on top of if I get in this job, and I'm committed to working
with you and learning from you and telling you what I learn as
I do that.
Senator McCaskill. I think it is a big job, and I think
that one of the ways that we will fix this long-term is for
there to be an atmosphere of accountability. I'm not aware of
anyone ever losing any kind of rank, getting any kind of
demotion, just for their failure to oversee contracts in a way
that makes sense. Until we instill that in the culture, I worry
that our military commanders, for all the right reasons, want
to focus on the mission, and they don't see how much stuff
costs on contracts, whether it's in the mess or whether it's
who's cleaning the latrines or who's doing the laundry--they
don't really see that as part of the mission, and fixing that
culture is probably the hardest part, and I wish you all the
luck.
Dr. Carter. Thank you.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
Dr. Carter, DOD now actually spends more for the
acquisition of services than it does for the acquisition of
products, including major weapons systems. Yet the Inspector
General and GAO have reported that the Department routinely
fails to conduct required acquisition planning and contract
oversight functions for its services contracts.
We enacted a provision a couple years ago that required the
DOD to develop a comprehensive inventory of activities that are
performed by service contractors, to serve as the basis for an
analysis of whether we've gone too far in contracting out. The
first inventory was supposed to be submitted last July. The
Department now says it'll be unable to meet this requirement
until 2011 at the earliest.
Now, that really shows the problem. We have contracted out
so much of the services that are needed that we can't even
inventory those services for years.
This is a real issue around here, this contracting out and
whether or not we're getting our money's worth. There are some
policy issues, but there's also some financial issues here.
There's some real policy issues which I referred to in terms of
contracting out security functions, but there's also some
significant dollars here that are at issue. Will you ensure
that the Department conducts the inventory of activities
performed by service contractors in a timely manner?
Dr. Carter. I will, Senator.
Chairman Levin. Will you tell us what the earliest date is
we can expect that? Once you're confirmed and check this out,
will you get back to the committee?
Dr. Carter. You bet, Senator.
Chairman Levin. Dr. Miller, you wrote last September about
the need for game-changing diplomacy with Iran, to emphasize
more the need to put in place a comprehensive verification
regime on Iran's activities and to talk directly with Iran on a
broad range of issues. President Obama last Friday issued a
video message to the people and Government of Iran in which he
said that Iran had a choice, to assume its rightful place in
the community of nations, but that Iran could not achieve this
through terror and arms.
Do you believe that there is an opportunity to engage Iran
on issues of mutual concern, or at least that the attempt
should be made?
Dr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, yes, I believe certainly an
attempt should be made. Whether there's an opportunity or not
we will find out as we see the reaction of the Iranians.
Chairman Levin. One of the issues, of course, that we're
most concerned about with Iran is a potential missile threat,
particularly if they ever achieve and obtain a nuclear weapon,
given the makeup and the rhetoric of their current leadership.
One of the arguments that I've been making is that if we can
improve our relations with Russia, particularly if we can work
with Russia on a joint missile defense that would be a defense
against Iranian missiles, that this could be a true game-
changer in a lot of ways, not just in providing a missile
defense, but in terms of making a very strong statement to Iran
about the determination of the world community, including
Russia working with us, to deal with an Iranian threat.
First, Dr. Miller, if the United States and Russia could
agree on a cooperative approach to missile defense, do you
think that would be an important statement in terms of a
determination to deal with Iran, but also could help to improve
U.S. security in other ways?
Dr. Miller. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
Chairman Levin. Ambassador Vershbow, do you have a comment
on that? Would you agree with that?
Ambassador Vershbow. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would agree very
much that if we could achieve cooperation with Russia on
missile defense it would be a very important step in our
relationship with Russia in dealing with a common threat, and
it would send a very important message to Iran as well, which
could underpin the diplomatic engagement that we are going to
attempt to see whether we're able to get them to change their
course on nuclear weapons development.
Chairman Levin. Secretary Gates told us about a month ago
or so that NATO would welcome cooperation or discussions about
the possible cooperation between the United States and Russia
relative to a cooperative approach to missile defense. You, of
course, are an expert on NATO. Would you agree with Secretary
Gates that NATO would welcome those efforts?
Ambassador Vershbow. I agree 100 percent with Secretary
Gates on this, and my experience is that this attitude of our
NATO allies goes back many years. As NATO itself has come to
see the importance of missile defense, they have also
emphasized their interest in cooperating with Russia. Whether
it's in the NATO-Russia context or a U.S.-Russia context,
they're very much for it.
Chairman Levin. Dr. Miller, the Law of the Sea Convention
is pending in the Senate. In your response to prehearing policy
questions, you stated that you support U.S. accession to the
convention. Can you tell us what advantages you see in our
joining that convention?
Dr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, in my view there are numerous
advantages to accession. Let me just list a couple for
starters. The first is that the United States has a strong
stake in freedom of navigation across the globe and that the
convention would bring the United States additional tools to
enforce that and to bring it in compliance also with
international guidelines on that with the other countries that
are involved across the globe.
Second, stepping out of the defense area, as the Arctic
opens up and we've seen an opening that allows passages that
haven't been the case for as long as we've recorded the
situation up there, there is a growing competition over
minerals and over energy resources of other kinds, including
oil, in that area, and accession to the Law of the Sea would
give the United States a firm foundation for competing for
those resources.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Dr. Miller, Ambassador Vershbow, let me turn to Afghanistan
for a minute. One of the reasons that the expansion of the
Afghan Security Forces is slower than we'd like is the lack of
trainers. That's the long pole in the tent, we've been told by
a number of our military leaders.
The second longest pole would be the shortfall in equipment
for the Afghan Security Forces. At Tuesday's hearing, General
Craddock said that NATO members are failing to provide funds
for the NATO Afghan Army Trust Fund, which would help pick up
costs both of training and equipping the Afghan army.
Let me ask you, Ambassador, would you look into the NATO
trust fund issue, press NATO members to meet the agreed target
for that fund? Will you--and I guess this would also apply to
Dr. Miller--try to see what you can do to speed up the
availability of equipment to the Afghan army and the Afghan
police?
Ambassador Vershbow. Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I
definitely will make all of those things a high priority. I
think that these are issues that we would also be looking for
some progress on at the upcoming NATO summit, and particularly
the trust fund that you mentioned. These are all keys to
success in Afghanistan and I think our allies have not done as
well as we had hoped, but we will continue to press.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Chairman Levin, for your
courtesy and your good leadership of this committee.
I congratulate President Obama on your nominations. From
what I have seen in my opportunity to meet with each of you, I
believe you bring to the government the kind of experience and
good judgment that we need. You'll be under a lot of
challenges. There's an article today about liberal groups
demanding the President cut the defense budget even more. Our
preliminary analysis of the budget that the President has
submitted would indicate that he will be taking the defense
expenditure from over 4 percent, almost 4.5 percent of gross
domestic product, to 3 percent of gross domestic product.
That's a dramatic cut if it's carried out and it's going to put
some real pressure on each one of you in conducting your
affairs in a fair and legitimate way.
What has happened in the past is that procurement, Dr.
Carter, is the thing that gets whacked, because you have to pay
the salaries for our men and women in uniform and their health
care, the electric bills, the housing, the transportation and
upkeep on the equipment, and the fuel that goes in it. That is
just a dangerous thing and I hope that you will recognize, as
you and I talked earlier, that each President does have a
responsibility during his watch to not only pay the salaries of
our personnel, but also to provide for the future the weapons
systems that they may need, but take years to develop.
Would you agree that that's a responsibility a President
has?
Dr. Carter. I would, absolutely.
Senator Sessions. Dr. Carter, in your advance questions I
was pleased with a number of your answers. One of them, you
were asked about international participation in the American
defense base and you stated: ``It also helps the Department to
achieve the advantages of competition in contracting, which
includes the ability to obtain world-class best value products
for our warfighters.''
Do you stand by that statement?
Dr. Carter. I do.
Senator Sessions. I think that's fundamentally correct. Let
me ask you this first, ``best value'' is a term that has some
meaning within defense circles. Could you briefly summarize
what that means to you?
Dr. Carter. Yes. ``Best value,'' I think, means in
acquisition more or less what it means in everyday life, which
is looking at a purchase, in this case of a system, by taking
into account all of the attributes that one wishes to have. So
it means the same thing as it means when I think the person,
any of us, goes in to best value to buy a radio or something.
Senator Sessions. So price is a factor, quality is a
factor, capabilities are a factor, all things, and you try to
make a judgment for the warfighter based on the overall
assembly of qualities that provide the best value for the
military?
Dr. Carter. That's correct. One attaches weights to the
various factors and makes a decision accordingly.
Senator Sessions. Let me just be frank with you. We're
talking about an Air Force refueling tanker bid process that's
been stopped. Secretary Gates said that as soon as you're on
board it'll be your project. Congratulations. I said he punted
and he caught his own punt and now he's going to hand it off to
you. [Laughter.]
But I believe strongly that best value is a fundamental
principle of any good acquisition system. So I'm a little
worried because I've heard some comment that, not official,
but, well, we might just decide this purely on price. I would
note that in the last bid round that the aircraft that would be
built in my State was a good bit cheaper. At any rate, I think
it was a more capable aircraft also.
But I think best value is the right principle. Do you
intend to apply the best value principle to your supervision of
the bid process for the number one Air Force priority, the
replacement of the aging tanker fleet?
Dr. Carter. I recognize this is going to be a big
responsibility. I think best value is a good principle in
acquisition, as it is in everyday life. What I committed to you
when we chatted earlier, and I do again, is my job as I
understand it, if I'm confirmed, with respect to the tanker
deal, is to serve up the best acquisition strategy as honestly
as I possibly can.
I realize that this acquisition program's been through its
ups and downs and so forth. I'm going to take a fresh eye to it
and call it to the Secretary of Defense as straight as I
possibly can.
Senator Sessions. But do you intend to use the principle of
best value for the warfighter? Because we required this
contract to be bid, Congress did, after a flap over the
contract--and some people went to jail. We required it to be
bid, and there were only two bidders in the whole world that
could supply this aircraft. Both of them would build their
aircraft in the United States.
I guess my question to you is, when you're going to analyze
this why would you not use the traditional process of best
value?
Dr. Carter. I would use exactly the traditional process of
best value in this case and attach the weights to the various
parameters that go into best value, of which price is one, and
call it like I see it. The Secretary of Defense and the
President will have a voice in that as well. But my commitment
to you is I will call it absolutely straight.
Senator Sessions. I thank you for that. We had a lot of
political talk and out of all this storm DOD will have to
maintain its reputation for integrity and making decisions on
the merits and not politics. I feel like you've been there, you
understand the pressures you're likely to be subjected to, but
you'll do the right thing. That's what my present belief is,
and I hope that the Secretary or others wouldn't alter the
traditional process of choosing the best aircraft.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
There are no more questions, so we will bring the hearing
to a close. I want to before I close just say two things.
First, we're going to bring these nominations to a vote of the
committee as quickly as we possibly can and hopefully get these
to the floor before recess.
Second, I just want to not only thank you for your
commitment to public service; I want to thank again your
families. If you don't mind, Dr. Miller, I want to single out
particularly your younger kids. They have looked interested way
beyond what could reasonably be expected of kids their age. I
have grandkids about their age, so I won't say any more than
that. But anyway, I know how important it is that all of you
have your families here, but particularly when you have young
kids that would much rather be out there in the rain.
Dr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you all. We will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m. the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Ashton Carter by Chairman
Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense (DOD)
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They have also clarified the responsibility of the Military Departments
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment
to the combatant commanders.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions?
Answer. I worked in the Pentagon both before and after the passage
of the Goldwater-Nichols Act, and I have seen its benefits in terms of
jointness, provision of military advice to the President, and
streamlined acquisition management. Some of the act's principles are
also being applied to interagency coordination. At this time I see no
specific changes in the act that I would recommend. If confirmed, I
would have the opportunity to assess whether changes were needed, and
if so consult with this committee.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. Acquisition reform must be a central priority, and if
confirmed I will be assessing proposals for reform, including ones that
might touch on aspects of Goldwater-Nichols. I will consult with this
committee if such a proposal arises and appears to have merit.
duties
Question. Twenty years ago, Congress established the position of
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition in response to the
recommendations of the Packard Commission. The Packard Commission
report stated: ``This new Under Secretary . . . should be the Defense
Acquisition Executive. As such, he should supervise the performance of
the entire acquisition system and set overall policy for R&D,
procurement, logistics, and testing. He should have the responsibility
to determine that new programs are thoroughly researched, that military
requirements are verified, and that realistic cost estimates are made
before the start of full-scale development. (In general, we believe,
cost estimates should include the cost of operating and maintaining a
system through its life.) He should assure that an appropriate type of
procurement is employed, and that adequate operational testing is done
before the start of high-rate production. He also should be responsible
for determining the continuing adequacy of the defense industrial
base.''
Do you believe that the position of Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(ATL)) has the duties and
authorities necessary to carry out the recommendations of the Packard
Commission?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you see the need for modifications in the duties and
authorities of the USD(ATL)?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you believe that DOD has effectively implemented a
streamlined chain of command for acquisition programs, as envisioned by
the Packard Commission?
Answer. I believe that the Department has implemented acquisition
chains of command that provide a good management structure to meet
current acquisition requirements and outcomes. If confirmed, I will
continue to examine these acquisition structures and oversight chains.
Question. Do you see the need for modifications in that chain of
command, or in the duties and authorities of any of the officials in
that chain of command?
Answer. Not at this time. I believe the statutory reporting chain
which provides USD(AT&L) directive authority for Service acquisition
programs via the Service Secretaries is a critical authority which must
be maintained. If confirmed, I will evaluate the current chains of
command and recommend adjustments, if needed.
Question. Section 133 of title 10, U.S.C., describes the duties and
responsibilities of the USD(ATL).
Assuming you are confirmed, what additional duties do you expect
that the Secretary of Defense will prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect the Secretary to assign me duties
and functions commensurate with the USD(AT&L) position, and any others
he may deem appropriate.
Question. Do you recommend any changes to the provisions of section
133 of title 10, U.S.C., with respect to the duties of the USD(ATL)?
Answer. No, I do not.
qualifications
Question. If confirmed, you will be responsible for managing an
acquisition system pursuant to which DOD spends almost $400 billion
each year. Section 133 of title 10, U.S.C., provides for the Under
Secretary to be appointed from among persons who have an extensive
management background in the public or private sector.
What background and experience do you have that you believe
qualifies you for this position?
Answer. I have had 25 years of experience working with and for DOD
and its supporting defense industry and laboratories on major weapons
systems and command and control systems. I first worked in DOD for
Secretary Caspar Weinberger on space programs, nuclear weapons systems,
command and control systems, and strategic defense in the 1980s. In the
1990s I was privileged to serve as Assistant Secretary of Defense. In
between government service I have been a consultant and advisor to
defense companies, to defense laboratories and federally-funded
research and development centers (FFRDCs), and a member and consultant
to the Defense Science Board and to DOD's Threat Reduction Advisory
Council. I have participated in many panels and studies that have
assessed the defense acquisition system going back to the 1980s and
have written three books that address the subject. As a physicist, I am
very familiar with developments in defense technology and therefore
with the role the USD(AT&L) plays in overseeing the science and
technology (S&T) efforts of the Department. The USD(AT&L) also plays a
key role in our nuclear deterrent and in other strategic issues. I have
been deeply involved in technical aspects of nuclear weapons and
missile defense since the 1980s.
Question. What background or experience, if any, do you have in the
acquisition of major weapon systems?
Answer. Acquiring weapons systems in a manner that that warfighter
and taxpayer deserve has several dimensions, and I have background and
experience in each. Secretary Gates and Deputy Secretary Lynn have
stressed the need to ensure that the Department's acquisition program
meets the needs of the 21st century, and I believe they expect the
USD(AT&L) to contribute, with other senior managers, to that end. I
have previously participated in many governmental and nongovernmental
reviews and analyses of U.S. military strategy, trends in the types of
threats the United States will face in the future, and the spectrum of
military and nonmilitary responses to these threats. Once a need is
identified and a materiel approach selected, it is important to know
whether the technology is mature enough to permit an acquisition
program to commence and then to proceed at every key milestone. I am a
physicist with long involvement in the technical aspects of defense
programs, and I therefore believe that if confirmed, I will be able to
discharge the USD(AT&L)'s responsibility to assess technology readiness
levels at each step of the acquisition process. Development,
procurement, and sustainment of major weapons systems require
experience with DOD and the defense industry, systems engineering at
every stage, and iron discipline. I have had 25 years of experience
working with and for the Defense Department and its supporting
industry, laboratories, and FFRDCs. Finally, the acquisition system
itself is widely regarded as having failed both the warfighter and the
taxpayer, and reform of the system is an imperative. I have
participated in numerous reform efforts dating to the 1980s and have
written three books that deal with the subject. I believe that, if
confirmed, I can use this experience to help identify reforms that will
avoid in the future some of the problems we are having with major
defense programs today.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the USD(ATL)?
Answer. A first major challenge is to ensure that AT&L is
supporting the war effort through rapid acquisition of systems our
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines need in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
in the war on terror; ensuring that the logistics supply lines into and
out of Iraq, and into Afghanistan, can support the forces and the
required deployment timetables; and making sure the role of contractors
on the battlefield is appropriate. A second major challenge is to get
under control the many troubled acquisition programs that are supposed
to be supporting our forces--both today and tomorrow. Too many of these
programs are failing to meet their cost, schedule, and performance
expectations, and some are failing even more fundamentally the test of
whether they are needed for the future military challenges we are most
likely to face. In addition to disciplining these programs, reform of
the acquisition system is needed to ensure that we do not get ourselves
in this position again in the future. A third challenge is to ensure
that the Department has the strongest S&T base supporting national
security. A fourth challenge is to ensure, consistent with overall
national policy, a safe and secure nuclear deterrent and technically
effective missile defense programs.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I would use the experience and knowledge I
have of defense programs, technology, and DOD to focus on these
priorities, working with the acquisition team, other senior managers in
the Department, Congress, and industry leaders to produce real progress
for the warfighter and taxpayer.
acquisition organization
Question. Do you believe that the office of the USD(ATL) is
appropriately structured to execute its management and oversight
responsibilities?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to familiarize myself with
the AT&L office organization, so at this time, I am not aware of
significant structural impediments to accomplishing its function.
Question. Do you believe that any change is needed in the duties
and responsibilities of the Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense serving
under the USD(ATL)?
Answer. See previous answer.
Question. Do you see the need for any changes in the relationship
between the USD(ATL) and senior acquisition officials in the military
departments?
Answer. Not at this time. If confirmed, I will be actively involved
in setting acquisition policy. My expectation would be to ensure the
senior acquisition officials in the military departments and defense
agencies implement and follow those policies, and demonstrate effective
execution.
Question. Do you see the need for any additional processes or
mechanisms to ensure coordination between the budget, acquisition, and
requirements systems of the DOD and ensure that appropriate trade-offs
are made between cost, schedule, and performance requirements early in
the acquisition process?
Answer. I am not aware of a need for additional processes or
mechanisms at this time. If confirmed, I will examine these issues and
recommend appropriate changes. I do believe, however, that coordination
among these functions is absolutely necessary to best serve the
warfighter and taxpayer.
Question. What do you believe should be the appropriate role of the
Service Chiefs in the requirements, acquisition, and resource-
allocation process?
Answer. The Service Chiefs have a key role to play in the
development of capability needs and in the planning and allocation of
resources consistent with those needs. Service Chiefs do not play a
formal role in the acquisition chain of command, but I would respect
and encourage their advice on matters within their purview.
Question. What do you believe should be the appropriate role of the
combatant commanders in the requirements, acquisition, and resource-
allocation processes?
Answer. Combatant commanders have an important role in the
development of capability needs and advising on priorities and
allocation of resources consistent with those needs. I believe the
acquisition system should be especially responsive to their urgent
needs. If confirmed, I would respect and encourage their advice on
matters within their purview.
Question. Do you see the need for any changes in the structure or
operations of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC)?
Answer. JROC membership may be appropriate for the USD(AT&L). The
USD(AT&L) must continue to at least participate in a full advisory
role. Close coordination between requirements and acquisition is
essential.
major weapon system acquisition
Question. The investment budget for weapon systems has grown
substantially over the past few years to more than $150 billion per
year. An increasing share of this investment is being allocated to a
few very large systems such as the Joint Strike Fighter, Future Combat
Systems, and Missile Defense.
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, projected increases in end strength, and
asset recapitalization?
Answer. I am concerned that it may not be. Moreover, I believe the
investment budget will be under increasing pressure in the future. If
confirmed, this is an area I will manage vigorously to ensure we have
an affordable long-term investment strategy.
Question. If confirmed, how do you plan to address this issue?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to acquaint myself as quickly as
possible with the facts of this situation and assist the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary in addressing it.
Question. What would be the impact of a decision by the Department
to reduce purchases of major systems because of affordability issues?
Answer. If confirmed, I will carefully assess the impact of any
proposal to reduce purchases of major systems because of affordability,
including the impact on national security risk, industrial capability,
as well as international implications.
Question. Nearly half of DOD's 95 largest acquisition programs have
exceeded the so-called Nunn-McCurdy cost growth standards established
in section 2433 of title 10, U.S.C, to identify seriously troubled
programs. The cost overruns on these major defense acquisition programs
(MDAPs) now total $295 billion over the original program estimates,
even though the Department has cut unit quantities and reduced
performance expectations on many programs in an effort to hold costs
down.
What steps, if any, would you take, if confirmed, to address the
out-of-control cost growth on DOD's MDAPs?
Answer. We cannot change history. But it is important to assess
whether programs that have already experienced cost growth are still
out of control and whether they can still be afforded. Looking forward
I intend to ensure programs start out right with an appropriate degree
of practical realism in terms of technical, performance and cost
expectations. If confirmed, I intend to emphasize realistic overall
cost estimates and time phased funding profiles. If confirmed, I will
also work to devise and enforce current and possible new policies to
discipline the system so that program requirements are well understood
when programs start, and are stabilized as much as possible over the
long term to guard against unreasonable future growth in costs.
Question. What steps if any do you believe that the Department
should consider taking in the case of MDAPs that exceed the critical
cost growth thresholds established in the Nunn-McCurdy provision?
Answer. I believe the current statutory provision provides the
authority to take appropriate measures, including major restructuring
or termination.
Question. Do you believe that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, as currently structured, has
the organization and resources necessary to effectively oversee the
management of these MDAPs? If not, how would you address this problem?
Answer. If confirmed, this is an area I would examine carefully and
make appropriate recommendations.
Question. Do you believe that DOD has the systems engineering and
developmental testing organizations, resources, and capabilities needed
to ensure that there is a sound basis for key requirements,
acquisition, and budget decisions on MDAPs? If not, how would you
address this problem?
Answer. I believe sound systems engineering and developmental
testing is a fundamental basis for acquisition decisions, and I am
concerned about the adequacy of the organizational and human capital
dimensions of systems engineering in the Department. If confirmed, I
will review and assess the organizations and capabilities in this area
and make appropriate recommendations.
Question. Do you see the need for any changes to the Nunn-McCurdy
provision?
Answer. Not at this time, but this is an issue I would intend to
review if confirmed
Question. What principles will guide your thinking on whether to
recommend terminating a program that has experienced ``critical'' cost
growth under Nunn-McCurdy?
Answer. The certification criteria in the statute provide a set of
principles, namely, whether a program is still a high priority to
national defense, has sound management, the costs are well understood
moving forward, and that there are no other more cost effective
alternatives.
Question. In the budget blueprint that supports the fiscal year
2010 presidential budget request, the administration committed to
``setting realistic requirements, sticking to them and incorporating
`best practices' by not allowing programs to proceed from one stage of
the acquisition cycle to the next until they have achieved the maturity
to clearly lower the risk of cost growth and schedule slippage.''
If confirmed, how would you help ensure that the Department makes
good on this commitment?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to enforce policies that discipline
the system so that program requirements are well understood when
programs start, and are stabilized as much as possible over the long
term to guard against unreasonable future growth in costs for whatever
reason.
technological maturity
Question. Over the last several years, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) has prepared a series of reports for this
committee comparing DOD approach to the acquisition of major systems
with the approach taken by best performers in the private sector. GAO
concluded that private sector programs are more successful because they
consistently require a high level of maturity for new technologies
before such technologies are incorporated into product development
programs. The Department has responded to these findings by adopting
technological maturity goals in its acquisition policies.
How important is it, in your view, for the Department to mature its
technologies with research and development (R&D) funds before these
technologies are incorporated into product development programs?
Answer. Launching into a product development program with immature
technology presents a high risk with respect to cost, schedule, and
performance. Ideally, technology maturation is accomplished through
private sector investments, and the Department is able to harvest the
results of commercial investments in its acquisition programs. However,
when certain critical technologies are required for achieving mission
success, and private sector investment is unlikely to be forthcoming or
adequate, the Department should invest R&D funds to mature those
technologies.
Question. What steps if any would you take, if confirmed, to ensure
that the key components and technologies to be incorporated into major
acquisition programs meet the Department's technological maturity
goals?
Answer. Since 2006, the Department has required that all critical
technologies for major acquisition programs must be rated as Technology
Readiness Level (TRL) 6 or better at Milestone B, and TRL 7 or better
at Milestone C. I believe this policy is extremely beneficial, and has
resulted in numerous cases where acquisition programs have devoted much
more attention to ensuring technology readiness at key milestones. I am
in favor of developing policy and approaches that will shine a
spotlight on technology readiness even earlier in the acquisition cycle
to ensure that maturation occurs in a timely way.
Question. Do you believe that the Department should make greater
use of prototypes, including competitive prototypes, to ensure that
acquisition programs reach an appropriate level of technological
maturity, design maturity, and manufacturing readiness before receiving
Milestone approval?
Answer. Yes. When judiciously applied, competitive prototyping can
substantially reduce development risk in acquisition programs. I say
judiciously because it is not practical to force every program to
prototype full systems in every case. If confirmed, I will include
competitive prototyping in acquisition strategy decisions informed by
technology readiness, systems engineering and integration evaluations,
and other management factors.
Question. Section 2366a of title 10, U.S.C., requires the Milestone
Decision Authority (MDA) for a Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP)
to certify that critical technologies have reached an appropriate level
of maturity before Milestone B approval.
What steps if any will you take, if confirmed, to make sure that
the DOD complies with the requirements of section 2366a?
Answer. If confirmed, as chair of the Defense Acquisition Board and
MDA for Acquisition Authority-1 programs, I will use technology
readiness assessments submitted to ensure compliance with section
2366a.
Question. What steps if any will you take to ensure that the
Director of Defense Research and Engineering is adequately staffed and
resourced to support decisionmakers in complying with the requirements
of section 2366a?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to work with Director, Defense
Research and Engineering (DDR&E) and DUSD(S&T) and other members of the
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) staff to evaluate the adequacy
of resources available to meet the challenges of complying with the
requirements of section 2366a.
Question. Are you satisfied that technology readiness assessments
adequately address systems integration and engineering issues which are
the cause of many cost overruns and schedule delays in acquisition
programs?
Answer. On the basis of the information currently available to me,
I am not. If confirmed, I will direct the appropriate USD(AT&L) offices
to ensure that systems integration, systems engineering, and technology
maturity issues are properly addressed and coordinated
Question. Do you plan to follow the recommendation of the Defense
Science Board Task Force on the Manufacturing Technology Program and
require program managers to make use of the Manufacturing Readiness
Level tool on all programs?
Answer. I believe strongly in the importance of manufacturing
technology as a type of technology deserving DOD fostering just as DOD
fosters the technologies embedded in the manufactured weapons
themselves. I also agree that manufacturing readiness should be
assessed more rigorously before programs pass into production. If
confirmed, I intend to review the specific recommendations of the DSB
report and to take actions that reflect the importance of this subject.
Question. Beyond addressing technological maturity issues in
acquisition programs, what other steps should the Department take to
increase accountability and discipline in the acquisition process?
Answer. There are a great number of factors that contribute to the
pervasive failure of programs to meet their schedule, cost, and
performance goals. As Secretary Gates has said, there is no ``silver
bullet'' that will address all of the factors. They involve all steps
of the process, from unrealistic requirements and technology immaturity
at the front end of the process to instability and inefficient
production runs at the back end, to insufficient systems engineering
throughout the process, to many other factors. If confirmed, I will be
committed to addressing all these factors and, where necessary,
reforming the system to minimize the frequency of these pervasive
problems.
fixed price-type contracts
Question. Recent congressional and DOD initiatives attempt to
reduce technical and performance risks associated with developing and
producing major defense acquisition programs so as to minimize the use
of cost-reimbursable contracts.
Do you think that the Department should move towards more fixed
price-type contracting in developing or procuring major defense
acquisition programs? Why or why not?
Answer. I do think that the Department should whenever possible
consider moving towards the more frequent use of fixed price type
contracts in developing or procuring major defense acquisition
programs. Whether a program should have a fixed price or cost type
contract depends upon several key factors: 1) the stability of the
requirement; 2) the maturity of the technology employed; 3) the ability
to estimate accurately the cost of the system to be procured; and 4)
stable funding. If these key factors are met, then it is appropriate to
utilize a fixed price type contract for developing and producing major
defense systems.
technology transition
Question. The Department continues to struggle with the transition
of new technologies into existing programs of record and major weapons
systems and platforms. Further, the Department also has struggled with
moving technologies from DOD programs or other sources rapidly into the
hands of operational users.
What impediments to technology transition do you see within the
Department?
Answer. There are several impediments to technology transition. One
is the gap between the results of R&D sponsored in DOD laboratories and
the engineering and production processes in industry. Another is having
a rapid enough acquisition system that the technologies it embeds in
the systems it produces are not out of date by the time they are
fielded. Another is the gap that sometimes develops between the
commercial (and largely globalized) technology base and the defense
technology base.
Question. What steps if any will you take, if confirmed, to enhance
the effectiveness of technology transition efforts?
Answer. As a technologist myself, overcoming these impediments will
be a priority for me and for the DDR&E. If confirmed, I intend, with
that individual's help, to devise and implement further measures to
overcome these impediments.
Question. What can be done from a budget, policy, and
organizational standpoint to facilitate the transition of technologies
from S&T programs and other sources, including small businesses,
venture capital funded companies, and other nontraditional defense
contractors, into acquisition programs?
Answer. It is very important that defense tap into these sources,
which are some of the most innovative in the world, for technology that
can be applied to weapons systems. R&D and acquisition processes must
make it easier for such entities to contribute to defense.
Question. Do you believe that the Department's S&T organizations
have the ability and the resources to carry technologies to higher
levels of maturity before handing them off to acquisition programs?
Answer. The S&T organizations can take technologies to levels
appropriate to their mission, but going beyond that (e.g., to
demonstrations in operational environments) would require resources not
generally resident in S&T organizations.
Question. What steps if any do you believe the Department should
take to ensure that research programs are sufficiently funded to reduce
technical risk in programs so that technological maturity can be
demonstrated at the appropriate time?
Answer. To enable research programs to reduce technical risk in
acquisition programs more effectively, they must have current, detailed
understanding of the technical approaches in those programs. Visibility
into acquisition program technical approaches by the research
enterprise may need to be improved.
Question. What role do you believe technology readiness levels
(TRLs) and manufacturing readiness levels (MRLs) should play in the
Department's efforts to enhance effective technology transition and
reduce cost and risk in acquisition programs?
Answer. Together with others, TRLs and MRLs can serve as management
tools to gauge the maturity of technologies that might be adopted by
acquisition programs and to estimate the effort required to achieve
acceptable production capabilities.
Question. Section 2359a(c) of title 10, U.S.C., requires the
USD(ATL) to designate a senior official of the Department to support
the development of policies to facilitate the rapid transition of
technologies from S&T programs into acquisition programs of DOD.
If confirmed, would you expect to appoint a single technology
transition advocate who would be responsible for promoting technology
transition throughout the Department?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect the DDR&E to be responsible
for promoting technology transition.
Question. If appointed, where should this official be positioned
within the Office of the USD(ATL) to most effectively and seamlessly
transition technologies to acquisition programs from S&T programs and
other sources and best reflect the needs of both the user and
technology development communities?
Answer. See above.
unrealistic cost, schedule, and performance expectations
Question. Many acquisition experts attribute the failure of DOD
acquisition programs to a cultural bias that routinely produces overly
optimistic cost and schedule estimates and unrealistic performance
expectations. As Senator Levin explained at a June 2008 hearing,
``contractors and program offices have every reason to produce
optimistic cost estimates and unrealistic performance expectations,
because programs that promise revolutionary change and project lower
costs are more likely to be approved and funded by senior
administration officials and by Congress.''
Do you agree with the assessment that overly optimistic cost and
schedule estimates and unrealistic performance expectations contribute
to the failure of major defense acquisition programs?
Answer. Yes. I believe there are real cultural issues at play in
this regard. For example, each program is so difficult to start and
``sell'' within the enterprise and Congress that multiple stakeholders
are needed, and the tendency is to settle on satisfying everyone's
wishes. Since few of the parties at this stage face any real penalty
for making the program do ``a little bit more'', this drives to overly
ambitious programs with exquisite capabilities. Ultimately this results
in overpromising and underdelivering.
Question. What steps if any would you take, if confirmed, to ensure
that the Department's cost, schedule, and performance estimates are
realistic?
Answer. There is no one step that will ensure that cost, schedule,
and performance estimates are realistic. But, if confirmed, I will
insist on technology maturity and the solicitation and heeding of
independent cost estimates.
Question. Do you believe that early communication between the
acquisition, budget, and requirements communities in DOD can help
ensure more realistic cost, schedule, and performance expectations?
Answer. Yes, and if confirmed, I will work hard to break down any
barriers between these three processes.
Question. If so, what steps if any would you take, if confirmed, to
ensure such communication?
Answer. The key is leadership that is committed in all three
processes working together. I believe that Secretary Gates and Deputy
Secretary Lynn expect those who lead the requirements, acquisition, and
budgeting functions to work as a team. If confirmed, that is my
intention.
Question. What is your view of the need for an independent office
of cost estimating within DOD?
Answer. The function of independent cost estimation is critical. My
first Pentagon job in the 1980s was in PA&E, and I am well familiar
with the capabilities of the CAIG. If confirmed, I will take a careful
look at the cost estimation capabilities, and more importantly whether
their results figure in decisionmaking.
Question. DOD has increasingly turned to incremental acquisition
and spiral development approaches in an effort to make cost, schedule,
and performance expectations more realistic and achievable.
Do you believe that incremental acquisition and spiral development
can help improve the performance of the Department's major acquisition
programs?
Answer. Yes I do, in selected instances. Like other useful
acquisition concepts, spiral development is not a silver bullet but
should be in the acquisition system's toolkit.
Question. In your view, has the Department's approach to
incremental acquisition and spiral development been successful? Why or
why not?
Answer. I think the answer is mixed. My impression is that some of
the more successful implementations of evolutionary approaches have
come recently as a result of rapid fielding necessitated by operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan. But if not used wisely, the result can be
added complexity to systems.
Question. What steps if any do you believe are needed to ensure
that the requirements process, budget process, and testing regime can
accommodate incremental acquisition and spiral development approaches?
Answer. Each of these requirements, budget, and testing processes
must be flexible enough to accommodate the possibility, where
appropriate, of applying these acquisition concepts. If confirmed, I
will seek to ensure this flexibility.
Question. How should the Department ensure that the incremental
acquisition and spiral development programs have appropriate baselines
against which to measure performance?
Answer. I see this as no different than any other program. If
confirmed, I would insist that each increment or evolution of
capability have a baseline for assessing execution performance.
funding and requirements stability
Question. The poor performance of major defense acquisition
programs has also been attributed to instability in funding and
requirements. In the past, DOD has attempted to provide greater funding
stability through the use of multi-year contracts. More recently, the
Department has sought greater requirements stability by instituting
Configuration Steering Boards to exercise control over any changes to
requirements that would increase program costs.
Do you support the use of Configuration Steering Boards to increase
requirements stability on major defense acquisition programs?
Answer. Yes, I support activities such as Configuration Steering
Boards that prevent unnecessary changes to program requirements or
system configuration that could have an adverse impact on program cost
and/or schedule. In addition, I am aware that Configuration Steering
Boards are required by section 814 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and are included within the
recent update to DOD Instruction 5000.02. If confirmed, I will review
the Department's implementation of Configuration Steering Boards to
ensure they are contributing to requirements stability as intended.
Question. What are your views on multi-year procurements? Under
what circumstances do you believe they should be used?
Answer. In general, I favor multi-year procurement strategies if
they provide savings. Frequently, multi-year procurements can offer
substantial savings through improved economies in production processes,
better use of industrial facilities, and a reduction in the
administrative burden in the placement and administration of contracts.
There are a number of criteria to be considered in deciding whether a
program should be considered for multi-year procurement. Among them
are: savings when compared to the annual contracting methods; validity
and stability of the mission need; stability of the funding; stability
of the configuration; associated technical risks; degree of confidence
in estimates of both contract costs and anticipated savings; and
promotion of national security.
Question. What is your opinion on the level of cost savings that
constitute ``substantial savings'' for purposes of the defense multi-
year procurement statute, title 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2306b?
Answer. There has been much debate over the threshold on the level
of cost savings that constitutes ``substantial savings.'' It has been
suggested that the Department needs to raise the bar with regard to the
amount of savings that are achieved through the use of multi-year
contracts. I agree that we need to ensure that the savings achieved are
substantial not only in terms of dollars but also substantial in terms
of the relative difference in price that we would otherwise pay for an
annual procurement.
But I also understand that placing an absolute minimum threshold on
``substantial savings'' could unnecessarily limit the contracting
options available and should be evaluated based upon the circumstances
of each particular proposed program being proffered for multi-year
procurement.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that a
multi-year contract should be used for procuring weapons systems that
have unsatisfactory program histories, e.g., displaying poor cost,
scheduling, or performance outcomes but which might otherwise comply
with the requirements of the defense multi-year procurement statute,
title 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2306b?
Answer. Additional analysis and careful review of all information
should be completed when a multi-year contract is being considered for
use in procuring weapon systems that have unsatisfactory program
histories but which otherwise comply with the statutory requirements.
The Department would need to examine very carefully all risk factors to
determine if a multi-year procurement would be appropriate.
Question. How would you analyze and evaluate proposals for multi-
year procurement for such programs?
Answer. The Department would need to examine all risk factors in
conjunction with the potential for cost savings to determine if multi-
year procurement would be appropriate for a program with an
unsatisfactory history. If confirmed, I will analyze and evaluate
proposals for multi-year procurements in accordance with all statutory
and regulatory requirements and I will ensure that we fully understand
the benefit to the warfighter and taxpayer to proceed with a multi-year
procurement for a program with a checkered history.
Question. If confirmed, what criteria would you apply in
determining whether procuring such a system under a multi-year contract
is appropriate and should be proposed to Congress?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that all of the regulatory and
statutory requirements are met before proceeding with any multi-year
procurement.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, should DOD ever break a
multi-year procurement?
Answer. If the Department has done its job properly, the
cancellation of a multi-year contract should be a rare event. However,
there are circumstances under when it could occur. One such event would
be the failure to fund a program year. Another would be the failure of
the contractor to perform, which ultimately would lead to a decision to
terminate for default.
Question. What other steps if any would you recommend taking to
increase the funding and requirements stability of major defense
acquisition programs?
Answer. I understand the Department has implemented numerous
initiatives focused on improving funding and requirements stability.
These include: (1) greater upfront planning implicit in the new
Material Development Decision; (2) the use of Configuration Steering
Boards; (3) Program Management Agreements to limit requirements
changes; and (4) competitive prototyping to inform the Department on
the realism of requirements. I believe these and other Department
initiatives are sound and I support them. It will take time to show the
impact of these policies, but lasting change starts with good common-
sense policies that are measurable, enforceable, and widely accepted as
good policy. If confirmed, I plan to closely monitor the execution of
these policies and look for other opportunities to improve funding and
requirements stability.
multi-year contracts
Question. The statement of managers accompanying Section 811 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 addresses the
requirements for buying major defense systems under multi-year
contracts as follows: ``The conferees agree that `substantial savings'
under section 2306b(a)(1) of title 10, U.S.C., means savings that
exceed 10 percent of the total costs of carrying out the program
through annual contracts, except that multi-year contracts for major
systems providing savings estimated at less than 10 percent should only
be considered if the Department presents an exceptionally strong case
that the proposal meets the other requirements of section 2306b(a), as
amended. The conferees agree with a GAO finding that any major system
that is at the end of its production line is unlikely to meet these
standards and therefore would be a poor candidate for a multi-year
procurement contract.''
If confirmed, under what circumstances, if any, do you anticipate
that you would support a multi-year contract with expected savings of
less than 10 percent?
Answer. Multi-year contracting can provide cost savings, and
therefore it should be considered as an option to serve the warfighter
and taxpayer. There has been much debate over the threshold on the
level of cost savings that constitutes ``substantial savings.'' That
cost saving can be measured in dollar terms and in price the Department
would otherwise pay for an annual procurement. If confirmed, I would
value the flexibility to consider both metrics of cost savings.
Question. If confirmed, under what circumstances, if any, would you
support a multi-year contract for a major system at the end of its
production line?
Answer. It may be appropriate to consider a program for multi-year
procurement when it is nearing the end of production. It depends upon
the circumstances of the particular procurement. Analysis and careful
review of all information as well as should be completed when a multi-
year contract is being considered.
continuing competition and organizational conflicts of interest
Question. The Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense
Industrial Structure for Transformation recommended last summer that
``DOD must increase its use of creative competitive acquisition
strategies, within limited budgets, in order to ensure long-term
innovation and cost savings, at both prime and critical sub-tier
elements. Competition would not be required beyond the competitive
prototype phase, as long as the current producer continuously improves
performance and lowers cost--but other contractors should always
represent a credible option if costs rise or performance is
unacceptable.''
Do you agree with this recommendation? Do you believe that
continuing competition is a viable option on MDAPs?
Answer. Yes, I believe that DOD must increase its use of creative
competitive acquisition strategies to ensure long-term innovation and
cost savings. Harnessing the power of competition in some form should
be a goal on all MDAPs.
Question. Do you support the use of competitive prototypes for
MDAPs?
Answer. Yes, I support competitive prototyping in our MDAPs.
Question. In your view, has the consolidation of the defense
industrial base gone too far and undermined competition for defense
contracts?
Answer. I understand it is the Department's policy to oppose
transactions that reduce or eliminate competition and I would implement
that policy where necessary. Yes, I am concerned about the loss of
competition caused by consolidation over the last few decades.
Question. If so, what steps if any can and should DOD take to
address this issue?
Answer. The Department continues to discourage mergers and
acquisitions among defense materiel suppliers that are anti-competitive
or injurious to national security. If confirmed, I will work to adjust
DOD transaction evaluation procedures/criteria as appropriate.
Question. What steps if any do you believe DOD should take to
address organizational conflicts of interest in MDAPs?
Answer. Even the perception of an Organizational Conflict of
Interest (OCI) may taint the integrity of the competitive procurement
process. I support the requirement in the Federal Acquisition
Regulation to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate significant potential
conflicts before contract award.
Question. What are your views on the lead system integrator
approach to managing the acquisition of major weapon systems?
Answer. I do not support the use of lead systems integrators unless
adequate steps have been taken to ensure that there is no potential for
conflict of interest. In general, the Department should select
development contractors to perform substantive development work, rather
than to perform acquisition functions closely associated with
inherently governmental functions.
Question. What are your views on the use of system engineering and
technical assistance contractors that are affiliated with major defense
contractors to provide ``independent'' advice to the Department on the
acquisition of major weapon systems?
Answer. Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) support
contractors are currently a critical component of the Department's
acquisition workforce. They provide engineering and analysis services
in a consulting capacity. However, they must be properly utilized and
not used to perform any inherently governmental functions. If
confirmed, I will continue the efforts to increase government and FFRDC
staff support to reduce the reliance on SETA contractors.
Question. What lines do you believe the Department should draw
between those acquisition responsibilities that are inherently
governmental and those that may be performed by contractors?
Answer. For acquisition responsibilities, I believe a clear line
must be drawn such that only government personnel may make value
judgments that obligate funds and commit the government contractually.
However, I recognize a number of other important functions within the
Defense acquisition community must be retained for government-only
performance. Given the current workforce mix and the level of
contracted support to acquisition functions, I believe a careful review
is needed to assess whether the Department has become too dependent on
contractors in this area. I understand Congress has recently codified a
definition of inherently governmental functions and required a review
by the Department. I believe this review provides a mechanism to
address this important question.
Question. If confirmed, what steps if any would you take to ensure
that defense contractors do not misuse their access to sensitive and
proprietary information of DOD and other defense contractors?
Answer. It is my understanding that USD(AT&L) has issued guidance
to information assurance and acquisition personnel to ensure strong
measures are in place at the individual contract level. Because this
issue is potentially so serious, I intend to review it, if confirmed.
Question. If confirmed, what steps if any would you take to ensure
that defense contractors do not unnecessarily limit competition for
subcontracts in a manner that would disadvantage the government or
potential competitors in the private sector?
Answer. This is an unacceptable practice, and if confirmed, I will
review the Department's safeguards against it.
defense acquisition transformation report
Question. In February 2007, the Secretary of Defense submitted a
report to Congress titled: ``Defense Acquisition Transformation Report
to Congress''.
If confirmed, to what extent would you support and continue
implementation of the defense acquisition reform initiatives set forth
in that report?
Answer. Acquisition reform will be a priority for me, if I am
confirmed. In general, I support the majority of the acquisition reform
initiatives identified in the Report. If confirmed, I will support the
implementation activities which are already underway and evaluate
additional ways and means to improve the effectiveness and efficiency
of the system.
Question. In particular, please discuss your views regarding the
following aspects of transformation:
Portfolio Management.
Answer. In general, I support the Capability Portfolio Management
(CPM) Initiative which was is intended to provide an enterprise-level,
horizontal (cross-component) view of the Department to better balance
and harmonize joint warfighter capability needs with capability
development efforts. If confirmed, I will review the CPM construct to
ensure it enables better-integrated and balanced advice across the full
spectrum of capability needs to DOD senior leadership.
Question. Tri-Chair Concept Decision
Answer. In general, I strongly support efforts that harmonize the
major Department processes for requirements, resources, and acquisition
and, if confirmed, will pursue management mechanisms that ensure
harmonization.
Question. Time-Defined Acquisitions
Answer. Time should be a critical element in DOD acquisition
decisionmaking since in many programs ``time is money,'' and
emphasizing time forces consideration of material alternatives and
technologies that can be fielded consistent with user need.
Question. Investment Balance Reviews
Answer. The Department should take a holistic approach, assessing
the opportunities and threats across all the Services, to determine
where to best focus investment and energy. Investment Balance Reviews
(IBRs) provide the Defense Acquisition Executive with the opportunity
to make course corrections during the life cycle of the portfolio of
capabilities, systems, and programs. If confirmed, I will review this
initiative for any additional support or direction needed.
Question. Risk-Based Source Selection
Answer. The Risk-Based Source Selection concept is intended to
identify and quantify risk, inform requirements development and cost
estimation, and improve available information to assess contractor
proposals. Risk-Based Source Selection techniques enhance the quality
of requests for proposal by improving technical criteria and making DOD
a ``smarter'' buyer. It is my understanding that the Department has
implemented of a series of policy initiatives including: (1) the
issuance of policy describing the proper use of award fees; (2) the
establishment of competitive prototyping as the underlying strategy for
demonstrating the technical maturity of key technologies; (3) the
requirement to do Preliminary Design Reviews before MSB when consistent
with the Technology Development Strategy; (4) the requirement to
conduct peer reviews of source selections to ensure requirements
traceability and effective source selections; (5) the requirement for
offerors to substantiate claims of technology maturity as part of their
proposals for Engineering and Manufacturing Development contracts; and
(6) a new MDA decision point titled the Post Critical Design Review
Assessment to assess design maturity. If confirmed, I will review these
efforts to ascertain whether they can be further strengthened.
Question. Acquisition of Services Policy
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department has recently
issued new policy guidance regarding the Acquisition of Services. It is
my understanding that this new policy imposes significant changes in
the way the Department manages and reviews the performance of service
contracts. If confirmed, I intend to assess such initiatives and
related policy and make any adjustments necessary to implement the
President's direction to carry out robust and thorough management and
oversight of contracts.
Question. Systems Engineering Excellence
Answer. Systems engineering is a practice that is critical
throughout the lifetime of a program and especially in its early
stages, as recent testimony before this committee has attested. If
confirmed, I will continue to strengthen early and informed systems
engineering in both new and current acquisition programs as a clearly
demonstrated best practice, augmented with a revitalized systems
engineering workforce to strengthen program management organizations.
Question. Award Fee and Incentive Policy
Answer. I support the efforts currently underway to link award fee
and incentive payments to acquisition outcomes such as cost, schedule,
and technical performance. If confirmed, I intend to assess such
initiatives and related policy and make any adjustments necessary to
ensure that their intended purposes are being met.
Question. Open, transparent, and common shared data resources with
Defense Acquisition Management Information Retrieval (DAMIR)
Answer. DAMIR currently provides enterprise visibility to
acquisition program information. If confirmed, I intend to evaluate
current initiatives focusing on implementation of open, transparent,
and common shared data resources.
Question. Restructured Defense Acquisition Executive Summary
Reviews
Answer. The Defense Acquisition Executive Summary reviews provide a
forum for OSD to work with the Services and agencies to evaluate
progress in program execution. In general, I support this initiative
which is designed to improve decisionmaking, communication, and trust
between OSD, the Joint Staff, and the Services. If confirmed, I will
review this initiative for any additional support or direction.
Question. Policy on Excessive Pass-Through Charges
Answer. I support the full implementation of section 852 to ensure
that pass-through charges on contracts or subcontracts that are entered
into for or on behalf of DOD are not excessive in relation to the cost
of work performed by the relevant contractor or subcontractor.
Question. Are there other initiatives or tools discussed in the
Defense Acquisition Transformation Report that you view as particularly
likely, or unlikely, to be productive in achieving acquisition reform?
Answer. I am aware that the final Defense Acquisition
Transformation Report was recently submitted. The report has identified
numerous initiatives. If confirmed, I will study all of the report's
acquisition reform initiatives to determine additional ways and means
to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the system.
operation of the defense acquisition system
Question. On December 2, 2008, the Department promulgated a new
version of DOD Instruction 5000.02, the key guidance on the
Department's acquisition of major weapon systems. The revised
instruction restructured the management framework for translating
capability needs and technology opportunities into stable, affordable,
and well-managed defense acquisition programs.
What is your assessment of the new version of this instruction and
the extent of its implementation to date?
Answer. The new instruction is a constructive step, and if
confirmed, I will ensure that it is effectively implemented and seek to
improve upon it.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to continue
implementation of the new version of DOD Instruction 5000.2 and improve
upon it?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to monitor the implementation and
effectiveness of the new policies. If necessary, I will alter these or
introduce additional policies to ensure that our programs achieve cost,
schedule, and performance objectives.
contracting for services
Question. Over the past 8 years, DOD's spending on contract
services has more than doubled, with the estimated number of contractor
employees working for the Department increasing from an estimated
730,000 in fiscal year 2000 to an estimated 1,550,000 in fiscal year
2007. As a result, the Department now spends more for the purchase of
services than it does for products (including major weapon systems).
Do you believe that DOD can continue to support this rate of growth
in its spending on contract services?
Answer. I am very concerned about this trend. If confirmed, I
intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Department's senior
leadership to address the underlying question about whether the Defense
Department is adequately staffed, quantitatively and qualitatively, to
carry out its responsibilities. If the Department continues to utilize
contracted service providers to such a large extent, it is absolutely
essential we have a sufficient amount of qualified government,
civilian, or military personnel dedicated to perform meaningful
oversight of contractor activities.
Question. Do you believe that the current balance between
government employees (military and civilian) and contractor employees
is in the best interests of DOD?
Answer. DOD requires some mix of Federal employees and contractors
to carry out its mission effectively, but that mix might be out of
balance. If confirmed, I would support efforts to help ensure the
appropriate balance.
Question. What steps if any would you take, if confirmed, to
control the Department's spending on contract services?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the
Department's senior leadership to assess the amount of spending on
contracted services, consistent with President Obama's March 4, 2009,
memorandum on Government Contracting which emphasizes the need to
ensure best value for the taxpayers.
Question. At the request of the committee, GAO has compared DOD's
practices for the management of services contracts to the practices of
best performers in the private sector. GAO concluded that leading
companies have achieved significant savings by insisting upon greater
visibility and management over their services contracts and by
conducting so-called ``spend'' analyses to find more efficient ways to
manage their service contractors. Section 801 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 required DOD to move in this
direction. Sections 807 and 808 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 built on this provision by requiring
inventories and management reviews of contracts for services.
Do you believe the Department is providing appropriate stewardship
over service contracts?
Answer. I am concerned that in some instances it might not be. I
understand the Department has recently instituted policy and processes,
such as peer reviews of significant service acquisitions, to ensure
taxpayer funds are spent wisely when acquiring contracted services. If
confirmed, I intend to assess these policies and procedures and make
any necessary adjustments.
Question. Do you believe that the Department has appropriate
management structures in place to oversee the expenditure of more than
$150 billion a year for contract services?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to assess the current
management structures that are in place, but if confirmed, I will make
the necessary adjustments to implement President Obama's direction to
carry out robust and thorough management and oversight of contracts.
Question. Do you believe that the Department should conduct a
comprehensive analysis of its spending on contract services, as
recommended by GAO?
Answer. Although I am not familiar with the specific GAO
recommendations regarding a comprehensive spend analysis, I agree with
its intent. It is also my understanding that the office of the Director
of Defense Procurement and Strategic Sourcing has completed an
extensive spend analysis of the Department's spending on services. If
confirmed, I intend to review this analysis to ensure that the
Department is effectively implementing cost saving strategies in the
procurement of services.
Question. Do you support the use of management reviews, or peer
reviews, of major service contracts to identify ``best practices'' and
develop lessons learned?
Answer. I fully support the use of management reviews and peer
reviews of major service contracts to identify ``best practices'' and
develop lessons learned. If confirmed, I will work with the
Department's senior leadership to further institutionalize this
practice and make any necessary adjustments.
Question. If confirmed, will you fully comply with the requirement
of section 807 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008, to develop an inventory of services performed by contractors
comparable to the inventories of services performed by Federal
employees that are already prepared pursuant to the Federal Acquisition
Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be committed to actively pursuing the
continued implementation of section 807 as this legislation establishes
a solid post-award review process and increased transparency of
services contracts to Congress, the public, and internally within the
Department.
Question. What additional steps if any would you take, if
confirmed, to improve the Department's management of its contracts for
services?
Answer. If confirmed, I will take steps to ensure leaders at all
levels of the Department understand and appreciate the vital role they
must play in diligently managing service contracts in a way that
maximizes the benefit to the warfighter and the taxpayer.
contractor performance of critical governmental functions
Question. Over the last decade, the Department has become
progressively more reliant upon contractors to perform functions that
were once performed exclusively by government employees. As a result,
contractors now play an integral role in areas as diverse as the
management and oversight of weapons programs, the development of
personnel policies, and the collection and analysis of intelligence. In
many cases, contractor employees work in the same offices, serve on the
same projects and task forces, and perform many of the same functions
as DOD employees.
In your view, has DOD become too reliant on contractors to support
the basic functions of the Department?
Answer. I am concerned that it may be.
Question. Do you believe that the current extensive use of personal
services contracts is in the best interest of DOD?
Answer. While I am not specifically aware of the use of personal
services contracts within the Department, I do know that there are
statutory restrictions that govern the use of personal services
contracts. If confirmed, I will ensure that if personal services
contracts are being used in a manner that is inappropriate, that
practice is ended immediately.
Question. What is your view of the appropriate applicability of
personal conflict of interest standards and other ethics requirements
to contractor employees who perform functions similar to those
performed by government employees?
Answer. I believe that contractor employees who directly support
government employees, and may have access to similar business sensitive
or source selection sensitive information, should be subject to similar
ethical standards as the government employees they support, and should
not be allowed to profit personally from the information that may be
available to them because of their performance under a DOD contract.
Question. U.S. military operations in Iraq have relied on
contractor support to a greater degree than any previous U.S. military
operations. According to widely published reports, the number of U.S.
contractor employees in Iraq exceeds the number of U.S. military
deployed in that country.
Do you believe that DOD has become too dependent on contractor
support for military operations?
Answer. Secretary Gates has tasked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to oversee a Department-wide review of contractor roles and
missions. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary and Chairman
Mullen in this review and implement recommendations where appropriate
and, if necessary, work with Congress to institutionalize reforms.
Question. What risks do you see in the Department's reliance on
such contractor support?
Answer. I see two risks: (1) Fraud, waste, or abuse if there is
insufficient oversight; and (2) the possibility that contractors could
choose to leave the mission because it became dangerous or for some
other reason.
Question. What steps do you believe the Department should take to
mitigate such risk?
Answer. The first step is to have a thorough understanding of any
risks we have with the current workforce mix of military, civilian, and
contractors. As mentioned earlier, the study being led by the Joint
Staff will provide insight into this important issue. Next would be the
development of a robust capability to provide oversight and management
of contractor performance and restrictions.
Question. Do you believe the Department is appropriately organized
and staffed to effectively manage contractors on the battlefield?
Answer. It is my understanding that there have been shortcomings in
recent years, and if confirmed, I intend to learn more about them.
Question. What steps if any do you believe the Department should
take to improve its management of contractors on the battlefield?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to review this subject and recommend
stops to ensure that shortcomings are not repeated.
private security contractors
Question. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction
(SIGIR) recently reported that Federal agencies including DOD have
spent more than $5 billion for private security contractors (PSCs) in
Iraq since 2003. Over this period, there have been numerous reports of
abuses by PSCs, including allegations of contractors shooting
recklessly at civilians as they have driven down the streets of Baghdad
and other Iraqi cities. In September 2007, employees of Blackwater
allegedly opened fire on Iraqis at Nisour Square in downtown Baghdad,
killing more than a dozen Iraqis and wounding many more.
Do you believe DOD and other Federal agencies should rely upon
contractors to perform security functions that may reasonably be
expected to require the use of deadly force in highly hazardous public
areas in an area of combat operations?
Answer. I cannot directly comment on the Blackwater incident as I
have not had access to information about this case, and in any event I
understand that it is a State Department issue, presently in the
Federal courts. But I believe that the use of PSCs, and more generally
the use of contractors in wartime, deserves careful review.
As a practical matter, DOD must use the total force (military
forces, Department civilians, and contractors) to resource the full
spectrum of requirements. DOD's recent ongoing efforts to perform more
detailed contractor support planning for all operational plans can
ensure that the use of PSCs is based upon careful planning and
assessment and not simply on general assumptions and, if confirmed, I
will review these plans. If contractor personnel cannot be used
appropriately, there will be force structure implications which will
require consideration by Congress.
Question. In your view, has the U.S. reliance upon PSCs to perform
such functions risked undermining our defense and foreign policy
objectives in Iraq?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to acquaint myself with the
facts of this situation, nor to discuss it with DOD leadership,
military commanders or diplomatic observers. But it is clear that
appropriate conduct of Americans in the theater, including contractors,
is important to overall progress in achieving our aims.
Question. What steps if any would you take, if confirmed, to ensure
that any PSCs who may continue to operate in an area of combat
operations act in a responsible manner, consistent with U.S. defense
and foreign policy objectives?
Answer. We have learned two important lessons from the current
operations: First, the use of PSCs in any area of combat operations
must be fully coordinated. There must be unified and consistent
procedures for all such contractors, regardless of which U.S. agency
hires them. Our commanders on the ground must have authority to
restrict or redirect their operations as the situation requires.
Second, there must be assured legal accountability for the actions of
PSCs. If confirmed, I will review further steps that can be taken.
Question. How do you believe the ongoing operations of PSCs in Iraq
are likely to be affected by the new Status of Forces Agreement between
the United States and Iraq?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to acquaint myself with all
the facts bearing on this situation, but if confirmed, I would intend
to do so. I do understand that since January 1 of this year, U.S.
Government contractors no longer have immunity from host nation law.
If confirmed, I would seek to ensure that the loss of contractor
immunity in Iraq does not diminish the effectiveness of operations.
Question. Do you support the extension of the Military
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act to PSCs of all Federal agencies?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to acquaint myself with the
practical and legal dimensions of the issue. It is my understanding
that DOD has consistently supported unambiguous application of the
Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act to all U.S. Government PSCs
operating in contingency areas.
Question. What is your view of the appropriate application of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice to employees of PSCs operating in an
area of combat operations?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to acquaint myself with all
the practical and legal dimensions of this issue. There must be assured
legal accountability for the actions of all contractors deployed to an
area of combat operations. The application of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice is one tool to do this.
Question. OMB Circular A-76 defines ``inherently governmental
functions'' to include ``discretionary functions'' that could
``significantly affect the life, liberty, or property of private
persons.''
In your view, is the performance of security functions that may
reasonably be expected to require the use of deadly force in highly
hazardous public areas in an area of combat operations an inherently
governmental function?
Answer. My understanding is that DOD's decision to use PSCs
(including subcontractors) is in compliance with current U.S.
Government policy and regulations. It clearly raises issues of
appropriateness, and if confirmed, I would intend to participate in
shaping policies regarding the appropriate use of contractors.
Question. In your view, is the interrogation of enemy prisoners of
war and other detainees during and in the aftermath of hostilities an
inherently governmental function?
Answer. The role of DOD contractors raises issues of
appropriateness, and if confirmed, I would intend to participate in
shaping policies regarding the appropriate use of contractors.
Question. Do you see a need for a comprehensive reevaluation of
these issues now?
Answer. I do, and I understand that the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, as directed by the Secretary of Defense, is already
conducting a thorough examination of the use of DOD contractors in
support of current military operations as well as a review of the range
and depth of contractor capabilities necessary to support the Joint
Force of the future.
Question. In October 2008, DOD announced a plan to award contracts
in excess of $300 million to U.S. contractors to conduct ``information
operations'' through the Iraqi media.
In your view, is DOD's use of private contractors to conduct
information operations through the Iraqi media appropriate?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to have access to
information regarding this matter.
government contracting reform
Question. In a memorandum to the heads of all Federal agencies, the
President on March 4, 2009, directed a government-wide review of
contracting procedures and stated that ``executive agencies shall not
engage in noncompetitive contracts, except in those circumstances where
their use can be fully justified and where appropriate safeguards have
been put in place to protect the taxpayer.''
If confirmed, how would you determine whether the use of
noncompetitive contracts could be fully justified?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to emphasize the importance
of competition and review the Department's competition practices. At
present, it is my understanding that DOD Competition Advocates
participate in acquisition strategy sessions and are engaged in the
review of noncompetitive contracts. All noncompetitive contracts must
be supported by a justification and determination and approved by the
procuring activity Competition Advocate if over $550,000; the head of
the procuring activity if over $11.5 million; and the senior
procurement executive of the agency if over $78.5 million. The DOD
Competition Advocate submits an annual report on the Department's
competition achievements to the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. If confirmed, I
intend to review these practices to ascertain if adjustments are needed
pursuant to the President's guidance.
Question. In your opinion, how would the direction in this memo
affect the use of single-award and multiple-award Indefinite Delivery/
Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts?
Answer. I support the direction in the memo emphasizing competition
and appropriate use of various contract types. An IDIQ contract is
appropriate for use when the government cannot predetermine the precise
quantities of supplies or services it will require and it is
inadvisable to commit the government beyond the more than a minimum
quantity. The Federal Acquisition Regulation establishes the preference
for multiple awards when an IDIQ contract is awarded and requires
approval of the agency head for a single-award IDIQ contract estimated
to exceed $100 million. It is my understanding that the Department does
not support the use of single-award IDIQ contracts unless they are
absolutely necessary. If confirmed, I intend to review these practices
pursuant to the President's guidance.
contracting methods
Question. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy and DOD have
long agreed that Federal agencies could achieve significant savings and
improved performance by moving to performance-based services
contracting (PBSC). Most recently, the Army Environmental Program
informed the committee that it has achieved average savings of 27
percent over a period of several years as a result of moving to fixed-
price, performance-based contracts for environmental remediation.
Section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2002, as amended, established performance goals for increasing the use
of PBSC in DOD service contracts.
What is the status of the Department's efforts to increase the use
of PBSC in its service contracts?
Answer. It is my understanding that the preferred approach to
services contracting within the Department is already to utilize fixed
price performance based contracts whenever it has well-defined
statements of work that have clear performance objectives which can be
measured objectively. The Department continues to emphasize the use of
this type of contract whenever possible.
Question. What additional steps if any do you believe the
Department needs to take to increase the use of PBSC and meet the goals
established in section 802?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that a fundamental element of
our strategic sourcing approach to services contracts will be the
increased use of performance based fixed price contracts.
Question. In recent years, DOD has relied heavily on time-and-
materials (T&M) contracts for the acquisition of services. Under such a
contract, the Department pays a set rate per hour for contractor
services, rather than paying for specific tasks to be performed. In
some cases, contractors have substituted less expensive labor under T&M
contracts, while continuing to charge Federal agencies the same hourly
rates, resulting in effective contractor profits of 25 percent or more.
What is your view of the appropriate use of T&M contracts by DOD?
Answer. T&M contracts, regardless of dollar value, are the least
preferred contract type and should only be used if no other contract
type is appropriate. They are a very costly and ineffective method of
contracting for services. If confirmed, I will ensure appropriate
determinations are made to only use T&M contracts when no other
contract will satisfy the requirement.
Question. What steps if any do you believe the Department should
take to minimize the abuse of T&M contracts?
Answer. I understand the Department has taken several steps to
minimize the abuse of T&M contracts. The Panel on Contracting Integrity
is reviewing the appropriate approval levels for determinations made by
contracting officers for use of a T&M contract. Additionally, the
OUSD(AT&L) requested the military departments and other defense
agencies review their use of T&M contracts for services and identify
contracting activities that have executed more than 10 percent of their
obligations using T&M. DPAP continues to monitor the inappropriate use
of T&M contract types for services. If confirmed, I will review the
various initiatives for any additional support or direction needed.
Question. Section 852 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 requires DOD to promulgate
regulations prohibiting excessive ``pass-through'' charges on DOD
contracts. Pass-through charges are charges added by a contractor for
overhead and profit on work performed by one of its subcontractors, to
which the contractor provided no added value. In some cases, pass-
through charges have more than doubled the cost of services provided to
DOD.
What is your view of the regulations promulgated by DOD to
implement the requirements of section 852?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department issued an
interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
Supplement to implement Section 852 to ensure that pass-through charges
on contracts or subcontracts that are entered into for or on behalf of
DOD are not excessive in relation to the cost of work performed by the
relevant contractor or subcontractor. The rule provides a list of
functions that are considered to be value-added. If the contractor does
not perform the demonstrated functions or does not add value, the rule
makes the excessive pass-through charges unallowable and provides for
recoupment of the excessive pass-through charges consistent with the
legislation. While I have not had the opportunity to analyze this
matter sufficiently in order to form an opinion, if confirmed, I will
be receptive to suggested refinements as the case makes its way through
the Federal rulemaking process.
Question. What additional steps if any do you believe the
Department should take to address the problem of excessive pass-through
charges?
Answer. Beyond finalization of the DFARS rule and associated
updates that should be made to Defense Acquisition University training
curriculum, I understand the Department has incorporated this issue as
an element to be addressed in Peer Reviews in accordance with Section
808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.
interagency contracting
Question. GAO recently placed interagency contracting--the use by
one agency of contracts awarded by other agencies--on its list of high-
risk programs and operations. While interagency contracts provide a
much-needed simplified method for procuring commonly used goods and
services, GAO has found that the dramatic growth of interagency
contracts, the failure to clearly allocate responsibility between
agencies, and the incentives created by fee-for-services arrangements,
have combined to expose DOD and other Federal agencies to the risk of
significant abuse and mismanagement. The DOD Inspector General and the
GSA Inspector General have identified a long series of problems with
interagency contracts, including lack of acquisition planning,
inadequate competition, excessive use of time and materials contracts,
improper use of expired funds, inappropriate expenditures, and failure
to monitor contractor performance. DOD, in conjunction with the General
Services Administration and the Office of Management and Budget, is
taking a number of actions to improve training and guidance on the use
of this contract approach.
If confirmed, what steps if any will you take to monitor and
evaluate the effectiveness of the actions currently underway or planned
regarding DOD's use of other agencies' contracts?
Answer. Interagency contracting is a necessity at times to achieve
``whole of government'' efforts to address complex contemporary
security challenges, but it must be done in a way that gives best value
to the taxpayer. If confirmed, I will review the efforts outlined in
the January 2005 policy on the ``Proper Use of Non-DOD Contracts'' and
subsequent policy updates. In addition, I understand that as part of
the Department's strategic spending analysis, DOD is collecting
adequate data to know what non-DOD agencies are acquiring on behalf of
DOD and which organizations they are supporting.
Question. Do you believe additional authority or measures are
needed to hold DOD or other agency personnel accountable for their use
of inter-agency contracts?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review and evaluate these authorities.
Question. Do you believe contractors have any responsibility for
assuring that the work requested by DOD personnel is within the scope
of their contract?
Answer. The primary responsibility for ensuring work is within the
scope of the contract rests with the contracting officer. I believe
that if a contractor is uncertain whether or not supplies or services
ordered are within scope of their contract they should consult with the
contracting officer.
Question. Do you believe that DOD's continued heavy reliance on
outside agencies to award and manage contracts on its behalf is a sign
that the Department has failed to adequately staff its own acquisition
system?
Answer. If confirmed, I will examine whether or not the Department
is adequately staffed to manage and execute these efforts. However, the
Department should continue to utilize the expertise of non-DOD agencies
operating under congressional authority to acquire supplies and
services in the most efficient and effective way possible.
acquisition of information technology
Question. Most of the Department's Major Automated Information
System (MAIS) acquisitions are substantially over budget and behind
schedule. In particular, the Department has run into unanticipated
difficulties with virtually every new business system it has tried to
field in the last 10 years.
Do you believe that unique problems in the acquisition of business
systems require different acquisition strategies or approaches?
Answer. Yes. The problems suggest the need to move away from large
business information technology development projects to smaller, more
incremental business systems developments, utilizing commercial
applications whenever possible. Existing DOD hardware development
processes do not always translate effectively in the software
development world. Finally, DOD frequently needs to do business process
re-engineering prior to software development so that new development is
not imposed on legacy systems and processes.
Question. What steps if any do you believe DOD should take to
address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with the Chief Information
Officer and Chief Management Officer to create a set of processes that
are used in industry to develop, test, and deploy software within DOD's
regulatory and statutory framework. For example, I would use
incremental development and limited deployments to get capability out
to users as well as feedback from users to guide future increments of
capability.
Question. If confirmed, how would you work with the Chief
Information Officer of DOD to take these steps?
Answer. I would partner with the Chief Information Officer and
Chief Management Officer to develop best practices for DOD.
Question. Problems with computer software have caused significant
delays and cost overruns in a number of major defense programs. Section
804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003
required DOD to establish a program to improve the software acquisition
process.
What steps if any would you take, if confirmed, to address delays
and cost overruns associated with problems in the development of
software for major weapon systems?
Answer. If confirmed, I would consider three steps. First, I would
consider directing that weapon systems use incremental software
development to minimize risk. Second, I would ensure that software
embedded in weapon systems be mature before being integrated in
platforms. Third, I would seek to use independent assessment teams of
software experts to guide and advise weapon system program managers.
Question. What role, if any, do you believe that the Chief
Information Officer of DOD should play with regard to the acquisition
of information technology that is embedded in weapon systems?
Answer. The Chief Information Officer would be a key advisor to me
and the Department in assessing program risk and acquisition strategies
for development and procurement of embedded information technology.
acquisition workforce
Question. Over the last 15 years, DOD has reduced the size of its
acquisition workforce by almost half, without undertaking any
systematic planning or analysis to ensure that it would have the
specific skills and competencies needed to meet DOD's current and
future needs. Since September 11, 2001, moreover, the demands placed on
that workforce have substantially increased. While DOD has started the
process of planning its long-term workforce needs, the Department does
not yet have a comprehensive strategic workforce plan needed to guide
its efforts.
Do you believe that DOD's workforce is large enough and has the
skills needed to perform the tasks assigned to it?
Answer. I don't believe it is. A number of studies and analyses,
including by this committee, have pointed in the direction of
increasing the size of the DOD acquisition workforce and have
identified certain skill sets that need to be built up.
Question. In your view, what are the critical skills, capabilities,
and tools that DOD's workforce needs for the future?
Answer. Program management, risk management, and leadership are
critical skills, as are systems engineering and financial management.
Contracting officers need business acumen and understanding of how to
formulate, negotiate, and oversee contracts.
Question. What steps will you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
the workforce will, in fact, possess them?
Answer. We need to attract talented people to government service,
specifically into the acquisition workforce, give them challenging work
to do, retain the best of them, and be sure all of them are fully
trained and qualified for the jobs we give them. If confirmed, I will
want to ensure that the Department has the right infrastructure and
resources in place to do all that and to improve where we should.
Question. Do you agree that the Department needs a comprehensive
human capital plan, including a gap analysis and specific recruiting,
retention, and training goals, to guide the development of its
acquisition workforce?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What steps if any do you think are necessary to ensure
that the Department has the ability it needs to attract and retain
qualified employees to the acquisition workforce?
Answer. Personally, I can think of nothing more inherently
rewarding than serving one's country as the men and women of our Armed
Forces and our civilian employees do. These are dynamic times and the
approach we take now may be different from what we did in the past or
may need to do in the future. I'm told that the largest numbers of
people in the acquisition workforce are engineering, scientific, and
technical professionals, followed by business-oriented people, such as
contracting officers. Also, they are largely civilians. They will have
to be change oriented, because as national strategy evolves, what we
buy and how we buy will change. To attract and retain them we need to
provide challenging and rewarding work and a competitive rate of
compensation. If confirmed, I will do all I can to ensure we have a
properly sized, highly qualified, professional acquisition workforce.
Question. What are your views regarding assertions that the
acquisition workforce is losing its technical and management expertise
and is beginning to rely too much on support contractors, FFRDCs, and,
in some cases, prime contractors for this expertise?
Answer. A number of reports have pointed to this conclusion, and it
is a disturbing trend. As a policy matter, it is vital that inherently
governmental functions be performed by government, that is, in this
instance, by civilian and military members of the DOD acquisition
workforce. As a practical matter, program formulation, management, and
contract oversight cannot be done effectively in the interests of both
the warfighter and the taxpayer unless competent, trained, and
dedicated government professionals do it. If we have let some of this
slip away, say in areas like systems engineering and contracting, then
it is time to reverse the trend, not to the point of eliminating all
support contractors, but to achieve the proper balance. The first step
is to understand how many support contractors we have, what they are
doing, and at what cost. FFRDCs are in a different category since they
are specifically chartered to assist government professionals and in
many cases have done so effectively for many years.
Question. What is the appropriate tenure for program managers and
program executive officers to ensure continuity in major programs?
Answer. Program managers and program executive officers need to be
in their jobs long enough to be accountable for their decisions. These
jobs are not training grounds or stepping stones to higher levels.
Those who take them on must be fully qualified experts. I am aware that
there are statutory tenure minima prescribed for these and other key
leadership positions, which I support. I believe this may be more an
issue of compliance than new policy, but it is something I would look
at, if confirmed.
Question. Section 852 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 established an Acquisition Workforce Development Fund
to help DOD address shortcomings in its acquisition workforce. The fund
would provide a minimum of $3 billion over 6 years for this purpose.
Do you believe that the Acquisition Workforce Development Fund is
needed to ensure that DOD has the right number of employees with the
right skills to run its acquisition programs in the most cost effective
manner for the taxpayers?
Answer. Yes, it provides necessary resources to recruit, train, and
retain the people we need in the acquisition workforce and the
resources to increase the size of that workforce as appropriate.
Question. If confirmed, what steps if any will you ensure that the
money made available through the Acquisition Workforce Fund is spent in
a manner that best meets the needs of DOD and its acquisition
workforce?
Answer. First, I would review the processes in place to allocate
that money to the highest needs and I would review the execution of
funding that has been allocated so far. I cannot say at this point
what, if any, systemic changes may be needed, but an initiative of this
magnitude would certainly have my personal attention, and I would
welcome a continuing dialog with this committee on the matter, if I am
confirmed.
procurement fraud, integrity and contractor responsibility issues
Question. Recent Air Force acquisition scandals have raised
concerns about the adequacy of existing mechanisms to uphold
procurement integrity and prevent contract fraud.
What is your view of the adequacy of the tools and authorities
available to DOD to ensure that its contractors are responsible and
have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics?
Answer. I believe that integrity in contracting is an absolute
obligation to the taxpayer, and confidence in the integrity of DOD
contracting must be re-established. If confirmed, I intend to assess
the adequacy of the existing tools and authorities and make any
necessary adjustments.
Question. In your view, are current ``revolving door'' statutes
effective?
Answer. I understand an interim rule was published in the Federal
Register in January of this year to strengthen regulatory language
regarding DOD personnel who accept positions with Defense contractors.
It is important that the taxpayer have confidence in these practices.
If confirmed, I will assess the effectiveness of the applicable
statutes.
Question. What tools other than law enforcement measures could we
use to help prevent procurement fraud and ethical misconduct?
Answer. I understand the Office of the Inspector General and the
Defense Acquisition University continue to offer additional training
and awareness presentations on procurement fraud indicators. If
confirmed, I would seek to identify further tools.
Question. Are there sufficient enforcement mechanisms to ensure
compliance with laws and regulations?
Answer. Under existing laws and regulations, a contractor may be
suspended or debarred for failure to timely disclose a known violation
of Federal criminal law in connection with the award or performance of
any government contract performed by the contractor or a subcontract.
If confirmed, I will assess the existing enforcement mechanisms to
determine areas for improvement.
``buy america''
Question. ``Buy America'' issues have been the source of
considerable controversy in recent years. As a result, there have been
a number of legislative efforts to place restrictions on the purchase
of defense products from foreign sources.
What benefits do you believe the Department obtains from
international participation in the defense industrial base?
Answer. I believe international participation in the defense
industrial base serves to promote the interoperability,
standardization, and rationalization of the conventional defense
equipment used by the Armed Forces of the United States and its allies
and other friendly governments. It also helps to avoid or reduce
duplication in research and development initiatives. These attributes
can lead to savings in terms of the time and money needed to develop,
produce, support, and sustain the materiel needed and used by our
warfighters. It also helps the Department to achieve the advantages of
competition in contracting, which includes the ability to obtain world
class, best value products for our warfighters. Further, international
participation in the defense industrial base encourages development of
mutually beneficial industrial linkages that enhance U.S. industry's
access to global markets and exposes U.S. industry to international
competition, helping to ensure that U.S. firms remain innovative and
efficient.
Question. Under what conditions, if any, would you support the
imposition of domestic source restrictions for a particular product?
Answer. In certain instances involving national security or the
preservation of a key defense technology or production capability,
domestic source restrictions may be necessary. The Department has (and,
I understand, has exercised) the authority to ``self-impose'' such
domestic source restrictions.
Question. Section 831 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 requires the Secretary of
Defense to ensure that the United States firms and United States
employment in the defense sector are not disadvantaged by unilateral
procurement practices by foreign governments, such as the imposition of
offset agreements in a manner that undermines the United States
industrial base.
What steps if any do you believe the Department should take to
implement this requirement?
Answer. Section 831 requires the Secretary of Defense to make every
effort to ensure that the policies and practices of the Department
reflect the goal of establishing an equitable trading relationship
between the United States and its foreign defense trade partners. I
understand an interagency team composed of the Departments of Defense,
Labor, Commerce, and State and the U.S. Trade Representative was
established to consult with other nations about limiting the adverse
effects of offsets. If confirmed, I would decide on the need for any
steps to be taken by the Department based on information the team
provides.
Question. The Defense Science Board Task Force on ``Defense
Industrial Structure for Transformation'' found in July 2008 that U.S.
policy regarding ``Buy America'' and the ``Berry Amendment'' inhibits
the Nation from gaining the security and economic benefits that could
be realized from the global marketplace.
What is your opinion of ``Buy America'' legislation and the ``Berry
Amendment''?
Answer. Such restrictions may impede the Department's ability to
procure world class products and capabilities on a ``best value'' basis
for our warfighters, and they may impair effective defense cooperation
with our allies and other friendly governments. For example, such
restrictions can be inconsistent with supply chain management practices
of commercial enterprises. This would impede efforts to promote civil-
military integration and to achieve greater reliance on commercial
solutions to the Department's requirements. It would be a preferable
alternative to allow the Department to rely on its ability, under
existing law, to impose source restrictions when necessary. I
understand that the Department also has authority to restrict
procurements to domestic sources when it determines that a particular
domestic industrial capability must be protected. This means the
Department has the ability to sustain endangered industrial
capabilities when necessary to protect national security interests and
to remove the restrictions when no longer needed, thus returning to the
benefits of competition.
the defense industrial base
Question. What is your view of the current state of the U.S.
defense industry?
Answer. The defense industry is a vital partner to defense, since
most defense products and services are provided by the private sector.
Generally, my viewpoint is that our Nation's defense and technology
industrial base remains the most innovative, reliable, and cost-
effective in the world.
Question. Do you support further consolidation of the U.S. defense
industry?
Answer. I support the Department's overall policy to review each
proposed merger, acquisition, and teaming arrangement on its particular
merits in the context of the individual market and the changing
dynamics of that market. I have some concern about the loss of
competition caused by significant industry consolidation over the last
decade. If confirmed, I would work with Department leadership to
evaluate options to address continued consolidation and the flux of the
competitive environment.
Question. What is your position on foreign investment in the U.S.
defense sector?
Answer. Generally, I support foreign investment in the defense
sector. Foreign firms enhance competition which can lower costs of
specific defense systems as well as provide for them leading edge
technologies which were developed abroad. In addition, such investment
in the long-run will increase interoperability between the United
States and its allies. To be sure, we must ensure that foreign
investment in the defense sector does not create risks to national
security.
Question. What steps if any do you believe DOD should take to
ensure the continued health of the U.S. defense industry?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support the Department's strategy to
rely on market forces to the maximum extent possible to create, shape,
and sustain the industrial and technological capabilities needed to
provide for the Nation's defense. However, I think it is also important
to recognize that the Department (through its budget, acquisition, and
logistics processes) can create market forces capable of harnessing the
innovation potential in the industrial/technological base. In addition,
when it becomes necessary to intervene in the marketplace, the
Department has tools available which help to focus industry attention
on critical technology development, accelerate technology insertion
into manufacturing processes, create or expand critical production
facilities, and direct production capacity towards meeting the most
urgent warfighter needs.
manufacturing issues
Question. The recent Defense Science Board (DSB) study on the
Manufacturing Technology Program made a number of findings and
recommendations related to the role of manufacturing research and
capabilities in the development and acquisition of defense systems.
Have you reviewed the findings of the DSB Task Force on the
Manufacturing Technology Program?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What recommendations from the Task Force do you plan to
implement?
Answer. The overarching recommendation of the DSB report was to
give ``leadership emphasis'' to manufacturing technology. I believe
strongly in the importance of manufacturing technology as a type of
technology deserving DOD fostering just as DOD fosters the technologies
embedded in the manufactured weapons themselves. I also agree that
manufacturing readiness should be assessed more rigorously before
programs pass into production.
Question. What incentives do you plan to use to enhance industry's
incorporation and utilization of advanced manufacturing processes
developed under the manufacturing technology program?
Answer. The Department's competitive solicitation process must
adequately identify and reward proposers who plan to employ advanced
manufacturing processes in response to DOD requests for proposals and
where manufacturing processes are mature and do not present excessive
risk.
science and technology
Question. What, in your view, is the role and value of S&T programs
in meeting the Department's transformation goals and in confronting
irregular, catastrophic, traditional, and disruptive threats?
Answer. I believe S&T plays a large role in shaping the future
direction of DOD as the Department takes on the challenge of
accomplishing an expanded range of missions. The content of a S&T
program needed to address these future challenges is likely different
than in the past. The threats to our national security have expanded to
cyberspace as well as physical space. Just as S&T gave us the world's
most capable military at the end of the Cold War, we need S&T to
provide answers for tomorrow's fight.
Question. If confirmed, what direction will you provide regarding
funding targets and priorities for the Department's long-term research
efforts?
Answer. I am aware that Secretary Gates has made, in particular,
basic research a priority--increasing funding by about $300 million in
fiscal year 2009. If confirmed, I will carefully review all funding
portfolios; then assess the relative merits and targets.
Question. What specific metrics would you use, if confirmed, to
assess whether the Department is making adequate investments in its
basic research programs?
Answer. There are a number of metrics to assess whether the
Department is making an adequate investment in basic research. None of
these provide a binary yes or no answer. By definition, basic research
is long-term, and not measureable credibly with short-term metrics. The
Department needs to assess a number of factors, to include growth or
decline in real dollars of the basic research program; change in number
of projects; proportion of DOD-funded researchers in key science
disciplines; and number of students supported by the basic research
program investments. While these metrics offer insight, if confirmed, I
will need to work closely with the Director, Defense Research and
Engineering before defining specific metrics.
Question. Do you feel that there is sufficient coordination between
and among the S&T programs of the Military Services and defense
agencies?
Answer. I am aware that there are coordination mechanisms in place
for the Department's S&T program. If confirmed, I would look at this
issue more closely to determine if current coordination is adequate.
Question. What is the Department's role and responsibility in
addressing national issues related to science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) education and workforce development?
Answer. The Department must take a pro-active role in ensuring that
the Nation has an adequate STEM workforce. In addition to encouraging
STEM workforce development through its research investments and
education outreach efforts, I believe DOD needs to work closely with
the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Science
Foundation, and other Federal components involved in national security,
to generate a ``whole of government'' approach to workforce
development.
Question. What steps if any would you take to support efforts to
ensure that the Nation has the scientific and technical workforce
needed for its national security technological and industrial base?
Answer. I am aware of several activities within DOD, such as the
National Defense Education Program and the National Security Science
and Engineering Fellows program, that aim to expand the pool of
scientists and engineers able to contribute to the national security
technological and industrial base. If confirmed, one of the first steps
I would take would be to direct the DDR&E to determine how well these
programs and others like them meet the Department's S&T workforce
needs.
Question. How would you use S&T programs to better reduce technical
risk and therefore potentially reduce costs and schedule problems that
accrue in large acquisition programs?
Answer. S&T programs, particularly in Budget Activities 2 (Applied
Research) and 3 (Advanced Development) can have substantial impact on
improving technology readiness, and thereby reduce technical risk. I
believe there is an opportunity to expand the ties from BA2 and BA3
programs to large acquisition programs, particularly between Milestones
A and B.
Question. Do you feel that the S&T programs of DOD are too near-
term focus and have over emphasized technology transition efforts over
investing in revolutionary and innovative research programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will look at the balance of near- and far-
term innovative research. The DOD S&T program should be balanced so
there are opportunities for both capabilities pull, responding to the
warfighter's needs, and technology push, responding to the promise of
new technology. The Under Secretary for AT&L has the responsibility of
helping to shape and focus the portfolio, and if confirmed, I will rely
on the DDR&E to advise me on how to discharge this responsibility.
Question. Are you satisfied that the Department has a well
articulated and actionable S&T strategic plan?
Answer. I know the Department has a recent Research and Engineering
Strategic Plan, published in 2007, and that each of the military
Services and agencies that conduct research publish strategic plans
that are harmonized with the DDR&E plan. If confirmed, I will ensure
the plans have clear and actionable guidance.
Question. Do you see a need for changes in areas such as hiring
authority, personnel systems, financial disclosure and ethics
requirements, to ensure that the Department can recruit and retain the
highest quality scientific and technical workforce possible?
Answer. I believe any modern enterprise needs effective tools, to
shape the workforce and attract the most capable people. This principle
holds true for the Department. Various recent studies indicate that the
Department has difficulty competing with the private sector for
technically capable staff. I will take all possible steps to ensure the
Department is competitive.
Question. The DDR&E has been designated as the Chief Technology
Officer of DOD.
In your view, what is the appropriate role of the Chief Technology
Officer of DOD?
Answer. The role of the Chief Technology Officer of the Department
is defined in the DDR&E charter. The charter defines the role of the
DDR&E as the Principal Staff Assistant to the Under Secretary (AT&L)
and the Secretary on all technical matters. The DDR&E should provide
guidance to shape the DOD S&T program and develop technology options
for the Department. The CTO should also contribute significantly to
ensuring that major acquisition programs are conducted with acceptable
technological risk
Question. What authority should the DDR&E have over the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)?
Answer. As the Department's primary corporate research activity,
DARPA reports to DDR&E. The DDR&E should have all authorities necessary
to ensure DARPA is effective in meeting its mission, including
budgetary authority and authority over selection of agency leadership.
Question. What authority should the DDR&E have over other Service
and agency S&T efforts?
Answer. The DDR&E should provide oversight responsibilities of the
Service and agency programs, consistent with the DDR&E charter.
Question. Do you see the need for any changes in organizational
structure, workforce, or availability of resources to improve the
effectiveness of the Office of the Director of Defense Research and
Engineering?
Answer. I believe S&T is critical to maintaining military
superiority across a broad range of crises and military operations.
Ensuring the technological superiority of our Armed Forces will require
a strong DDR&E. If confirmed, I will take any steps I determine
necessary for a strong DDR&E.
defense laboratories
Question. What is your view on the quality of the DOD laboratories
as compared to the DOE national laboratories, Federal laboratories,
academic laboratories, and other peer institutions?
Answer. The DOD laboratories employ a talented and mission-oriented
workforce, and constitute an important departmental resource for the
Nation's national security. That said, I am certain they can be
improved. If confirmed, I will place priority in examining the
capabilities and long-term requirements of the DOD laboratories, and
develop, with the Services, a plan to address the role of the DOD
laboratories.
Question. What metrics will you use, if confirmed, to evaluate the
effectiveness, competitiveness, and scientific vitality of the DOD
laboratories?
Answer. The effectiveness, competitiveness, and scientific vitality
of the DOD laboratories are gauged by a combination of factors,
including external review of their research programs and the Service
parent organizations' assessment of their effectiveness in meeting
Service requirements and other needs. These in turn are influenced by
the ability to attract and retain a talented workforce, and the
adequacy and robustness of their physical infrastructure. I believe
collaboration with universities, industry, and other laboratories also
constitute an important contributor and measure of our laboratories'
effectiveness in fostering and recognizing world class research and
development.
Question. What steps if any will you take, if confirmed, to
increase the mission effectiveness and productivity of the DOD
laboratories?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the DDR&E to ensure that DOD
labs operate at maximum effectiveness and productivity.
Question. Do you see value in enhancing the level of technical
collaboration between the DOD laboratories and academic, other Federal
and industrial scientific organizations?
Answer. Yes. The effectiveness and competitiveness of our
laboratories can only be helped by enhanced technical collaboration
with other research and development organizations.
Question. Do you feel that past investments in research equipment;
sustainment, repair and modernization; and facility construction at the
DOD laboratories have been sufficient to maintain their mission
effectiveness and their standing as world class science and engineering
institutions?
Answer. I believe that in some S&T areas that are key to defense,
DOD laboratories are at the cutting edge. If confirmed, I will assess
what they need to retain this standing.
darpa
Question. What is the relationship between the DARPA and the DDR&E?
Answer. DDR&E is the Department's Chief Technology Officer
responsible for ensuring the technological strength that undergirds our
defense and overseeing all of the Department's technical activities.
DARPA is the Department's primary corporate research agency, fulfilling
a crucial role complementary with the Military Services' and agencies'
research efforts. The DARPA director reports to the DDR&E.
Question. Has DARPA struck an appropriate balance between
investments in near-term technology programs that are tied to current
battlefield needs and investments in longer term, higher risk, and
revolutionary capability development?
Answer. Since its inception in the late 1950s, DARPA has led the
Department and this Nation in long-term, high-risk/high-payoff
research, resulting in numerous revolutionary force-multiplier
advantages for our warfighters. I am strongly committed to ensuring
that DARPA maintains and enhances the leadership role it has
established over decades, and that it strikes the right balance between
near-term and far-term efforts.
Question. Do you feel that DARPA has adequately invested in the
academic research community?
Answer. Many, if not most, of the revolutionary S&T advances of the
future will likely arise from academic research conducted in America's
outstanding universities, and from the spin-off companies that
universities often foster. It is important for DOD's entire S&T
enterprise, including DARPA, to nurture and encourage academic
research.
Question. What are the major issues related to DARPA investments,
management, and research outcomes that you will seek to address?
Answer. I believe that it is important for DARPA to pursue a
portfolio of research investments that offer promise of future
revolutionary warfighting advantage. DARPA must hire the most
technologically advanced, creative, and innovative staff that our
Nation can offer. DARPA must empower its workforce to think ``out-of-
the-box,'' to engage energetically with the brightest minds in the
United States and abroad, regardless of nationality.
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 in ensuring the success of
the Department's acquisition programs?
Answer. In general, I believe an independent Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation provides a valuable perspective on
whether the Department's weapon systems are operationally effective and
suitable. The Operational Evaluation, a validation of the developed
system's ability to improve the warfighter's capability, is an
essential input to any decisions on investing in the full production of
new systems. It is however often too late in the acquisition cycle to
influence design and development. That's the role of the systems
engineers and developmental testers. Developmental testing is the
verification half of systems engineering. If confirmed, I also intend
to examine the independence and resourcing of developmental testing.
Question. Are you concerned with the level of test and evaluation
conducted by the contractors who are developing the systems to be
tested?
Answer. In general, I believe contractors are an important and
integral part of the test and evaluation process during system
development. In the past era of acquisition reform the Department may
have delegated too much of the early developmental test and evaluations
to the contractors without adequate government participation or
oversight. If confirmed, my emphasis will be on integrating contractor
and government test efforts.
Question. What is the impact of rapid fielding requirements on the
standard testing process?
Answer. Rapid fielding requirements require rapid performance from
the entire acquisition team, including the test and evaluation
community. With a rapid fielding requirement, it is necessary to adjust
the scope and amount of testing to address the key issues and risks
that affect the system's use in combat and gain early insights into the
capabilities and limitations of the system being acquired. In rapid
fielding, particularly of commercial items, the focus needs to be on
understanding what we're buying, not whether the system meets a set of
rigid requirements. If confirmed, I will work with all stakeholders to
ensure testing processes support rapid fielding without delaying our
response to these urgent requirements.
Question. If confirmed, how will you work to ensure that all
equipment and technology that is deployed to warfighters is subject to
appropriate operational testing?
Answer. All equipment and technology acquired by the Department
should be subject to robust Systems Engineering, comprehensive
Developmental Test and Evaluation, and realistic Operational Test and
Evaluation. If confirmed, I would enforce existing acquisition policies
regarding these processes and where necessary amend them.
Question. Do you believe that the developmental testing
organizations in DOD and the Military Services are adequate to ensure
an appropriate level of developmental testing, and testing oversight,
on major defense acquisition programs?
Answer. I believe the Department needs to improve the adequacy of
the developmental testing organizations in DOD and the Services. If
confirmed, I will look at the entire acquisition organization,
including Developmental Test and Evaluation and make changes as
necessary to best accomplish the mission.
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal
Year 2003 included several provisions to improve the management of DOD
test and evaluation facilities.
Are you satisfied with the manner in which these provisions have
been implemented?
Answer. Yes. The language in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2003 led to
the establishment of the Defense Test Resource Management Center
(TRMC). The TRMC's mission is to plan for and assess the adequacy of
the Major Range and Test Facility Base (MRTFB). Two key provisions of
that legislation included the TRMC's requirement to develop the
Department's Strategic Plan for T&E Resources and to certify the
adequacy of Service and Agency Test and Evaluation budgets. If
confirmed, I will review the adequacy of the Department's responses to
these mandates.
Question. Do you believe that the Department should take any
additional steps to improve the management of its test and evaluation
facilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review this matter and make changes
where necessary and in consultation with Congress.
Question. As systems grow more sophisticated, networked, and
software-intensive, DOD's ability to test and evaluate them becomes
more difficult. Some systems-of-systems cannot be tested as a whole
until they are already bought and fielded.
Are you concerned with DOD's ability to test these new types of
systems?
Answer. Absolutely, testing and developing software-intensive
programs in a net-centric, systems-of-systems (SoS) environment is
indeed a challenge.
ballistic missile defense
Question. When it was created in 2002, the Missile Defense Agency
(MDA) was exempted from normal acquisition rules and processes in order
to field an initial set of missile defense capabilities on an expedited
basis. That fielding has now taken place, although numerous upgrades
and corrections are being implemented. Each of the elements of the
Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) would normally meet the
criteria for an MDAP, but none of them has been managed as an MDAP.
Furthermore, for most of MDA's existence, all its programs were funded
with Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) funds, even
for non-RDT&E activities.
What management and acquisition changes or improvements if any do
you believe are warranted for the ballistic missile defense programs?
Answer. I expect missile defense to be addressed as part of the
upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review as well as the congressionally-
mandated Ballistic Missile Defense Policy and Strategy review. In
concert with those policy reviews and if confirmed, I will review
existing DOD acquisition policies and procedures related to developing
and fielding ballistic missile defense capabilities to ensure
appropriate acquisition processes are in place.
Question. Do you believe that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics should have the same
responsibilities relative to the ballistic missile defense acquisition
programs as for all other MDAPs?
Answer. I believe that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, as the Department's senior
acquisition executive, should have the same responsibilities, within
the current departmental guidance, for all MDAPs, regardless of the
capability being acquired.
Question. If confirmed, what steps if any would you plan to take to
ensure that the ballistic missile defense programs of DOD follow sound
acquisition and management practices and processes?
Answer. I understand that the Missile Defense Executive Board
(MDEB) has been the forum for the last 2 years for senior departmental
review of MDA activity. If confirmed, I would review within the MDEB,
efforts to maintain regular oversight of the MDA acquisition and
management practices.
Question. For many years, DOD and Congress have agreed on the
principle that major weapon systems should be operationally effective,
suitable, survivable, cost-effective, affordable, and should address a
credible threat.
Do you agree that any ballistic missile defense systems that we
deploy operationally must be operationally effective, suitable,
survivable, cost-effective, affordable, and should address a credible
threat?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, what steps if any would you take to ensure
that the BMDS and each of its elements meet these criteria?
Answer. Rigorous and realistic testing of missile defenses is
imperative. I understand that the MDA presently is executing a plan
which includes the use of a Development/Operational Testing approach
that allows the U.S. Strategic Command warfighter community (which
includes all combatant commanders) and all the Service Operational Test
Agencies to be integral parts of the test program. If confirmed, I
would need to review these plans and the proposed test activities to
determine whether additional steps or other emphases are necessary or
appropriate.
Question. Today, there are many hundreds of short- and medium-range
ballistic missiles that can reach forward-deployed U.S. military
forces, allies, and other friendly nations. A Joint Staff study, the
Joint Capabilities Mix study, has repeatedly concluded that the United
States needs about twice as many Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) and Terminal
High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors just to achieve the
minimum inventory needs of regional combatant commanders to defend
against such threats.
Do you agree that U.S. missile defense efforts should be
prioritized on providing effective defenses against existing ballistic
missile threats, especially the many hundreds of short- and medium-
range ballistic missiles that are currently within range of our
forward-based forces, allies, and other friendly nations?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the balance among the elements
of the ballistic missile defense program.
Question. What do you believe should be the appropriate role of the
combatant commanders and the military in determining requirements,
force structure, and inventory levels for ballistic missile defense
forces?
Answer. Combatant commanders are the ultimate employers of the
capabilities that the acquisition community delivers. As such, they
should have a voice in determining their priorities for requirements,
force structure, and necessary inventory levels. Title 10 provides for
the military departments to have responsibility to organize, train, and
equip the forces employed by the COCOMs. MDA serves as the materiel
developer for ballistic missile defenses and as such has a role in
determining what capabilities are achievable and what inventory
quantities are feasible at what cost. These three roles are
interdependent. If confirmed, I will review existing policies and
procedures to ensure they are transparent and provide the capabilities
required at the best value to the taxpayer.
Question. For many years, Congress and DOD have agreed on the
principle of ``fly before you buy,'' namely demonstrating that a weapon
system will work in an operationally effective, suitable, and
survivable manner before deciding to acquire and deploy such systems.
This demonstration requires rigorous, operationally realistic testing,
including independent Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E), to
provide an accurate assessment of how weapon systems will perform in
combat conditions. The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
(DOT&E) has expressed concerns that the testing of the Ground-based
Midcourse Defense (GMD) system has not been sufficient to provide
confidence in its operational capability.
Do you agree that ballistic missile defense testing needs to be
operationally realistic, and should include OT&E, in order to assess
operational capabilities and limitations of ballistic missile defense
systems, prior to making decisions to deploy such systems?
Answer. I agree that operationally realistic testing is imperative,
and if confirmed, I will review MDA's test plans and practices to
ensure that they satisfy this imperative.
Question. If confirmed, what steps if any would you take to ensure
that the BMDS, and each of its elements, undergoes independent OT&E?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the MDA and the DOT&E to see
what testing is planned and eliminate any shortcomings.
Question. The MDA has developed ballistic missile defense systems
and capabilities and procured the initial inventories of missile
defense element weapon systems. However, the military departments are
notionally intended to procure, operate, and sustain these missile
defense systems.
What do you believe is the appropriate role for the military
departments in the procurement, operation, and sustainment of ballistic
missile defense systems, and at what point do you believe these systems
should be transitioned and transferred to the military departments?
Answer. I understand the MDA and the military departments are in
the process of preparing overarching and element-specific Memorandum of
Agreements to define responsibilities and relationships in preparation
for Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) operations and deployment.
If confirmed, I will work with the MDA and the military departments to
ensure processes and policies are in place to accomplish the transition
and transfer in a timely manner and within budget.
nuclear weapons council
Question. If confirmed as USD(ATL), you will chair the Nuclear
Weapons Council (NWC).
In your view, what are, or should be, the highest priorities of the
NWC?
Answer. If confirmed, I will carry out all of the NWC
responsibilities listed under section 179, title 10, U.S.C. In my view,
the highest priority of the NWC is to ensure the safety, security, and
reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile.
Question. What improvements, if any, do you believe should be made
to the operations of the NWC?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of Defense,
the Deputy Secretary of Defense, as well as members of the NWC, to
identify improvements, if any, that would further the goals of the NWC.
These may include recommendations from the recent Schlesinger
Commission report.
Question. What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in the
development of the Nuclear Posture Review?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be closely involved, along with the
appropriate agencies and departments, in both the development and the
review of the NPR.
logistics and readiness
Question. If confirmed as USD(ATL), what steps if any would you
take to ensure that life cycle maintenance requirements and sustainment
support are considered in the acquisition process for new DOD systems?
Answer. Reliability, availability, and maintainability must be
designed in early-on in the acquisition process for our weapon systems
to provide the best value to the warfighter and taxpayer. DOD is
pursuing several acquisition reforms to ensure the acquisition process
maintains a life cycle management perspective, maximizes materiel
availability for the warfighter, and controls operations and support
costs. If confirmed, I will review and if necessary adjust these reform
measures.
Question. Section 332 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009 requires DOD to conduct life-cycle cost analysis for
new capabilities including the fully burdened cost of fuel (FBCF)
during the analysis and evaluation of alternatives in the acquisition
program design trades.
Do you believe that the FBCF is an appropriate factor for the
Department to consider in the evaluation of acquisition alternatives?
Answer. Absolutely yes. The FBCF serves as a means to address
future systems energy demand within the Department's key business
processes (force planning, requirements development, and acquisition).
By properly valuing the ``burden'' of fuel delivery in systems
development, the FBCF allows a more realistic examination of
departmental costs in terms of operational effectiveness, force
structure, and operating budget.
Question. What steps if any will you take, if confirmed, to ensure
that the DOD complies with the requirements of section 332?
Answer. My understanding is that work associated with
institutionalizing the FBCF factor is underway within the Department.
If confirmed, I will review this work and institute appropriate
improvements.
Question. With persistent combat operations in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and around the globe, combat service support units are constantly at
risk when transporting supplies.
What role do you believe the USD(ATL) should play in developing
strategies to reduce the logistical footprint of deployed units
operating in hostile environments?
Answer. Logistics footprint is a multifaceted issue which is based
on the mission, the force structure, the environment, the weapons
systems deployed, and the capacity and security of our lines of
communication. If confirmed, my office, in conjunction with U.S.
Transportation Command, the Defense Logistics Agency, the Joint Staff,
and the military Services should continue to focus on managing the
logistics footprint required to sustain the force in any theater of
operation. In the long-term, we must ensure the best possible
sustainability, maintainability, reliability, and fuel efficiency of
our weapon systems in the acquisition process as a way of lowering the
footprint needed to maintain those systems.
Question. Sections 333 and 334 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 direct DOD to conduct studies on
renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power and on the
reduction of life-cycle emissions of alternative and synthetic fuels.
What is your view of the role that the USD(ATL) should play in
developing and pursuing alternative energy sources for DOD?
Answer. Since sections 333 and 334 of the National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 direct DOD to conduct studies on
renewable energy sources and the reduction of life cycle emissions on
alternative and synthetic fuels, I believe it prudent to determine the
status of those studies before formulating a specific approach. I do
believe the goals and intents of energy efficiency and renewable
sources of energy may be consistent with operational effectiveness. If
so, and if confirmed, I will ensure we establish the right research,
prototyping, acquisition, and sustainment for a stable energy program.
Question. What steps if any will you take, if confirmed, to makes
sure that DOD complies with the requirements of sections 333 and 334?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect the Office of the USD(AT&L) to
comply with statutory requirements. I will investigate the process we
have in place to track progress against all statutory requirements, to
include sections 333 and 334.
Question. Do you foresee a significant role for the use of solar
and wind energy systems with deployed units operating in remote
environments?
Answer. I think it is too early to determine if renewable energy
systems will play a significant role in meeting deployed unit
requirements. What I am comfortable in committing to is within the
roles and responsibilities of the office for which I am nominated, to
reduce the risk to deployed American forces and systems. If solar and
wind energy can help meet that goal, we will do what can to accelerate
their fielding.
base realignments and closures
Question. GAO released a report in January 2009 regarding DOD's
implementation of the decisions contained in the 2005 Defense Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. In the report, GAO described
several significant challenges which may impact the Department's
ability to complete BRAC implementation by the statutory deadline of
September 15, 2011.
If confirmed, will you be committed to meet the statutory goal for
BRAC implementation?
Answer. Yes.
Question. In your opinion, what measures will you need to undertake
to assist the Services to complete their BRAC actions on time?
Answer. The Department will need detailed business plans with cost
and savings estimates to govern BRAC implementation and will need to
apply the necessary resources to meet the statutory BRAC implementation
deadline. If confirmed, I will do so to ensure that the statutory
deadline can be met.
Question. Regarding policies related to the disposal of property at
closed installations, currently, the Department is encouraged to obtain
fair market value for excess property not required by the Federal
Government. Funds obtained for this property are used to augment
appropriated funds for the environmental clean-up of other DOD property
to be disposed. DOD is also authorized to convey property to local
redevelopment agencies for little or no consideration in order to
facilitate economic recovery and development.
In light of current economic conditions, do you see a need for the
Department to reassess its policy on the need to seek fair market value
in all cases? If so, what changes would you propose to this policy?
Answer. I understand that the Department has a broad range of
authorities under which it may convey surplus property at closed
installations, and I believe this flexibility is important. These
authorities give the Department the flexibility to address the wide
range of circumstances encountered at communities that have hosted
closing installations. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department
properly considers all relevant factors when selecting the appropriate
property disposal method.
Question. In your opinion, does the current BRAC law authorize the
Department to carry out property disposals for no consideration or
consideration at less than fair market value? If not, what changes
would you propose to the BRAC law?
Answer. Current BRAC law authorizes the Department to dispose of
property using a variety of conveyance methods. Some of those
conveyance methods involve payment of consideration, and some may be at
no-cost. These conveyance authorities provide flexibility to address
the wide range of circumstances encountered at communities that have
hosted closing installations. If confirmed, I will ensure the
Department properly considers all relevant factors when selecting the
appropriate property disposal method.
Question. Many communities around the country affected by
significant increases in populations at military bases have asked for
financial assistance from the Federal Government to fund improvements
or construction of local schools, transportation, utilities, ports, and
other infrastructure.
What is your opinion about using funds appropriated to the DOD to
pay for these types of projects in local communities?
Answer. Law and executive order direct the domestic Federal
agencies to work with DOD and support a program of economic adjustment
assistance for affected communities, workers, and businesses. If
confirmed, I will review what can be done to ensure our cognizant
Federal partners [U.S. Departments of Commerce (Economic Development
Administration), Labor (Employment and Training Administration),
Education, Transportation, and Agriculture (Rural Development
Administration)] are supporting these efforts as intended. At the same
time, I will review the status of these efforts, including the possible
use of DOD appropriated funds beyond the State and local organizing and
planning activities these funds have supported to date.
Question. If confirmed, how would you propose working with local
communities to address their concerns about adequate support for
military members and their families?
Answer. Across the Department, numerous components have
responsibilities for working with and assisting these areas, including
the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA). If confirmed, I would review
these interfaces to ensure we are appropriately structured for
assisting these needs and optimizing our resources. This effort would
take OEA's efforts to date with these affected States, communities,
installations, and servicemembers into account. Additionally, I would
work within the administration to effectively implement the statutory
and executive order direction for the cognizant Federal agencies to
afford priority consideration to requests from Defense-affected
communities for Federal technical assistance and financial resources.
environmental security
Question. If confirmed, you will be responsible for environmental
security for DOD.
What do you see as the most significant challenges facing the
Department in the area of environmental security?
Answer. Environmental issues are an area of great importance to the
Department. One of the Department's challenges is environmental
sustainability, evident in the energy, environment, safety, and
occupational health issues in its operations. The Department must also
address these issues in a fiscally responsible manner.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans if any do you have
for addressing these challenges?
Answer. To address these challenges, if confirmed, I will ensure
collaboration among DOD, State and local governments, non-governmental
organizations, other Federal agencies, industry, and academia to
provide better tools and policies for life-cycle cost and
sustainability analyses. I will promote decisions that are based on the
best science available at the time, while recognizing that the
Department must adapt to changing events, technology, and emerging
requirements.
Question. The Department of Justice recently concluded that the DOD
must comply with clean-up orders from the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
What steps if any do you plan to take, if confirmed, in response to
this determination?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department has responded
that it will comply with these orders and EPA and DOD have agreed to
finalize interagency agreements required under the main cleanup law,
the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Act, to replace these orders. If confirmed, I will ensure that DOD
continues to keep its primary focus on the Department's responsibility
to ensure cleanup actions are promptly and cost effectively taken to
protect human health and the environment.
Question. Unexploded ordnance (UXO) remains a problem at many
current and former DOD sites. Sections 311 and 313 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 and section 313 of the
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
required DOD to develop and implement plans for the remediation of UXO
at such sites. However, the Department has yet to develop comprehensive
plans and request adequate funding to comply with these requirements.
If confirmed, what steps if any would you take to address the UXO
issue?
Answer. The Department has made significant efforts with all
stakeholders to update the inventory of the Munitions Response Sites
(MRSs), prioritize all the MRSs in the inventory with stakeholder input
and measure progress though established performance goals and metrics.
I will look into it further, if I am confirmed.
Question. What steps if any do you believe are needed to ensure
that the UXO program receives adequate funding and makes meaningful
progress in the detection and clearance of UXO?
Answer. The first step is to refine estimates for remediation of
MRSs, including estimation of future costs and activities. This will be
the key for both planning and execution for MRS remediation and will
enable the Department to implement the predictable funding levels
required for effective program execution in a fiscally responsible
manner.
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 USD(ATL)?
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. 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?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
darfur
1. Senator Reed. Dr. Carter, in 2007 Congress passed the Sudan
Accountability and Divestment Act. An important provision of this act
prohibits companies engaged in restricted business operations in Sudan
from contracting with the U.S. Government. Recently, it has been
learned that certain prohibited companies have been contracting with
the Government, particularly with the Department of Defense (DOD). What
steps will you take to ensure that DOD is not negotiating contracts
with these prohibited companies?
Dr. Carter. I understand the Government implemented the Sudan
Accountability and Divestment Act as an interim rule in the Federal
Acquisition Regulation on June 12, 2008. Effective that date, this rule
requires each solicitation for the acquisition of products or services
(other than commercial items) must include a provision that requires
each offeror to certify that it does not conduct any restricted
business operations in Sudan. Upon the determination of a false
certification, the contracting officer may terminate the contract; the
suspending official may suspend the contractor; and the debarring
official may debar the contractor for a period not to exceed 3 years.
The President may waive the requirement on a case-by-case basis if the
President determines and certifies in writing to the appropriate
congressional committees that it is in the national interest to do so.
I am unaware of any violations of this law and its implementing
regulations, but if confirmed, I would be pleased to review any alleged
violations brought to my attention and ensure that appropriate remedial
action is taken and any weaknesses in practices by the Department are
resolved.
shipbuilding
2. Senator Reed. Dr. Carter, the Navy is at a critical juncture
regarding its shipbuilding strategy and execution. During the last
budget cycle, Congress was asked to consider a major change in the plan
for building destroyers. Moreover, the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
program costs continue to escalate, and the Navy's plan for the future
cruiser pushed further into the future. These issues, both in planning
and execution, cause Congress to call into question the quality of the
Navy's analysis and decision processes. Given the purview of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
(USD(AT&L)), how do you plan to get some control over this process,
exert the necessary acquisition oversight, and leverage the nearly $20
billion invested in new combatant technologies and capabilities?
Dr. Carter. I agree that the Navy shipbuilding effort is at a
critical juncture. The Defense Acquisition System provides the
mechanisms for the USD(AT&L) to control the process and exert the
necessary acquisition oversight. I believe additional emphasis is
needed to ensure programs are well-matured before proceeding to the
next phase of acquisition. If confirmed, I will work with the Navy to
ensure that its future acquisition planning efforts are well integrated
and that the significant investments made in the past are considered as
Department and national priorities change over time.
acquisition strategies
3. Senator Reed. Dr. Carter, many studies have shown that the
implementation of Open Architecture enables competition and that
despite defense industry consolidation, that competition is essential
to innovation and cost containment. Can you please comment on how the
implementation of these recommendations would positively impact
programs such as the Aegis Weapons System, that have been sole-sourced
for decades, and how the Services can rapidly implement these changes
to achieve maximum benefits?
Dr. Carter. I agree that Open Architecture is an important step
forward across the broad acquisition portfolio. While I do not have
complete acquaintance with the specifics of the Navy's plans for Open
Architecture for the Aegis Weapons System, I believe it would be
important for the Navy to define its objective combat systems
architecture and to then conduct the developmental work and systems
engineering necessary to evolve it into a standards-based modular
architecture. I believe this would enhance innovation and allow
qualified vendors to compete for and contribute to the overall Navy
combat systems product line for the future. The quicker this could be
done, the sooner the benefits could be achieved.
4. Senator Reed. Dr. Carter, the Navy's future surface combatant
plan unveiled in 2001 stated that the massive investment in DDG-1000
technologies, including automation, would be used on the ``family of
ships,'' which included LCS, DDG-1000, and CG(X). The Navy has proposed
deviating from this plan and now proposes to truncate DDG-1000, restart
DDG 51 production, push out CG(X) for nearly a decade, and insert
something called Future Surface Combatant in the interim. Please
explain how you would direct the Navy to leverage the investments
already made.
Dr. Carter. The Navy has learned a great deal from DDG-1000
research and development and I agree that it makes sense to insert
proven technologies in future ship designs wherever possible. I
understand there are 10 critical technology advancements associated
with DDG-1000 and that 8 of the 10 critical technologies could have
application to CG(X). One critical technology, the Advanced Gun System,
is currently not planned for any platform other than DDG-1000. The Navy
should continue to evaluate the utility of the DDG-1000 hull form in
future applications. The Dual Band Radar is already planned for
installation in the CVN 78 aircraft carrier. In addition, technologies
such as Autonomic Fire Suppression System and the Total Ship Computing
Environment would have utility for incorporation in future surface ship
and carrier designs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Evan Bayh
electronics in defense systems
5. Senator Bayh. Dr. Carter, what are your plans for ensuring that
DOD procures safe and trusted electronics and printed circuit boards
for use in defense systems?
Dr. Carter. Section 254 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2009 requires the Department of Defense to conduct
assessments of acquisition programs to identify vulnerabilities in the
supply chain associated with electronics and information technology
systems. I understand that the Department is developing recommended
practices for managing supply chain risk that are effective and can be
implemented considering cost and schedule impact; and collaborating
with industry to identify standards and best practices that recognize
security challenges in commercial global sourcing. If confirmed, my
intention is to review the results of these assessments, evaluate the
effectiveness of existing directives and instructions related to the
acquisition of critical electronic hardware and software, and adjust
procurement policy and strategy as needed.
6. Senator Bayh. Dr. Carter, will these plans include changing how
DOD imports these products?
Dr. Carter. DOD must be able to both trust its electronic systems
and preserve access to leading edge industrial capabilities from the
global marketplace. Where trust is a paramount concern, such as to
protect critical information, sensitive communications, and mission
critical weapon system capabilities, the Department has programs in
place like the DOD Trusted Foundry and Supplier Program for acquiring
military unique or customized devices. If confirmed, I will continue
working to ensure that procurement policies and processes are put in
place to raise awareness of supply chain risks, and empower acquirers
with the tools necessary to mitigate risk for these critical
applications in our defense systems. For the vast majority of hardware
and software it acquires, I think the Department's focus should be to
work with industry to encourage use of standards, verification methods,
and procurement practices that will preserve product trust, prevent
tampering, malicious code insertion, and counterfeit substitution.
defense laboratories
7. Senator Bayh. Dr. Carter, I am concerned that DOD laboratories
are losing technical stature with respect to Department of Energy (DOE)
labs, industry labs, and other peers. Do you have plans on improving
this situation?
Dr. Carter. If confirmed, I will work with Director, Defense
Research & Engineering (DDR&E) to review the contribution of the DOD
labs with an eye to ensuring that they operate at maximum effectiveness
and productivity. I am certain the labs can be improved, and I will
place priority in examining the capabilities and long-term requirements
of the DOD laboratories, and develop, with the Services, a plan to
address the role of the labs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Udall
service level agreements
8. Senator Udall. Dr. Carter, as the top acquisition official
within DOD at a time when we are facing many different budget
pressures, you will be faced with many difficult decisions. In this
fiscally constrained environment, I believe you will need to look for
new and innovative ways to acquire capability for our Armed Forces. A
good example of an innovative and flexible acquisition model is
NextView Service Level Agreements (SLAs) that exist between commercial
satellite imagery providers and the National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency (NGA). It is my understanding that this relationship has yielded
substantial improvements to supporting NGA's geospatial and military
mission, while delivering cost-cutting solutions to the taxpayer. It
has recently come to my attention that one of the SLAs is set to expire
at the end of July, but there are plans to extend this through the end
of the year. While I am pleased to hear this, I am especially
interested in your future plans for ensuring continued and assured
access to innovative and cost-effective commercial services such as
those provided by the commercial satellite imagery industry. Are you
aware of this commercial government relationship and the imagery
products the commercial satellite industry is currently providing to
the warfighter and Intelligence Community?
Dr. Carter. I am aware in general terms but, as a nominee, I have
not had access to detailed information. From what I understand, the NGA
recognizes that mid-resolution, geospatially accurate, commercial
imagery and imagery derived products are valuable sources of
geospatial-intelligence (GEOINT) and a key element in support of
multiple U.S. Government initiatives. As such, they entered into a cost
sharing arrangement for the development of imagery satellites. This has
proven especially useful in support of emergencies, disasters, and
humanitarian efforts both domestic and international. I will, if
confirmed, continue to look for innovative and cost-effective ways of
acquiring commercially available imagery that support a multitude of
needs.
9. Senator Udall. Dr. Carter, what steps will you take in your role
as Under Secretary to see that NGA is able to leverage private sector
investments to increase access to available services at a greater
value?
Dr. Carter. If confirmed, I will ensure that we fully enable the
Director of NGA, in his role as the GEOINT functional manager, to
leverage private sector investments to increase access to available
geospatial services at the best value for the U.S. Government. As
commercial remote sensing capabilities evolve, we should continue to
ascertain when private sector investments for GEOINT applications and
services are a cost effective way of supporting the needs of the U.S.
Government.
small business contracting
10. Senator Udall. Dr. Carter, in 2006, the Small Business
Administration gave DOD a red rating for not meeting mandated small
business goals. DOD has historically been significantly below the
statutory small business contracting requirement of 23 percent. For
example, the Air Force only issued 15-17 percent of their contract
dollars to small businesses, and their small business contract dollar
percentages have actually been declining in recent years rather than
increasing. In your role as DOD's top acquisition official, what do you
intend to do to improve the small business contracting record across
all of the Services to meet these statutory small business contracting
requirements?
Dr. Carter. If confirmed, I will work with the DOD Office of Small
Business Programs (OSBP) to analyze the existing data in order to
determine what DOD is spending its contract dollars on and from what
types of businesses. This will allow for identifying opportunities to
maximize small business participation in DOD contracting. Additionally,
I will work with the OSBP to ensure that organization has the tools
necessary, and uses those tools, to improve the small business
contracting record.
director for operational energy
11. Senator Udall. Dr. Carter, section 902 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 establishes a new position
within DOD for a Director for Operational Energy. I understand that the
Department is undertaking an analysis of options for implementing the
provision, including resourcing and the office's placement within
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). Section 902 specifies that
the Director is the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense and
Deputy Secretary of Defense and may communicate views ``directly to the
Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense without
obtaining the approval or concurrence of any other official within
DOD.'' Are any of the options being considered for the Director's
placement within OSD subordinate to any official in DOD other than the
Secretary or Deputy Secretary? If so, under whom, and how does the
Department reconcile that placement as consistent with the cross-
cutting responsibilities assigned to the Director and the direct line
of communication with the Secretary and Deputy Secretary specified by
section 902?
Dr. Carter. I strongly believe that energy security is an important
part of national security. DOD, through its activities, programs, and
technology, can play a positive role in strengthening energy security.
It appears to me that the establishment of the Director of Operational
Energy in DOD can help the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to realize
this potential. As a nominee, I have no insight or input into
organizational matters, so I do not know the Department's intentions in
this regard.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
acquisition challenges
12. Senator Collins. Dr. Carter, what do you believe are the
biggest challenges facing the DOD acquisition workforce?
Dr. Carter. I would cite capacity and capability as two of the
biggest challenges facing the DOD acquisition workforce at this time.
In the 1990s the workforce in acquisition organizations was cut
substantially, and since 2001 workload has increased dramatically, but
the size of the workforce has not kept pace. I believe we must reset
DOD's multi-sector acquisition workforce with the right size and skill
mix required to successfully provide proper oversight and management of
contracts. DOD is also dealing with the dynamics of impending losses of
an experienced and aging workforce. We must integrate and develop our
younger generations into an experienced and successful future
acquisition workforce. These challenges have increased the risk of
successfully achieving desired acquisition outcomes.
13. Senator Collins. Dr. Carter, what do you believe should be done
to address these challenges?
Dr. Carter. I fully support the Secretary of Defense's new
strategic direction to restore the acquisition workforce. It is
essential to effectively achieving the objective of the President's
March 4, 2009 memo to have the capacity and ability to develop, manage,
and oversee acquisitions appropriately. The Secretary announced the DOD
fiscal year 2010 budget objective to significantly grow the acquisition
workforce by 15 percent--20,000 by 2015. It involves converting 11,000
contractors to full-time government employees, and hiring 9,000 more
government acquisition professionals. The growth strategy will increase
the contracting and oversight workforce, to include the Defense
Contract Management Agency and the Defense Contract Audit Agency. It
will enable DOD to have a strong capability in systems engineering,
cost estimating, and other acquisition functions critical to successful
acquisition outcomes. This is a very significant step to strengthen the
acquisition workforce and I look forward, if confirmed, to supporting
the President, the Secretary, and Congress in this urgent endeavor.
14. Senator Collins. Dr. Carter, Secretary Gates has made recent
comments about several future major acquisition projects, including the
Boeing F-22 Air Force fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin multiservice F-
35 attack plane, the Boeing Future Combat System ground vehicle under
development for the Army, and the Virginia-class attack submarine built
by General Dynamics and Northrup Grumman. Can you please comment on
your plans for evaluating each of these projects?
Dr. Carter. On April 6, Secretary Gates announced his key decisions
with respect to the fiscal year 2010 budget. As a nominee, I was not a
party to the evaluations or discussions that went into the
recommendations he has made to the President and cannot comment on the
specific programs you mention. The recommendations appear to me to be
fully consistent with Secretary Gates' statement that his
recommendations are the product of a holistic assessment of
capabilities, requirements, risks and needs for the purpose of shifting
the Department in a different strategic direction.
Changes to top-level strategies, as Secretary Gates announced, or
resource constraints may drive changes to the specific programs the
Department pursues. Accordingly, each of the Department's acquisition
programs must be evaluated in the context of how changes to strategy
impact the need for the program and, conversely, how resource
constraints affect strategy as well as individual programs the Nation
pursues. If confirmed, I will evaluate acquisition programs consistent
with these considerations.
u.s. shipbuilding
15. Senator Collins. Dr. Carter, Chairman Skelton of the House
Armed Services Committee recently expressed his concern about the
United States' maritime posture, noting that since the Cold War ended,
the United States ``. . . forgot that we are a maritime nation. We
forgot that lesson of history that only the nations with powerful
navies are able to exert power and influence, and when a navy
disappears so does that nation's power.'' I agree with Chairman
Skelton's sentiments and believe that we need a strong Navy to meet the
dynamic challenges of current and emerging threats. As a maritime
nation, we must maintain our superior maritime edge in the world in
order to meet our security, energy, and transportation needs. Not only
is shipbuilding crucial to our national defense, but it preserves
thousands of engineering and production jobs for the country and is a
large contributor to the U.S. economy. If you are confirmed, what steps
will you take to ensure that the United States maintains its worldwide
naval dominance?
Dr. Carter. As Secretary Gates outlined in his recent budget
statement, the United States maintains a distinct maritime advantage in
most areas. While I am committed to ensuring the United States
maintains its worldwide naval dominance, I am open to considering the
appropriate numbers and types of ships that deliver naval capabilities.
16. Senator Collins. Dr. Carter, what changes do you think can be
made in order to create a more stable shipbuilding industrial base?
Dr. Carter. Stability in the shipbuilding industrial base is
clearly a function of stability in the Navy's shipbuilding plan. But
beyond that there are a few initiatives that could be worked with the
shipbuilding industry to mitigate workload fluctuations within the
shipyards to maintain a stable and skilled workforce. These include:
Level loading of ship procurements would help to sustain
minimum employment levels and skill retention.
Reducing the types and models of ships, maximizing the reuse
of ship designs and components, and implementing open
architectures for software and hardware systems.
Mitigating workload peaks and valleys through work share
opportunities and regional outsourcing to level load production
facilities.
Moving towards sustaining procurement rates would contribute
to reducing the magnitude of annual funding variations and
provide a more stable demand signal to the shipbuilding
industry as a whole.
If confirmed, I look forward to working on this important issue.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. Ashton B. Carter follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
March 18, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Ashton B. Carter, of Massachusetts, to be Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, vice John J. Young,
Jr.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. Ashton B. Carter, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. Ashton B. Carter
Professor Ashton Carter is chair of the International and Global
Affairs faculty at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He is also
Co-Director (with former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry) of the
Preventive Defense Project, a research collaboration of Harvard and
Stanford Universities.
Dr. Carter served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Policy during President Clinton's first term.
His Pentagon responsibilities encompassed: countering weapons of mass
destruction worldwide, oversight of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and
missile defense programs, policy regarding the collapse of the former
Soviet Union (including its nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass
destruction), control over sensitive U.S. exports, and chairmanship of
NATO's High Level Group. He oversaw military planning during the 1994
crisis over North Korea's nuclear weapons program; was instrumental in
removing all nuclear weapons from the territories of Ukraine,
Kazakstan, and Belarus; oversaw the establishment of defense and
intelligence relationships with the countries of the former Soviet
Union when the Cold War ended; and participated in the negotiations
that led to the deployment of Russian troops as part of the Bosnia
Peace Plan Implementation Force. Dr. Carter managed the multi-billion
dollar Cooperative Threat Reduction (Nunn-Lugar) program to support
elimination of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of the former
Soviet Union, including the secret removal of 600 kilograms of highly
enriched uranium from Kazakstan in the operation code-named Project
Sapphire. Dr. Carter also directed the Nuclear Posture Review and
oversaw the Department of Defense's (DOD) Counterproliferation
Initiative. He directed the reform of DOD's national security export
controls. His arms control responsibilities included the agreement
freezing North Korea's nuclear weapons program, the extension of the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the negotiation of the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty, and matters involving the START II, ABM, CFE, and
other arms control treaties.
Dr. Carter was twice awarded the Department of Defense
Distinguished Service Medal, the highest award given by the Department
For his contributions to intelligence, he was awarded the Defense
Intelligence Medal. In 1987 Carter was named 1 of 10 Outstanding Young
Americans by the United States Jaycees. He received the American
Physical Society's Forum Award for his contributions to physics and
public policy.
Dr. Carter continues to advise the U.S. Government as Co-Chair of
the Review Panel on Future Directions for Defense Threat Reduction
Agency (DTRA) Missions and Capabilities to Combat Weapons of Mass
Destruction and Chair of the National Security Strategy and Policies
Expert Working Group, Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture
of the United States, a consultant to the Defense Science Board, a
member of the National Missile Defense White Team, and a member of the
National Academy of Sciences Committee on International Security and
Arms Control.
Carter served as a longtime member of the Defense Science Board
(DSB) and the Defense Policy Board (DPB), the principal advisory bodies
to the Secretary of Defense. He served on DSB from 1991 to 1993, and he
served on both DSB and DPB from 1997 to 2001. In 1997 Dr. Carter co-
chaired the Catastrophic Terrorism Study Group with former CIA Director
John M. Deutch, which urged greater attention to terrorism. From 1998
to 2000, he was deputy to William J. Perry in the North Korea Policy
Review and traveled with him to Pyongyang. In 2001-2002, he served on
the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Science and Technology
for Countering Terrorism and advised on the creation of the Department
of Homeland Security. In 2006 to 2008 Dr. Carter served as a member of
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's International Security Advisory
Board. He has testified frequently before the armed services, foreign
relations, and homeland security committees of both houses of Congress.
In addition to his public service, Dr. Carter is currently a Senior
Partner at Global Technology Partners and a member of the Board of
Trustees of the MITRE Corporation, and the Advisory Boards of MIT's
Lincoln Laboratories and the Draper Laboratory. He is a consultant to
Goldman, Sachs on international affairs and technology matters, and
speaks frequently to business and policy audiences. Dr. Carter is also
a member of the Aspen Strategy Group, the Council on Foreign Relations,
the American Physical Society, the International Institute of Strategic
Studies, the Advisory Board of the Yale Journal of International Law,
and the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations. Dr. Carter was
elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Dr. Carter's research focuses on the Preventive Defense Project,
which designs and promotes security policies aimed at preventing the
emergence of major new threats to the United States.
From 1990-1993, Dr. Carter was Director of the Center for Science
and International Affairs at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy
School of Government, and Chairman of the Editorial Board of
International Security. Previously, he held positions at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Congressional Office of
Technology Assessment, and Rockefeller University.
Dr. Carter received bachelor's degrees in physics and in medieval
history from Yale University, summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa. He
received his doctorate in theoretical physics from Oxford University,
where he was a Rhodes Scholar.
In addition to authoring numerous articles, scientific
publications, government studies, and congressional testimonies, Dr.
Carter co-edited and co-authored 11 books, including Keeping the Edge:
Managing Defense for the Future (2001), Preventive Defense: A New
Security Strategy for America (1997), Cooperative Denuclearization:
From Pledges to Deeds (1993), A New Concept of Cooperative Security
(1992), Beyond Spinoff: Military and Commercial Technologies in a
Changing World (1992), Soviet Nuclear Fission: Control of the Nuclear
Arsenal in a Disintegrating Soviet Union (1991), Managing Nuclear
Operations (1987), Ballistic Missile Defense (1984), and Directed
Energy Missile Defense in Space (1984).
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. Ashton B.
Carter 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.)
Ashton Baldwin Carter (Ash Carter).
2. Position to which nominated:
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics.
3. Date of nomination:
March 18, 2009.
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 24, 1954; Philadelphia, PA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Stephanie DeLeeuw Carter.
7. Names and ages of children:
William Ashton Carter, 20.
Ava Clayton Carter, 17.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Abington High School, Abington, PA; 1968-1972; High School Diploma,
1972.
Yale University, New Haven, CT; 1972-1976; B.A., 1976.
Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, Scotland; Spring 1975; no degree.
Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom; 1978-1979; D. Phil.;
1979.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Chair, International & Global Affairs faculty, 2006-present; John
F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University - Cambridge, MA.
Ford Foundation Professor of Science and International Affairs,
1996-present; John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
- Cambridge, MA.
Co-Director (with William J. Perry), Preventive Defense Project;
Harvard & Stanford Universities, 1997-present; Cambridge, MA.
Senior Advisor to the North Korea Policy Review, 1998-2000 (part
time while teaching); U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Chair, National Security Strategy and Policies Expert Working
Group, Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United
States, 2008-present.
Co-Chair, Review Panel on Future Directions for Defense Threat
Reduction Agency Missions and Capabilities To Combat Weapons of Mass
Destruction, 2007-2008.
Member, International Security Advisory Board to the Secretary of
State, 2006-2008.
Member National Academy of Sciences Committee on Science and
Technology for Countering Terrorism, 2001-2003.
Member, National Missile Defense White Team, 1998-present.
Member, Threat Reduction Advisory Committee, U.S. Department of
Defense, 1998-2002.
Member, Defense Science Board, 1991-1993, 1997-2001.
Member, Defense Policy Board, 1997-2001.
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy,
U.S. Department of Defense, 1993-1996.
Member, National Academy of Sciences, Committee on International
Security and Arms Control, 1990-1993.
Member, Sandia National Laboratory, President's Advisory Council,
1992-1993.
Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, Advisory
Panel on START Verification Technologies, 1991-1992.
Member, National Academy of Sciences Panel on National Security
Export Controls, 1990-1991.
Member, National Research Council Naval Studies Advisory Committee
on the Future of the Aircraft Carrier, 1990-1991.
Member, White House, President's Council of Advisers on Science and
Technology, Panel on National Security, 1990-1991.
Member, Defense Science Board Task Force on New Scenarios and
Intelligence, 1990.
Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Advisory
Panel on START Verification Technologies, 1989-1990.
Member, Joint Chiefs of Staff Advisory Group on the Future of U.S.-
Soviet Military Relations, 1988-1989.
Member, Commission on the Presidency and Science Advising, 1988.
Consultant, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, U.S. Department of
State, 1986-1988.
Member, Advisory Panel on Military Uses of Space, Office of
Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, 1985-1986.
Analyst, Program Analysis and Evaluation, Office of the Secretary
of Defense, Pentagon, 1981-1982.
Analyst, International Security and Commerce Program, Office of
Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, 1980-1981.
Experimental Research Associate, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
1976.
Experimental Research Associate, Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory, 1975.
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.
Trustee, The MITRE Corporation, 2006-present.
MIT Lincoln Laboratories Advisory Board, 1998-present.
Draper Laboratory Corporation, 2000-present.
Senior Partner, Global Technology Partners, LLC, 1998-present.
Consultant to Goldman Sachs on international affairs and technology
matters, 1997-present.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Aspen Strategy Group, 1997-present.
Council on Foreign Relations, 1989-present.
Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1989-present.
American Physical Society, 1976-present.
International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1997-present.
National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, 1998-present.
American Academy of Diplomacy, 2008-present.
American Association of Rhodes Scholars, 1977-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.
Member of National Security Advisory Group to Senator Tom Daschle,
then Senator Harry Reid, chaired by William J. Perry.
Co-Chair, with Ronald Lehman, of Policy Advisory Group to Senator
Richard Lugar.
(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.
Quarter 1, 2004, $1,000, Wesley Clark.
Quarter 1, 2004, $1,000, Joe Lieberman.
Quarter 1, 2004, $2,000, John Edwards.
Quarter 1, 2004, $2,000, DNC.
9/15/2007, $2,300, Hillary Clinton for President.
9/15/2007, $1,500, Friends of Dick Lugar, Inc.
8/28/2008, $2,300, Friends of Hillary.
6/24/2008, $4,600, Obama for America.
14. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Defense Intelligence Medal, from the Defense Intelligence Agency,
April 1998.
Distinguished Public Service Medal, Department of Defense (awarded
twice), the highest award of the Department of Defense, ``For
exceptionally distinguished service to the Nation as Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy,'' July 1994 and
December 1995.
Forum Award, American Physical Society, ``For his clear and lucid
exposition of the physics issues in the nuclear arms race and his
unique ability to combine his physics background and good judgment to
clarify the technical parameters of these important public policy
issues,'' 1988.
Ten Outstanding Young Americans, United States Jaycees, 1987.
Rhodes Scholar, 1976.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Books:
Keeping the Edge: Managing Defense for the Future. Editor (with
John P. White) and author of three chapters. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press, 2001. [translated into Chinese, Military History and Translation
Office, MND, ROC, 2002]
Preventive Defense: A New Security Strategy for America. With
William J. Perry. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1999.
[translated into Russian by arrangement with Brookings
Institution Press, 2003];
[translated into Arabic by arrangement with Brookings
Institution Press, February/March 2002];
[translated into Chinese, CIP, 2000];
[translated into Korean, Bestun Korea Agency, 2000]
Cooperative Denuclearization: From Pledges to Deeds. Editor with
Graham Allison, Steven E. Miller, and Philip Zelikow. Cambridge, MA:
Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University, 1993.
A New Concept of Cooperative Security. With John D. Steinbruner and
William J. Perry.
Beyond Spinoff: Military and Commercial Technologies in a Changing
World. With John Alic, Lewis Branscomb, Harvey Brooks and Gerald
Epstein. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1992.
Soviet Nuclear Fission: Control of the Nuclear Arsenal in a
Disintegrating Soviet Union. With Kurt Campbell, Steven Miller and
Charles Zraket. Cambridge, MA: Center for Science and International
Affairs, Harvard University, November 1991.
Ashton B. Carter on Arms Control. Kenneth W. Thompson, ed. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America, January 1990.
Managing Nuclear Operations. Editor (with John Steinbruner and
Charles A. Zraket) and author of three chapters. Washington, DC: The
Brookings Institution, 1987.
Directed Energy Missile Defense in Space. Washington, DC: Office of
Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, 1984.
Ballistic Missile Defense. Editor (with David N. Schwartz) and
author of two chapters. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution,
1984.
MX Missile Basing (with Classified Annex). Author of chapters on
``Launch Under Attack''; ``Ballistic Missile Defense''; ``Air Mobile
Basing''; ``Land Mobile Basing''; and (with Theodore Postol) ``Command,
Control, and Communications''. Washington, DC: Office of Technology
Assessment, U.S. Congress, 1981.
Articles:
``Defense Strategy and Budget in the Post-Bush Era.'' The
Instruments and Institutions of American Purpose, Kurt M. Campbell and
Jonathan Price, eds. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, 2009
(forthcoming).
``Defense Management Challenges for the Next American President.''
Orbis: A Journal of World Affairs 53, no. 1, Winter 2009.
``Defense Management Challenges in the Post-Bush Era.'' In William
B. Ruger Chair of National Security Economics Papers Number 3: Defense
Strategy and Forces: Setting Future Directions, ed. Richmond M. Lloyd,
William B. Ruger, Chair of National Security. Newport, RI: Naval War
College, 2008.
Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear
Development. With Amb. Daniel Coats, Sen. Charles Robb, Adm. (Ret.)
Gregory Johnson, Gen. Ronald Keys (Ret.), Edward Morse, Steve
Rademaker, Amb. Dennis Ross, Henry Sokolski, Gen. Chuck Wald (Ret.),
and Kenneth Weinstein. U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development.
19 September 2008.
``Strengthening our Strategy Against WMD.'' With Robert G. Joseph.
The Boston Globe, 14 August 2008, A-15.
Trip Report: Strategic Security Issues Delegation to Taiwan and the
People's Republic of China - June 22-July 1, 2008. With William J.
Perry, et al. 17 July 2008.
Ensuring Security in an Unpredictable World: Project on National
Security Reform - Preliminary Findings. With David M. Abshire, Norman
R. Augustine, Robert D. Blackwill, Dennis C. Blair, Charles G. Boyd,
Daniel W. Christman, Wesley K. Clark, Ruth A. David, Michele Flournoy,
Leon Fuerth, Newt Gingrich, James R. Locher III, James M. Loy, Jessica
Tuchman Mathews, John McLaughlin, Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Carlos Pascual,
Thomas R. Pickering, Brent Scowcroft, Jeffrey H. Smith, James B.
Steinberg, and Ken Weinstein. July 2008.
``Military Elements in a Strategy to Deal with Iran's Nuclear
Program.'' Center for a New American Security Working Papers, June
2008.
Review Panel on Future Directions for Defense Threat Reduction
Agency Missions and Capabilities to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction.
With Robert G. Joseph, et al. March 2008.
``China's Rise in American Military Strategy.'' With William J.
Perry. In China's March on the 21st Century: A Report of the Aspen
Strategy Group, Kurt M. Campbell and Willow Darsie, eds. Washington,
DC: The Aspen Institute, 2007, 107-117.
``America's Strategic Response to China's Military Modernization.''
With Jennifer C. Bulkeley. Harvard-Asia-Pacific Review 9:1 (Winter
2007).
Reducing Nuclear Threats and Preventing Nuclear Terrorism. With
William J. Perry (chair), Graham Allison, Joseph Cirincione, Thomas E.
Donilon, Robert Einhorn, Michele A. Flournoy, Leon Fuerth, Robert
Gallucci, Ernest Moniz, George Perkovich, Wendy R. Sherman (members).
National Security Advisory Group, 19 October 2007.
Report on Discouraging a Cascade of Nuclear Weapons States. With
Gordon Oehler, Michael R. Anastasio, Robert Monroe, Keith B. Payne,
Robert Pfaltzgraff, William Schneider, and William Van Cleave,
International Security Advisory Board, 19 October 2007.
``The Day After: Action Following a Nuclear Blast in a U.S. City.''
With Michael M. May and William J. Perry. The Washington Quarterly No.
30: 4 (Autumn 2007), 19-32.
``After the Bomb.'' With William J. Perry and Michael M. May. The
New York Times, 12 June 2007, A-24.
``The Day After: Action in the 24 Hours Following a Nuclear Blast
in an American City.'' With Michael M. May and William J. Perry. Report
based on April 19, 2007 workshop hosted by the Preventive Defense
Project, Harvard and Stanford Universities, 31 May 2007.
``China on the March.'' With William J. Perry. The National
Interest, no. 88 (March-April 2007), 16-22.
``How Washington Learned to Stop Worrying and Love India's Bomb.''
Foreign Affairs (foreignaffairs.org), 10 January 2007.
``Plan B for Iran: What if Nuclear Diplomacy Fails?'' With William
J. Perry. Report based on May 22, 2006 workshop hosted by the
Preventive Defense Project, Harvard and Stanford Universities, 10
September 2006.
``America's New Strategic Partner?'' Foreign Affairs 85, no. 4
(July-August 2006), 33-44.
``The Case for a Preemptive Strike on North Korea's Missiles.''
With William J. Perry. TIME (time.com), 8 July 2006.
``If Necessary, Strike and Destroy.'' With William J. Perry. The
Washington Post, 22 June 2006, A-29.
``Toolbox: Containing the Nuclear RedZone Threat.'' With Stephen A.
LaMontagne. The American Interest 1, no. 3 (Spring 2006), 40.
``A Fuel-Cycle Fix.'' With Stephen A. LaMontagne. The Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists (January-February 2006), 24-25.
``The U.S. Military: Under Strain and at Risk.'' With William J.
Perry (chair), Madeleine K. Albright, Graham T. Allison, Samuel R.
Berger, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, Thomas E. Donilon, Michele A. Flournoy,
John D. Podesta, Susan E. Rice, Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, Wendy R.
Sherman, Elizabeth D. Sherwood-Randall and James B. Steinberg
(members). National Security Advisory Group, January 2006.
``The Essential Features of a Focused Strategy to Deal with the
Proliferation Challenge: What Has Been Done and What Is to Be Done?''
In The Challenge of Proliferation: A Report of the Aspen Strategy
Group, Kurt M. Campbell, ed. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, 2005,
141-152.
``Origins of the Nunn-Lugar Program.'' Presentation to the
Presidential Conference on William Jefferson Clinton, Hofstra
University. 11 November 2005.
``New Approaches for Addressing the Threat of WMD Proliferation.''
Presentation to conference on Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction, Tufts University, Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy. 21
October 2005.
``Interim Report on Nuclear Threat Reduction and the Fuel Cycle.''
Memo to Senator Richard G. Lugar, Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations. With Ronald Lehman II (co-chair, with Ashton Carter), Robert
Einhorn, Alan A. Foley, Arnold Kanter, David Kay, Susan Koch, Lawrence
Scheinman, and William Schneider, Jr. (members). Policy Advisory Group
on Nonproliferation, 1 July 2005.
``Worst Weapons in Worst Hands: U.S. Inaction on the Nuclear Terror
Threat since September 11, and a Path of Action.'' With William J.
Perry (chair), Madeleine K. Albright, Graham T. Allison, Samuel R.
Berger, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, Thomas E. Donilon, Michele A. Flournoy,
John D. Podesta, Susan E. Rice, Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, Wendy R.
Sherman, Elizabeth D. Sherwood-Randall and James B. Steinberg
(members). National Security Advisory Group, July 2005.
``Worst People and Worst Weapons.'' Statement before The 9/11
Public Discourse Project's Hearings on ``The 9/11 Commission Report:
The Unfinished Agenda.'' 27 June 2005.
``A Failure of Policy, Not Spying.'' The Washington Post, 5 April
2005, A-23.
``Conversations with The Forum: Perspectives on Preemption and
National Security.'' Interview with Dr. Ashton Carter. The Fletcher
Forum of World Affairs 29, no. 1 (Winter 2005), 9-12.
``The Essential Features of a Focused Strategy to Deal with the
Proliferation Challenge: What Has Been Done and What Is to Be Done?''
In The Challenge of Proliferation: A Report of the Aspen Strategy
Group, Kurt M. Campbell, ed. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, 2005,
141-152.
``Overhauling Counterproliferation Intelligence.'' Statement before
The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States
Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (The ``Robb-Silberman''
Commission). 4 October 2004.
``How to Counter WMD.'' Foreign Affairs 83, no. 5 (September-
October 2004), 72-85.
``Overhauling Counterproliferation.'' Technology in Society: An
International Journal-Special Issue: Technology and Science: Entering
the 21st Century, George Bugliarello and A. George Schillinger, eds.,
26, nos. 2/3 (April/August 2004), 257-269.
``The Architecture of Government in the Face of Terrorism.''
Countering Terrorism: Dimensions of Preparedness, Arnold M. Howitt and
Robyn L. Pangi, eds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003, 17-36.
``A Dedicated Organization in Congress.'' With Gerald L. Epstein.
Science and Technology Advice for Congress, M. Granger Morgan and Jon
M. Peha, eds. Washington, DC: RFF Press, 2003, 157-163.
``Good Nukes, Bad Nukes.'' With Arnold Kanter, William J. Perry,
and Brent Scowcroft. The New York Times, 22 December 2003, A-31.
``Extremism, Economic Uncertainty and the Investment Implications
of U.S. National Security Policy,'' Greenwich Roundtable Quarterly.
Standard and Poors. 16 October 2003.
``The Korean Nuclear Crisis: Preventing the Truly Dangerous Spread
of Weapons of Mass Destruction.'' Harvard Magazine, September-October
2003, 38-41.
``An American Security Policy: Challenge, Opportunity,
Commitment.'' With William J. Perry (chair), Madeleine K. Albright,
Samuel R. Berger, Louis Caldera, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, Michele A.
Flournoy, Alfonso E. Lenhardt, John D. Podesta, Gen. John M.
Shalikashvili, and Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall (members). National
Security Advisory Group, July 2003.
``A Prescription for Peace.'' Review of No More Killing Fields:
Preventing Deadly Conflict by David A. Hamburg. Science, 30 May 2003,
1374.
The Loose Nukes Crisis in North Korea.'' Memorandum to the Senate
Democratic Leadership from the National Security Advisory Group. With
William J. Perry (chair), Madeleine K. Albright, Samuel R. Berger,
Louis Caldera, Wesley Clark, Michele Flournoy, Alfonso E. Lenhardt,
John D. Podesta, John Shalikashvili, and Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall
(members), 5 March 2003.
``A Scary Thought: Loose Nukes in North Korea.'' With William J.
Perry and John M. Shalikashvili. The Wall Street Journal, 6 February
2003, A-18.
``The Crisis Last Time.'' With William J. Perry. The New York
Times, 19 January 2003,4-13.
Making the Nation Safer The Role of Science and Technology in
Countering Terrorism. With Lewis M. Branscomb, Richard D. Klausner, et
al. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2002.
``Nuclear Over North Korea: Back to the Brink.'' The Washington
Post, 20 October 2002, B-1 & B-5.
Protecting America's Freedom in the Information Age. With Zoe
Baird, James L. Barkdale, Philip Zelikow et al. (The Markle Foundation
Task Force on National Security in the Information Age). Markle
Foundation, October 2002.
``Throw the Net Worldwide.'' The Washington Post, 12 June 2002, A-
31.
``Counterterror's Management Style.'' The New York Times, 8 June
2002, A-27.
Trip Report: Nunn-Lugar Sites in Russia. A memo to colleagues of
the Preventive Defense Project. 3 June 2002.
``A New Era, A New Threat.'' With Richard Lugar. Financial Times,
23 May 2002, 15.
``Understanding Terrorism: A Harvard Magazine Roundtable.'' With
Eva Bellin, Philip B. Heymann, David Little, Louise M. Richardson and
Jessica E. Stern. Harvard Magazine (January-February 2002), 36-49.
``Beyond the Counterproliferation Initiative to a `Revolution in
Counterproliferation Affairs.' '' With L. Celeste Johnson. National
Security Studies Quarterly 5, no. 3 (summer 1999), 88-90.
``Grand Terrorism: A New Threat to National Security.'' Peter L.
Hays et al., eds. Countering the Proliferation and Use of Weapons of
Mass Destruction. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998: 273-279.
Fulfilling the Promise: Building an Enduring Security Relationship
Between Ukraine and NATO. With Steven E. Miller and Elizabeth Sherwood-
Randall. Cambridge, MA and Stanford, CA: Preventive Defense Project
publications 1, no. 4 (1998).
``Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger.'' With John M.
Deutch and Philip Zelikow. Foreign Affairs 77, no. 6 (November-December
1998), 80-94.
Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy. With John M.
Deutch and Philip Zelikow. Preventive Defense Project publications,
vol. 1, no. 6, Center for International Security and Cooperation
(CISAC), Stanford University, October 1998.
The Content of U.S. Engagement with China. With William J. Perry.
Cambridge, MA and Stanford, CA: Preventive Defense Project publications
1, no. 2 (July 1998).
``Move Closer to China, Not Far, for Security.'' With John M.
Deutch and William J. Perry. USA Today, 11 June 1998.
NATO After Madrid: Looking to the Future. With Coit D. Blacker,
Warren Christopher, David A. Hamburg, and William J. Perry. Cambridge,
MA and Stanford, CA: Preventive Defense Project publications 1, no. 1
(June 1998).
``No Nukes? Not Yet.'' With John M. Deutch, Wall St. Journal, 4
March 1997.
``Cooperative Security and the Former Soviet Union: Near-Term
Challenges.'' With Steven E. Miller. In Global Engagement: Cooperation
and Security in the
21st Century, Janne E. Nolan, ed. Washington, DC: The Brookings
Institution, 1994.
``The Imperatives for Cooperation.'' With Janne E. Nolan, John D.
Steinbruner, Kenneth Flamm, Steven E. Miller, David Mussington, and
William J. Perry. In Global Engagement: Cooperation and Security in the
21st Century, Janne E. Nolan, ed. Washington, DC: The Brookings
Institution, 1994.
``The Role of Intelligence in Managing Proliferation.'' With Robert
D. Blackwill. In New Nuclear Nations: Consequences for U.S. Policy,
Robert D. Blackwill and Albert Camesale, eds. New York: Council on
Foreign Relations, 1993.
``The Soviet Arsenal and the Mistaken Calculus of Caution.'' With
Graham T. Allison and Philip D. Zelikow. The Washington Post 29 March
1992. ``Reducing the Nuclear Dangers from the Former Soviet Union.''
Arms Control Today 22, no. 1 (January-February 1992).
Finding Common Ground: U.S. Export Controls in a Changed Global
Environment. With Roland W. Schmitt et al. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press, 1991.
``Technical Demarcations for ASAT and BMD Systems.'' With Donald L.
Hafner and Thomas H. Johnson. In Peaceful and Non-Peaceful Uses of
Space: Problems of Definition for the Prevention of an Arms Race,
Bhupendra Jasani, ed. New York: Taylor & Francis, 1991.
``Emerging Themes in Nuclear Arms Control.'' Daedalus 120, no. 1
(Winter 1991).
``Command and Control of Nuclear Forces.'' In A Primer for the
Nuclear Age, Graham T. Allison et al., eds. Lanham, MD: University
Press of America, CSIA Occasional Paper, no.6 (1990).
``New Scenarios for American Defense.'' Defense Science Board,
report of the Scenarios and Intelligence Task Force, September 1990.
New Thinking and American Defense Technology. With William J.
Perry. Report of the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and
Government. August 1990.
``Analyzing the Dual Use Technologies Question.'' Harvard
University, Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program Discussion
Paper 89, no. 5 (1989).
``Permitted and Prohibited Space Testing Under the ABM Treaty.'' In
Technologies for Security and Arms Control: Threats and Promises, ed.
Eric H. Arnett. American Association for the Advancement of Science,
1989.
``Telecommunications Policy and National Security.'' In Changing
the Rules: Technological Change, International Competition, and
Regulation in Communications, Robert Crandall and Kenneth Flamm, eds.
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1989, 221-253.
``Underlying Military Objectives'' and ``Limitations and Allowances
for Space-Based Weapons.'' In Defending Deterrence: Managing the ABM
Treaty Regime into the 21st Century, An American Academy of Arts and
Sciences Study, Antonia Chayes and Paul Doty, eds. Pergamon-Brassey,
1989, 17-26; 132-135.
``Testing Weapons in Space.'' Scientific American 261, no.1 , July
1989, 33-40.
``A New Era in Science Advising.'' Science and Technology Advice to
the President, Congress, and Judiciary, William T. Golden, ed.
Pergamon, 1988.
``Nuclear Command and Control: The Next Thirty Years of
Technological Change.'' With John S. Quilty and Charles A. Zraket. In
The Future of Nuclear Weapons: The Next Thirty Years. Los Alamos
National Laboratory, 1988.
``The Structure of Possible U.S.-Soviet Agreements Regarding
Missile Defense.'' In On the Defensive?: The Future of SDI, Joseph S.
Nye, Jr. and James A. Schear, eds. Lanham, MD: University Press of
America, I988, 141-171.
``Current and Future Military Uses of Space.'' In Seeking Stability
in Space: Anti-Satellite Weapons and the Evolving Space Regime, Joseph
S. Nye, Jr. and James A. Schear, eds. Lanham, MD: University Press of
America, I987.
``Interpreting the ABM Treaty: Agreed Limitations on Military
Activities in Space.'' Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Pugwash
Conference on Science and World Affairs, Gmunden am Traunsee Austria,
1-6 September 1987.
Crisis Stability and Nuclear War(with others). American Academy of
Arts and Sciences and the Cornell University Peace Studies Program,
January I987.
``Military Uses of Space.'' In The High Technologies and Reducing
the Risk of War, H. Guyford Stever and Heinz R. Pagels, eds. Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences 489, (1986).
``The Relationship of ASAT and BMD Systems.'' Daedalus 114, no. 2
(Spring 1985).
``Command and Control of Nuclear War.'' Scientific American 252,
no. 1 (January 1985), 32-39.
``Satellites and Anti-Satellites: The Limits of the Possible.''
International Security 10, no. 4, (Spring 1984).
``` `Gray's Bomb,' Strategic Studies: A Critical Assessment by
Colin S. Gray,'' Foreign Service Journal (October 1982).
``The Industry of Defense,' The Defense Industry by Jacques S.
Gansler,'' Foreign Service Journal (July-August 1982).
`` `Cruise Missile Reality,' Cruise Missiles: Technology, Strategy,
Politics edited by Richard K. Berts,'' Foreign Service Journal (May
1982).
``CP Violation in B-Meson Decays.'' With A.I. Sanda, Physical
Review D23, no. 7 (1 April 1981): 1567-1579.
``CP Nonconservation in Cascade Decays of B Mesons.'' With A.I.
Sanda. Physical Review Letters 45, no. 12 (September 1980): 952-954.
``Perturbative QCD in a Covariant Gauge.'' With C.H. Llewellyn
Smith. Nuclear Physics, B162 (1980): 397-439.
``Weak | = 1/2 Rule and the Dynamical Higgs Mechanism.''
With Heinz Pagels. Physical Review Letters 43, no. 25 (December 1979):
1845-1847.
``The Vocabulary of Social and Political Association in Twelfth
Century Flanders.'' Senior Thesis in History at Yale University, 1976.
``Polarization of Prompt Muons Produced at Pt = 2.15 GeV/c by 400-
GeV Proton Interactions.'' With M.J. Lauterbach, et al. Physical Review
Letters 37, no. 21 (22 November 1976): 1436-1438.
``Polarization of Prompt Muons.'' With R.K. Adair, et al. Physical
Review Letters 36, no. 17 (26 April 1976): 1011-1013.
``Production of Prompt Muons in the Forward Direction by 400-GeV
Proton Interactions.'' With R.K. Adair, et al. Physical Review Letters
35, no. 24 (15 December 1975): 1613-1616.
``Quarks, Charm and the Psi Particle: A review of recent
development in high energy physics.'' Yale Scientific. 50 no. 1
(October 1975).
``CIA Victimized,'' Yale Daily News (22 January 1975), 2.
Congressional Testimony:
``Actions Now for the Day After: Findings of the Preventive Defense
Day After Project.'' Testimony before the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. 110th Congress, 2nd
Session. 15 April 2008.
``Assessing the India Deal.'' Testimony before the Committee on
Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate. 26 April 2006.
``The India Deal: Looking at the Big Picture.'' Testimony before
the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate. 2 November 2005.
``Implementing a Denuclearization Agreement with North Korea.''
Testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate. 15
July 2004.
``Seven Steps to Overhaul Counterproliferation.'' Testimony before
the Armed Services Committee, U.S. House of Representatives. 17 March
2004.
``Overhauling Counterproliferation.'' Testimony before the
Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate. 10 March 2004.
``Alternatives to Letting North Korea Go Nuclear.'' Testimony
before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate. 6 March 2003.
``Three Crises with North Korea.'' Testimony before the Committee
on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate. 4 February 2003.
``Arms Control and Nuclear Terrorism: A Global Coalition Against
Catastrophic Terrorism.'' Testimony on the Moscow Treaty on Strategic
Offensive Reductions (SORT) before the Armed Services Committee, U.S.
Senate. 1 August 2002.
``Roles for the White House and the New Department.'' Testimony on
the Relationship between a Department of Homeland Security and the
Intelligence Community before the Governmental Affairs Committee, U.S.
Senate, 26 June 2002.
``Ashton B. Carter on Homeland Security (ref: The Architecture of
Government in the Face of Terrorism).'' Testimony on Homeland Security
before the Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senate. 10 April 2002.
``Countering Proliferation.'' Testimony to the Committee on Foreign
Relations, United States Senate, 106th Congress, 2nd Session. 30 March
2000.
``The Perils of Complacency: Adapting U.S. Defense to Future
Needs.'' Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee
on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. Hearing Report is forthcoming. 21
March 2000.
``Export Control Reform in High Technology.'' Statement to the
House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Field Hearing, no.
57 (13 August 1993), 160-170. Washington: USGPO, 1993.
``Actions to Reduce the Nuclear Danger in the Former Soviet
Union.'' Testimony to the House Armed Services Committee, Defense
Policy Panel. December 1991.
``The Relationship Between the Defense and Commercial Technology
Bases.'' Testimony at Hearings on National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1990 (H.R. 2461), H.A.S.C. Hearings Report, Serial No.
101-10, February 1989.
``Permitted and Prohibited Space Testing Under the ABM Treaty.''
Testimony before the Special Panel on the Strategic Defense Initiative,
Hearings Before the Strategic Defense Initiative Panel of the Committee
on Armed Services, U.S. House of Representatives (100th Congress, 2nd
Session), 29 September 1988.
``The Strategic Defense Initiative.'' Hearings before the Committee
on Armed Services, United States Senate (99th Congress, 1st session).
18 March 1985, Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations
for Fiscal Year 1986, Part 7 (Strategic and Theater Nuclear Forces),
4021-4036.
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 give a large number of lectures and speeches, using no notes or
handwritten notes that are not archived. Almost all talks are derived
from, or form the basis of, written publications or testimony, and
their content can be found in #15 above.
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.
Ashton B. Carter.
This 17th day of March, 2009.
[The nomination of Dr. Ashton B. Carter was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on April 1, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on April 23, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Dr. James N. Miller, Jr.,
by Chairman Levin 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 do not see the need to modify the provisions of the
Goldwater-Nichol Act at this time. The Act was a very significant piece
of legislation that, over the course of several decades, has led to
dramatic improvements in the effectiveness of the Armed Forces--from
strategic decisionmaking to operational command and control. An entire
generation of military officers now has a much improved perspective on
coordinated, multi-service, joint training, and operations.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. See my previous answer.
relationships
Question. What do you see as the relationship between the Principal
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and each of the following?
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. Pursuant to the authority, direction, and control of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)), as the USD(P)'s
principal assistant, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy (PDUSD(P)) serves as a staff assistant and advisor to the
Secretary of Defense on all matters concerning the formulation of
national security and defense policy and the integration and oversight
of DOD policy and plans to achieve national security objectives.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Policy provides
support to the Deputy Secretary similar to that provided to the
Secretary, as described above.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Answer. The PDUSD(P) is the principal assistant to the USD(P) and
is responsible for assisting the USD(P) in carrying out all
responsibilities, fulfilling functions, managing relationships, and
exercising authorities provided for in law to the USD(P). The PDUSD(P)
advises on and supports the USD(P) with all responsibilities in
providing advice to the Secretary of Defense in interagency fora (such
as National Security Council and Homeland Security Council
deliberations), engagement with international interlocutors, and in the
Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) processes inside
the Department, including the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the
Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), and annual program and budget reviews.
Question. The other Under Secretaries of Defense, including the
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
Answer. Pursuant to the authority, direction, and control of the
USD(P), the PDUSD(P) works closely with the other Under Secretaries of
Defense and their Deputies, including the Under Secretary of Defense
for Intelligence, to achieve the Secretary's objectives. This includes
providing policy input, as appropriate, to each of them in their
respective areas of responsibility.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. Pursuant to the authority, direction, and control of the
USD(P), the PDUSD(P) works closely with Assistant Secretaries of
Defense across the Department to achieve the Secretary's objectives.
This includes providing policy input, as appropriate, to each of them
in their respective areas of responsibility. As the USD(P)'s principal
assistant, within the Office of the USD(P), the PDUSD(P) provides
oversight of Assistant Secretaries on issues and at times as directed
by the USD(P). The Policy team works together to provide the USD(P) and
the Secretary with advice and recommendations on the full range of
policy issues under consideration in the Department and provides policy
oversight to ensure that the Secretary's guidance and decisions are
implemented properly.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. The PDUSD(P) works closely with the Secretaries of the
Military Departments on a broad range of issues, including strategy
development, force planning and other areas in which the military
departments are critical stakeholders.
Question. The General Counsel of DOD.
Answer. The PDUSD(P) works closely with the General Counsel on all
policy issues that involve a legal dimension. This generally requires
significant and regular coordination on a broad range of issues.
Question. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
Answer. As the principal military advisor to the Secretary of
Defense, the President and the National Security Council, the Chairman
has a unique and critical military role. The PDUSD(P) works closely
with the Chairman and Vice Chairman to support the efforts of the
USD(P), the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary, and to help ensure that
military advice is taken into account in an appropriate manner.
Question. The Commanders of the Regional and Functional Combatant
Commands.
Answer. The PDUSD(P) also works closely with the Regional and
Functional Combatant Commanders to support the efforts of the USD(P),
Secretary and Deputy Secretary, particularly in the areas of strategy
and policy, contingency planning and policy oversight of operations.
Question. The Administrator and Deputy Administrators of the
National Nuclear Security Administration
Answer. The PDUSD(P) works with the Administrator and Deputy
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, in
support of the USD(P)'s oversight of strategy for nuclear weapons and
forces, as well as USD(P)'s role on the Nuclear Weapons Council.
duties of the principal deputy under secretary of defense for policy
Question. Section 134a of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the
DUSD(P) shall assist the USD(P) in the performance of his duties. DOD
Directive 5111.3 emphasizes that the DUSD(P) advises and assists the
USD(P), particularly on strategy formulation, contingency planning, and
the integration of DOD plans and policy with overall national security
objectives.
What is your understanding of the duties and functions of the
PDUSD(P) under current regulations and practices?
Answer. My understanding is that, as the principal assistant to the
USD(P), the PDUSD(P) is responsible for assisting the USD(P) in
advising the Secretary of Defense on all matters concerning the
formulation of national security and defense policy, and for assisting
the USD(P) in carrying out all USD(P) responsibilities outlined in
section 134(b) of title 10. This includes, but not limited to, strategy
formulation, contingency planning, and the integration of DOD plans and
policy with overall national security objectives.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of Defense and the USD(P) would prescribe
for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect that my duties and functions would
include advising and assisting the USD(P) and the Secretary of Defense
on strategy formulation, contingency planning, and the integration of
DOD plans and policy. I expect that this would include involvement in
the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE) system, and
in major departmental reviews such as the QDR and the NPR. I look
forward to speaking with the Secretary of Defense and the USD(P)
further about how I could best support their efforts.
qualifications
Question. What background and experience do you have that you
believe qualifies you for this position?
Answer. I have been privileged to spend the last 25 years working
on a wide range of defense and national security issues, both in and
out of government. I had the honor to work for the late Les Aspin for 4
years as a professional staff member of the House Armed Services
Committee, where I was responsible for both policy and procurement
issues. I was privileged to serve for over 3 years as Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Requirements, Plans and Counterproliferation
Policy, where my office led defense planning, oversight of war plans,
and efforts to improve the military's ability to cope with weapons of
mass destruction (WMD). During my time outside of government, I have
had the opportunity to teach and conduct research on national security
issues, to establish and lead a private sector group that provided
consulting services to DOD, and to serve in a leadership position for a
newly established national security think tank. In addition, I have
served on a number of studies and panels including as an advisor to the
Defense Science Board, and as an expert to the Commission on the
Strategic Posture of the United States. I believe that my substantive
expertise and management experience would allow me to serve the country
well if confirmed as PDUSD(P).
strategy formulation and contingency planning
Question. One of the purposes of Goldwater-Nichols was to increase
military and civilian attention on the formulation of strategy and
contingency planning. DOD Directive 5111.3 specifically assigns a major
role to the DUSD(P) for those important matters.
What is your view of the civilian role, as compared to the military
role, in the formulation of strategy and contingency planning?
Answer. Civilian oversight of the military is critical in a
democracy, and is therefore paramount when considering the formulation
of strategy and contingency plans. When I served in the Department as
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Requirements, Plans, and
Counterproliferation Policy, I oversaw the development of strategic
planning and contingency planning guidance, as well as the civilian
review of contingency plans in support of the USD(P) and the Secretary
of Defense. Based on this experience, I believe strongly that the
development of appropriate guidance and plans requires civilian and
uniformed leaders to work in close partnership.
More specifically, the PDUSD(P) supports the development of the
President's National Security Strategy, the development of the defense
strategy, the establishment of realistic objectives and guidance to
form the basis for contingency planning, and the review of DOD plans
and programs to ensure they support strategic objectives. The Joint
Staff is a critical partner in the development of guidance for
contingency planning and provides independent military advice to the
Secretary of Defense and the President. In addition to the provision of
written guidance, an important civilian role is to review contingency
plans submitted for approval by the combatant commanders. The PDUSD(P)
also supports the USD(P) in facilitating interagency coordination on
contingency planning efforts, as necessary.
Question. In your opinion, does the civilian leadership currently
have an appropriate level of oversight of strategy and contingency
planning?
Answer. I believe that the civilian leadership has the necessary
authorities to provide effective oversight of strategy and contingency
planning. At the same time, I believe that changes to the
organizational structure of the Office of the USD(P) could help improve
the support of senior leadership on these critical issues. If
confirmed, I will work with the USD(P) to examine this issue closely
and to help ensure that civilian leadership has appropriate oversight
of strategy, contingency planning, and other critical issues relating
to the use of force.
Question. What steps do you believe are necessary to ensure
effective civilian control and oversight of strategy and contingency
planning?
Answer. Ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a complex
security environment globally, provide an incredibly diverse set of
challenges and opportunities for today and the future. Because of this
increased complexity, I believe that it is likely that strategy and
planning require more senior level attention and more supporting
personnel in DOD, and in particular in the Office of the USD(P), than
has been the case in the past. In addition, I believe that recent
experience has shown the importance of ``whole of government''
approaches to strategy, plans, and operations. Therefore establishing
effective organizations and processes for working with interagency
partners, while protecting DOD prerogatives, is an area where I believe
it is useful to consider possible additional measures. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with the USD(P) to examine these issues
closely.
If confirmed, I would strive to provide the best support possible
to the USD(P) and the Secretary of Defense in fulfilling their
statutory responsibilities to provide written policy guidance and to
review contingency plans. I would also work closely with the Joint
Staff, and where appropriate interagency partners, to help develop
further opportunities to collaborate on planning guidance and reviews.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the PDUSD(P)?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to provide advice and counsel to the
USD(P) and aid in the development of policy advice to the Secretary of
Defense. I would expect that major challenges would include ensuring
that the internal organization of the various policy oriented
structures in Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD) continue a
relatively seamless transition as new leadership continues to
assimilate. I also expect to play important roles in reviews including
the QDR and the NPR, and ensuring that adequate scrutiny and oversight
are applied to the entire range of policy options that are reviewed in
support of ongoing contingencies and possible future operations. Beyond
ensuring that the Secretary of Defense receives the best possible
policy input on these vital questions, another challenge will be to
strengthen the organizational capacity of OSD Policy to support these
and other efforts.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to serve important advisory roles in
a number of policy reviews, including the upcoming QDR and NPR, which
provide an opportunity to assess these challenges and develop policy,
plans, and investments to address them. More broadly, I expect to
participate actively in a variety of DOD decisionmaking processes,
including in particular strategy development and the PPBE system. I
also expect to support the USD(P) in efforts to responsibly end the war
in Iraq; ensure that the United States develops and employs a more
effective strategy in Afghanistan and the surrounding region; prevent
nuclear and WMD proliferation; combat terrorism; adapt the U.S.
military for 21st century challenges; and strengthen America's
relationships with key partners and allies.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the PDUSD(P)?
Answer. If confirmed, I would give priority to the major challenges
identified by the Secretary of Defense and the USD(P), and to
strengthening the organizational capacity of OSD Policy to address
them. I would also pay close attention to help develop and maintain
effective working relationships with both military and civilian
counterparts in the Department and the interagency.
iraq
Question. The President has announced his plans for the drawdown of
U.S. forces in Iraq and their transition to an overwatch mission, to be
completed by the end of August 2010. The U.S.-Iraqi agreement on the
Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of
Their Activities During Their Temporary Presence in Iraq (the
``security agreement'') requires that U.S. combat forces withdraw from
cities and towns by June 2009 and that all U.S. forces withdraw from
Iraq by the end of December 2011. Additionally, if Iraqi voters reject
the security agreement in a referendum scheduled for July 2009, U.S.
troops would be required to withdraw by July 2010.
What in your view are the greatest challenges facing the Department
in meeting these deadlines and what actions, if any, would you
recommend to maximize the chances of meeting these requirements?
Answer. A critical goal over the next months and years in Iraq will
be to maintain a secure environment to support elections, political
reconciliation, and economic development. As the U.S. military
continues to transition from providing population security to
conducting overwatch, and then redeploys out of Iraq, continuing to
build the capacity of the Iraqi military and police forces will be a
continuing priority, as will ensuring the effectiveness of
counterterror operations. As the U.S. military repositions and draws
down its forces in Iraq, there are likely to be important strategic
choices about the positioning of U.S. forces in Iraq and the region, as
well as questions relating to prioritization of logistical support for
the movement of U.S. forces. If confirmed, I would aid in the review of
DOD plans and work with colleagues across the Department to make any
necessary recommendations to the USD(P) and the Secretary of Defense.
Question. What is your understanding and assessment of U.S. plans
to support implementation of the President's drawdown plans and the
security agreement requirements for repositioning and redeployment of
U.S. forces, including contingency planning relating to the Iraqi
referendum?
Answer. Based on my current knowledge, my assessment is that the
President's drawdown strategy reflects a careful consideration of
events on the ground and respect for the bilateral agreements between
the United States and Iraq. If confirmed, I look forward to learning
more about the details of plans for repositioning and redeploying U.S.
forces, as well as any contingency planning relating to the Iraqi
referendum, and to supporting the USD(P) and Secretary of Defense in
overseeing the implementation of strategy and plans.
Question. To date, U.S. taxpayers have paid approximately $48
billion for stabilization and reconstruction activities in Iraq. On
April 8, 2008, Ambassador Crocker told the committee ``the era of U.S.-
funded major infrastructure is over'' and said the United States is no
longer ``involved in the physical reconstruction business.''
What do you believe is the appropriate role for the United States
in reconstruction activities in Iraq going forward?
Answer. I agree with and support the President's view that bringing
in Iraq's neighbors to help with reconstruction efforts is an important
priority. American policy should also continue to encourage and where
necessary assist Iraqi institutions in building sufficient capacity for
prioritizing, planning, and executing their own reconstruction
projects.
Question. What are your views on the responsibility of the Iraqi
Government to assume the cost of training, equipping, and operations
for its security forces?
Answer. An important component of our strategy centers on the Iraqi
Government successfully assuming control of the entire range of tasks
necessary to organize, train, and equip its security forces. From DOD's
perspective, this includes helping Iraqi institutions better formulate
a defense strategy and acquisition policy that is sustainable and
prudent in the absence of significant external assistance.
Question. What are your views on the responsibility of the Iraqi
Government to share the cost of combined operations with MNF-I forces
and stability programs throughout Iraq?
Answer. It is my understanding that the U.S. Government has not
requested that Iraq contribute to the costs of MNF-I operations. It
will be important for Iraq to organize, train, equip, and fully support
its forces in order to assume responsibility for its own security. It
is my view that the U.S. Government should encourage Iraq to focus on
the development and support of its security forces.
Question. What are your views on the responsibility of the Iraqi
Government to share the increased operating and facilities costs
associated with repositioning or withdrawal of U.S. forces in
accordance with the U.S.-Iraqi security agreement?
Answer. I understand that under the new U.S.-Iraqi Security
Agreement, there is no Iraqi responsibility to pay costs associated
with repositioning or withdrawal of U.S. forces. In order to best
advance our interests, I believe Iraq's internal resources are best
applied in the development and support of its own security forces.
afghanistan
Question. In your view, what should be our strategic objectives in
Afghanistan?
Answer. The administration is considering this question as part of
its ongoing Strategic Review of Afghanistan and Pakistan. I believe
that America's most enduring interest in the region is preventing
Afghanistan from devolving to a safe-haven from which terrorists can
attack the United States or our allies and partners. If confirmed, I
expect to support the Department's efforts in this critical challenge,
which requires urgent and sustained attention.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to our current
strategy in Afghanistan?
Answer. The administration's Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy review
is ongoing, and I am confident that it will identify any needed
changes. My own view is that achieving our strategic objectives in
Afghanistan requires a regional perspective; for example, Pakistan is
key to the future of Afghanistan and vice-versa, and working with
Pakistan, India and others in the region is likely to be essential to
success in Afghanistan. More broadly, I believe that the United States
should work with Afghanistan and our coalition partners to develop and
pursue a more integrated and comprehensive approach to security,
economic development, and governance. We must harness all of the
instruments of national power and persuasion to be successful. It is
imperative that we improve coordination and cooperation between
Afghanistan and its neighbors, so that greater unity of effort is
achieved among our coalition partners, international institutions, and
the Government of Afghanistan.
Question. Do you believe there is a need to develop a comprehensive
civil-military plan for Afghanistan, akin to that used in Iraq?
Answer. Yes, and as noted above I believe that such a plan must
consider Pakistan and other key players in the region.
Question. General David McKiernan, USA, Commander of the NATO
International Security Assistance Force, and Commander U.S. Forces--
Afghanistan, has identified a need for four additional combat brigades
and support units in Afghanistan, equaling up to 30,000 additional
troops. President Obama has approved the deployment of an additional
17,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan by late spring and summer of this
year. General McKiernan has said that these additional forces will
provide him what he needs for the coming months, but additional forces
will still be needed to meet fully his initial request.
Do you support General McKiernan's request for additional forces?
Answer. I agree with President Obama and Secretary Gates, who have
both consistently stated that they believe the deteriorating security
conditions in Afghanistan required the deployment of additional U.S.
and international forces. I have not been fully briefed on the details
of current operations and threat assessments, or internal deliberations
associated with the ongoing Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy review. If
confirmed, I look forward to assisting the USD(P) and others to assess
the appropriate level of military forces required. I expect a critical
component of these deliberations will concern the right balance between
American, allied, and Afghan forces. Balancing the demand for
additional forces while ensuring that the military is ready for other
contingencies is one of the Department's key challenges.
Question. If so, how should the Department support combat brigade
increases in Afghanistan, in advance of the National elections?
Answer. The President has approved the deployment of more than
17,000 additional U.S. forces to Afghanistan to meet urgent security
needs, particularly in the volatile southern provinces, including the
critical necessity to train additional Afghan National Security Forces
(ANSF). My understanding is that these forces will arrive in
Afghanistan in advance of the presidential election in August. It is
also my understanding that the administration is looking to our allies
and partners to provide additional forces to ensure security during the
elections as well as the success of the ANSF training mission. To my
knowledge no decision has been made on the deployment of additional
U.S. combat brigades beyond the 17,000 additional U.S. forces already
planned.
Question. If confirmed, would you support drawing down U.S. forces
in Iraq faster or redirecting to Afghanistan combat brigades already
slated to replace brigades in Iraq in order to meet General McKiernan's
request?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with the USD(P), Joint
Staff, and the Services to help ensure that DOD are carefully assesses
and addresses risks in both theaters and prudently managing our
military commitments, operational readiness, and stresses on the force.
Question. If confirmed, would you support the temporary extension
of combat brigades already deployed to Afghanistan? Would you support
the accelerated deployment of combat brigades slated to deploy later
this year to Afghanistan?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to support the USD(P) and Secretary
of Defense in providing guidance that ensures deployment lengths of the
combat brigades in Afghanistan strike an appropriate balance between
meeting our commanders' operational requirements and maintaining the
health and readiness of our forces.
Question. The goal for increasing the size of the Afghan National
Army (ANA) has been revised from 68,000 to approximately 134,000
soldiers.
In your view, should rapidly expanding the number of U.S. trainers
to accelerate the expansion of the ANA be a top priority in
Afghanistan?
Answer. Building an effective, broadly representative, and
respected ANA requires significant resources, and in my view must be a
top priority. It is important that we look closely at the forces
required for security in Afghanistan, and I understand that the ongoing
Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy review is doing so. If confirmed, I will
support the USD(P) and Secretary of Defense in providing oversight and
guidance that ensures that there are the right numbers of trainers,
mentors, and advisors with sufficient resources to accomplish their
mission.
Question. What recommendations, if any, do you have for encouraging
or enabling our coalition partners to provide more training team
personnel to embed with ANA units?
Answer. In my view, helping the Afghan National Security Forces
develop the ability to assume primary responsibility for security
inside Afghanistan should be at the center of our long-term strategy.
The United States and NATO have assumed a long-term commitment to
develop Afghan forces that can eventually take the lead for security in
Afghanistan. If confirmed, I look forward to supporting the
Department's efforts to encourage our coalition partners to deliver on
their commitments to provide training team personnel.
Question. One of the main threats to U.S. and coalition forces in
Afghanistan comes from cross-border attacks by the Taliban and
extremist militants who find safe haven in Pakistan's border regions.
What steps in your view need to be taken to eliminate or mitigate
the threat to Afghanistan's security posed by Taliban and other
extremist militants hiding out across the Afghan-Pakistan border?
Answer. In my view, Afghanistan and Pakistan are in many respects a
single theater of operations, and both President Obama and Secretary
Gates have cited the need to eliminate the terrorist sanctuary in the
border regions of Pakistan. This sanctuary poses a potential threat not
only to Afghanistan, but to the region and indeed to the United States.
Clearly however, there is no purely military solution. The United
States must define and resource an integrated strategy to promote
development and prevent terrorism across the Afghanistan-Pakistan
border region, and I understand that this is a focus of the ongoing
strategy review. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with my DOD and
interagency colleagues in accordance with the results of the strategy
review.
Question. Would you agree that it is possible that developments
within Afghanistan could lead to improvements in Afghanistan's security
irrespective of developments in Pakistan's border areas?
Answer. I agree that many of Afghanistan's challenges are internal.
This is true of certain insurgent activities, the problem of warlords,
poppy cultivation and narcotics production, and general criminality.
However, I believe that we have learned from years of conflict that
insurgent and terrorist safe-havens in Pakistan and illicit cross-
border activity must also be addressed to establish sustainable
security in Afghanistan.
Question. The ANA has shown itself to be effective, well-motivated,
and respected by the Afghan people.
If confirmed, would you support giving the ANA the lead in stopping
cross-border incursions, either by transferring the mission of
patrolling the border to the ANA or by bringing the Afghan Border
Patrol under the ANA?
Answer. I agree that the ANA has generally and increasingly shown
itself to be effective, well-motivated, and respected. Clearly securing
the border areas from cross-border incursions and illegal smuggling is
an important element of a successful long-term strategy. The issue of
command relationships between the Afghan Border Patrol and ANA is an
area that I have not examined in detail, and if confirmed, would need
to examine more closely.
Question. The cultivation of poppies and trafficking of opium has
reached alarming proportions in Afghanistan. Some estimate that over 50
percent of Afghanistan's gross national product is associated with the
illegal opium trade and that Afghanistan is at risk of failing as a
nation state. Coalition strategies for countering the opium trade have
not been effective to date.
In your view, what strategy would be most effective in reducing
opium production and trafficking in Afghanistan?
Answer. Opium traffic continues to distort the Afghan economy,
corrode the judicial system, and exacerbate corruption and criminal
violence. In my view, countering the opium trade must include a nuanced
and fully resourced coalition and Afghan strategy, including crop
substitution and alternative livelihoods, interdiction and eradication,
judicial reform, better law enforcement and intelligence sharing, and
rural economic development and public information.
Question. What should the role of the U.S. military forces be in
the counterdrug program in Afghanistan?
Answer. I understand that in the past year U.S. forces have been
provided with new rules of engagement regarding counternarcotics
activities, but I have not had the opportunity to review them in detail
nor to assess their effectiveness. If confirmed, I look forward to
reviewing the effectiveness of these policies and to discussing them
further with the USD(P) and other officials.
Question. What is the appropriate role for coalition nations and
the larger international community in effectively addressing the
counterdrug challenge in Afghanistan and the surrounding region?
Answer. I believe it is critical for the international community to
play a greater role across the full range of initiatives and operations
designed to help the Government of Afghanistan strengthen Afghan
institutions, ranging from the judicial and law enforcement system, to
its intelligence service, and the Afghan National Security Forces, so
that it can better take the lead in combating narcotics in Afghanistan.
Question. What are the main challenges facing the U.S. and
international community's reconstruction and development efforts in
Afghanistan?
Answer. In my view, high levels of violence in Afghanistan
constitute the most immediate and pressing challenge to reconstruction
and development efforts, which must feature prominently in any
successful long-term strategy. The Afghan people have suffered through
more than a generation of war, and the country's development challenges
are immense. The majority of Afghans make their living from farming,
yet extensive drought and failing agricultural infrastructure create
openings for opium production to supplant the legal agricultural
economy. While Afghanistan has seen improvements in health care in
recent years, life expectancy remains below 45 years while more than
half of Afghan children suffer from poor nutrition and disease. While
progress has been made towards primary education in Afghanistan, fewer
than half of adult males and only one in eight females can read,
impeding the professionalization of the Afghan government and security
forces and limiting economic growth.
Question. If confirmed, what would your priorities be for
addressing those challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to aiding the USD(P) in
working with interagency partners to help implement an improved
strategy that can effectively engage our coalition partners and the
international community to advance reconstruction and development
efforts in Afghanistan.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend for the
strategy, organizational structure, or resourcing of Provincial
Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan?
Answer. I believe that Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) have
been critical to the development work undertaken in Afghanistan and
Iraq in recent years. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing the
committee's concerns and ideas on the use of PRTs.
pakistan
Question. What is your view of the current state of U.S.-Pakistani
security relations? What steps, if any, would you recommend to improve
these relations?
Answer. Pakistan is a critical ally in the long-term struggle
against extremism and terrorism. A confluence of overlapping security
concerns--including presence of al Qaeda terrorists and Taliban-
affiliated extremists, United States and NATO lines of communication to
Afghanistan, nuclear weapons, and an unstable economic environment--
make Pakistan a key national security interest for the United States.
Pakistan and the United States share mutual interests in these areas
and it is essential that we continue to build and cultivate a long-term
relationship built on respect and trust regarding security and other
overlapping interests. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more
about all aspects of ongoing U.S.-Pakistan relations and helping the
USD(P) shape effective policies for engagement by the U.S. military,
the State Department, and other agencies.
Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the efforts
by the Pakistani Government to counter militant groups along the
Afghan-Pakistan border and to fight terrorism in general?
Answer. Any enduring solution to the challenge of defeating the
terrorist and cross-border insurgent groups that threaten Afghanistan,
Pakistan, and the international community requires Pakistan's strong
support. While the Pakistani government has conducted several military
operations against militants in border areas, the region remains a
sanctuary for al Qaeda and Taliban-affiliated groups. If confirmed, I
expect to assist the USD(P) in overseeing and reviewing the development
of options to improve Pakistani counterterrorism and counterinsurgency
capacities.
Question. In your view, is the Pakistani Government doing enough to
combat these threats? If not, what more should it be doing?
Answer. While I have not been briefed in detail on any assessments
of Pakistan's willingness and ability to combat these threats, I
believe than any long-term success in countering them requires
extensive and sustained attention by various elements of Pakistan's
government. If confirmed, I look forward to assessing ways in which the
United States and Pakistan can work better together to combat these
shared threats.
india
Question. The attacks in Mumbai raise questions about what more
might be done to help India guard against and respond to terrorist
incidents and underscore the fragile nature of the relationship between
India and neighboring Pakistan.
What is your view of the current state of U.S.-India military-to-
military contacts?
Answer. It is my understanding that the U.S.-India military-to-
military relationship is generally quite positive and is improving.
Question. What do you believe the United States should do to assist
the Indian Government in the prevention of and response to terrorist
events?
Answer. India is the world's largest democracy, and a strong and
healthy U.S.-Indian partnership is an important American interest. The
recent attacks in Mumbai have only underscored our shared interest in
preventing and responding to terrorism. If confirmed, I will support
the USD(P) in considering any additional measures, and in working with
the State Department to carefully consider any requests for
counterterrorism assistance from India.
Question. In your view, what impact has this rise in tensions
between Pakistan and India had on the stability of the South Asia
region, generally, and on the prospects for security in Afghanistan?
Answer. India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are linked by history,
culture, language, and trade, and progress in Afghanistan and broader
regional stability cannot be achieved without the cooperation of all
three. It is in America's national interest to play a constructive role
in helping defuse any tensions and to help derive from the tragic
attacks in Mumbai an opportunity for further cooperation between three
of America's important allies.
future of nato
Question. What are the greatest challenges and opportunities that
you foresee for NATO over the next 5 years?
Answer. Without question, the job of adapting our transatlantic
alliance relationships to meet 21st century challenges is going to be
arduous. The President and the Secretary of Defense have stressed our
country's stakes in a strong, mutually supportive NATO alliance. To
rebuild NATO solidarity, we need, first and foremost, a broadly agreed
way-ahead for achieving durable progress on Afghanistan, especially
where ISAF operations have been impeded by national caveats or the
dearth of civilian expertise for critical missions. Closer to home, the
alliance faces a more assertive Russia, continued instability in part
of the Balkans and among former Soviet republics, and new concerns over
cyber security and global climate change. My hope is that upcoming NATO
summit in Strasbourg will give a strong boost to the drafting of a new
strategic concept--one that helps to illuminate emerging threats and
opportunities, as well as the capabilities required for effective joint
action and ways for improving unity-of-action between NATO and the
European Union.
Question. Do you envision further enlargement of NATO, beyond
Albania and Croatia, within the next 5 years?
Answer. As the President and his national security team have
stressed, NATO enlargement should continue so long as new candidates
are democratic, peaceful, and willing to contribute to common security.
Precisely which countries and within what applicable timeframe NATO
would undertake further enlargement are important questions which the
administration will need to address in close consultation with Congress
and our allies. It is important that each NATO aspirant should be
judged on its individual merits and progress in implementing political,
economic, and military reforms.
Question. What more can the United States do to encourage NATO
members to develop the capabilities and provide the resources necessary
to carry out NATO missions in Afghanistan and elsewhere?
Answer. President Obama and Secretary Gates have both stressed the
need for the United States and NATO to invest more in its nonmilitary
instruments of national power. Many of our NATO allies have unique
civilian capabilities that can enhance the overall effort in
Afghanistan. The questions that both we and they now face are how best
to mobilize these resources and target them to maximum positive effect.
Also, as previously noted, forging a shared strategic view of the
emerging threat environment and updating NATO's strategic concept from
both a military and civilian governance perspective will be critical to
success in Afghanistan.
nato-eu relations
Question. A potential challenge facing the United States and NATO
in the months and years ahead is the European Union's (EU)
implementation of its European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP), that
is, an EU capability to conduct military operations in response to
international crises in cases where ``NATO as a whole is not engaged.''
At the same time, NATO and EU are working alongside each other in
addressing a number of common security challenges, including police
training in Afghanistan and crisis management in Kosovo.
Are you concerned that the EU could assume a competing role, rather
than a complementary role, to the NATO alliance?
Answer. As Under Secretary Flournoy indicated during her
confirmation process, the NATO-EU relationship should ideally be
complementary. For defense matters and crisis management, NATO is the
preferred vehicle for cooperation between our European allies and the
United States in responding to a shared security challenge. At the same
time, the EU's great strength lies is its ability to project economic
power and political influence in a way that helps to attenuate
conflict. While the current economic crisis has greatly stressed the
EU's solidarity and its outreach to the east, its ``soft power'' role
will clearly be critical over the long-term. Moreover, because both
NATO and the EU draw largely from a single pool of national
capabilities, cooperation is extremely important.
Question. What steps do you believe that the United States and NATO
should take to ensure that ESDP is implemented in a way that
strengthens the alliance?
Answer. Given the growth and diversity of ESDP-related activities
in recent years, to include the EU's current anti-piracy operations off
the coast of Somalia, we must explore every possible angle of NATO-EU
collaboration at the operational level. I believe that priority should
be given to promoting good communications and a common operating
picture between NATO, its allies, and EU partners.
Question. What is your view of the future of NATO-EU relations in
areas relating to security, defense, and crisis management?
Answer. As suggested above, both NATO and the EU have important
roles to play in meeting future security, defense, and crisis
management challenges. From an alliance perspective, it is important
for all U.S. interagency partners to take a clear-eyed view of the
entire range of current EU-activities--from civilian policing to
military border control or other missions--to identify both areas of
duplication and where closer NATO-EU coordination is required.
engagement policy
Question. One of the central pillars of our 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,
humanitarian demining operations, and similar activities were used to
achieve this goal.
If confirmed, would you support continued engagement activities of
the U.S. military? If yes, would you advocate for expanding U.S.
military-to-military engagement? If not, why not?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, subject to guidance provided by USD(P)
and the Secretary, I will support a policy of continued U.S. military-
to-military engagement, and as appropriate, given opportunities and
resource constraints, expanding this engagement. The emerging security
environment requires that we engage with our partners and allies around
the world, and work to build productive relationships with many states
for which our past military-to-military engagements have been limited
or absent entirely.
Question. Do you believe that these activities contribute to U.S.
national security?
Answer. Yes. I believe military-to-military contacts contribute to
U.S. national security in a variety of important ways. Such activities
can help to strengthen the capacity of partner nations to counter
terrorism and other transnational threats, both within and beyond their
borders, thereby potentially relieving stress on U.S. forces. They can
help harmonize nations' views of common security challenges. Military-
to-military activities can also help safeguard investments made by
other U.S. assistance programs. Finally, and very importantly, when
performed effectively, military-to-military activities should show by
example how military forces can act effectively while respecting human
rights and civilian control.
stability operations
Question. The U.S. experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has
underscored the importance of planning and training to prepare for the
conduct and support of stability operations in post-conflict
situations.
In your view, what is the appropriate relationship between DOD and
other Federal agencies in the planning and conduct of stability and
support operations in a post-conflict environment?
Answer. Success in stability operations in a post-conflict
environment requires integrating the efforts of civilian and military
organizations in all aspects, from planning through execution. It is
important for civilian agencies to lead in areas such as fostering
political reconciliation, building accountable and legitimate
institutions of government, restoring public infrastructure, and
reviving economic activity. Military forces are best suited to helping
provide a safe and secure environment and to assist in building
accountable armed forces. Over the last several years, the U.S.
military has learned many hard lessons, and if confirmed, I will work
closely with the USD(P), military leaders and other U.S. Government
agencies to ensure that the Department properly institutionalizes
adaptation to better prepare for future challenges.
Question. What lessons do you believe the Department has learned
from ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan with respect to
achieving success in post-conflict stability operations?
Answer. I believe that the Department has learned many important
lessons, including the following: Improved interagency planning of
operations is critical, and must start early; because the situation on
the ground will change, strategies and plans must be adapted over time;
DOD must retain significant capabilities for stability operations, and
other agencies and departments must build increased capacity to support
these operations; building partner capacity is an essential task which
requires significant leadership attention and resources; engaging
allies and other coalition partners to contribute, while often
challenging, is essential; and it is critical that DOD and other
departments/agencies better institutionalize wartime lessons, and fully
resource those capabilities and organizational innovations that have
proved critical to success in stability operations.
building partner capacity
Question. In the past few years, Congress has provided DOD a number
of temporary authorities to provide security assistance to partner
nations. These include the global train and equip authority (section
1206) and the security and stabilization assistance authority (section
1207).
What are our strategic objectives in building the capacities of
partner nations?
Answer. I agree with Secretary Gates and others who have stated
that the future security environment is likely to present more threats
stemming from the consequences of state weakness than from displays of
state strength. As the international system continues to become more
complex and increasingly globalized, tensions arising from water and
food scarcity, economic displacement, demographic shifts, and
competition over resources are likely to present opportunities for
terrorist and insurgent groups to undermine state, regional, and
international stability. It is therefore critical that U.S. foreign
policy support efforts that strengthen bilateral relationships;
increase U.S. access and influence; promote militaries that respect
human rights, civilian control of the military and the rule of law; and
build capacity for common security objectives. In addition to promoting
regional and global security, enhanced partner capacity reduces the
risk of future military interventions and reduces stress on U.S. Armed
Forces.
Question. What is your understanding of the purpose of the section
1206 global train and equip authority? What is your assessment of the
implementation of the global train and equip program?
Answer. It is my understanding that section 1206 was created to
provide increased ability to build partner capacity than the more
traditional routes of security assistance. Under law, it has two
purposes: to build the capacity of a country's ability to conduct
counterterrorism operations, and to help support stability operations
where U.S. forces are participating. While I have not been involved in
implementation of section 1206, I understand that the program enjoys
strong support from embassies and combatant commands (COCOMs). If
confirmed, I will assist the USD(P) and the Secretary in fully
assessing how well this authority is working and whether it meets
congressional intent.
Question. What is the relationship of the global train and equip
authority to other security assistance authorities, such as
counternarcotics assistance and foreign military financing? What should
be done to ensure that the global train and equip authority does not
duplicate the efforts of these other assistance programs?
Answer. It is important that both the Defense and State Departments
work together to avoid duplication of effort among these important
activities. The global train and equip authority fills two specific
legal requirements: to build capacity for counterterrorism and for
stability operations where U.S. forces are a participant. Foreign
military financing serves a broader set of diplomatic and foreign
policy objectives, to include improving bilateral relations,
encouraging behaviors that advance U.S. interests, increasing access
and influence, and building capacity where host-nation and U.S.
interests overlap.
Counternarcotics authorities are designed to allow DOD to support
U.S. or other government efforts to counter the flow of narcotics
globally. If confirmed, I would support the Department and any
interagency assessment of potential overlaps and work to ensure DOD
counternarcotics programs are focused on supporting U.S. and other
agency efforts to counter the flow of narcotics.
Question. What is your understanding of the purpose of the security
and stabilization assistance authority (section 1207)? What is your
assessment of how this authority has been utilized?
Answer. I understand that section 1207 was designed to help the
State Department's Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization to
build the capacity to become more operational. It was designed to bring
civilian expertise to security, stabilization, and reconstruction
missions, and complement existing U.S. military capabilities. While I
have not been involved in implementation of section 1207, I believe
that the program has been useful in supporting a more integrated
approach to security, stabilization, and reconstruction challenges.
Question. Secretary of Defense Gates has called for an expansion of
the Government's resources devoted to instruments of non-military
``soft power'', i.e., civilian expertise in reconstruction,
development, and governance.
Do you agree that there is a need to expand the Government's
resources devoted to the ability of civilian departments and agencies
to engage, assist, and communicate with partner nations?
Answer. Yes. I agree strongly with President Obama and Secretary
Gates that the United States should strengthen non-military instruments
of statecraft.
Question. In your view, what should be the role of DOD, vis-a-vis
the civilian departments and agencies of the Government, in the
exercise of instruments of soft power?
Answer. Generally, DOD's role should be to support, not lead, in
the exercise of ``soft power.'' However, the Department plays an
important role in helping to promote--through planning, exchanges,
exercises, operations, and bilateral defense relationships--the
conditions that enable these instruments to be applied successfully.
Question. Which agency should have the lead in setting U.S.
Government security assistance policy, the Department of State or DOD?
Answer. The State Department should have the lead in setting U.S.
foreign policy and foreign assistance priorities broadly, including
security assistance. DOD has critical roles to play, however, in
informing, developing, and implementing such programs in an effective
and timely manner. In my view, strong interagency processes and
relationships are vital to ensure successful security assistance
policies.
russia
Question. What is your assessment of the current U.S.-Russian
security relationship?
Answer. Russia's recent aggressive external behavior is a source of
deep concern. Of greatest concern is a growing pattern of Russian
pressure, and, in some cases, aggressive action against sovereign
states on its borders, most visibly including Georgia. Nevertheless, I
believe that there is an opportunity to pursue a more constructive
relationship with Russia on a range of issues including strategic arms
control, non-proliferation, and counterterrorism.
Question. What do you believe are appropriate objectives for U.S.-
Russian security relations, and what do you believe are the areas of
common interest between the United States and Russia in the security
sphere?
Answer. As President Obama noted, it is in no one's interest to see
U.S.-Russian relations return to a Cold War posture. U.S. and Russian
interests clearly overlap in such key areas as strategic arms control,
non-proliferation (including North Korea and Iran), counterterrorism,
Afghanistan, and counternarcotics. Ultimately, I believe we should work
to create the conditions that make clear that stable, democratic
neighbors on Russia's borders are in Russia's own interest.
Question. In your view, what policy steps should DOD take to
improve security relations with Russia? For instance, would you support
increased military-to-military relations and exchanges with Russia?
Answer. I believe that military-to-military and other exchanges
with Russia are generally beneficial. If confirmed, in consultation the
State Department as well as with Congress, I would assess areas where
greater cooperation might be possible.
Question. Are there common security issues that you believe would
best be addressed jointly by the United States and Russia, or which
cannot be adequately addressed without Russia's cooperation?
Answer. U.S.-Russia cooperation is essential in many areas of
importance to the United States, including strategic arms control and
nonproliferation including policies toward North Korea and Iran. Such
cooperation is highly desirable on many additional issues, including
counterterrorism, counternarcotics, counterpiracy, and Afghanistan. To
cite one example, Russia is already cooperating with NATO in
Afghanistan by recently allowing the transit of nonlethal equipment
through its territory for ISAF.
Question. Would you support any joint development or other
cooperative programs with Russia?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the USD(P) in exploring the
potential for the Joint Data Exchange Center and additional cooperative
programs with Russia.
iran
Question. Do you believe it would be in the U.S. interest to engage
Iran in a direct dialogue to promote regional stability and security?
Answer. I support President Obama's view that after careful
preparation, the United States should be willing to pursue direct
diplomacy with Iran. Furthermore, I fully support the President's view
that we should not take any options off the table and that engagement
has an important role to play in our efforts to prevent Iran from
acquiring nuclear weapons and end their support for destabilizing
activities and terrorism in the region.
Question. Do you believe it would be in the U.S. interest to engage
Iran in a direct dialogue regarding the narcotics problems in
Afghanistan?
Answer. I understand that this issue is being examined as part of
broader interagency policy reviews on Iran and Afghanistan. My own view
is that it is in the U.S. interest to engage Iran on Afghanistan
security issues including narcotics, and to do so largely through
multilateral exchanges.
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? Specifically, what actions do you believe that
DOD ought to undertake to support diplomatic efforts to dissuade Iran
from pursuing a nuclear weapon?
Answer. The United States has not yet brought to bear all the
elements of statecraft to deal effectively with this issue. The use of
tough, direct, and principled diplomacy, working with our other
international partners and allies, can increase the chances of making
useful inroads. Helping to bring about auspicious conditions in the
region is critical to generating leverage and therefore to success.
Therefore I believe that DOD should continue developing the ongoing
multilateral cooperation with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries
and other allies in the region, in support of the State Department's
diplomatic initiatives.
syria
Question. Do you believe it would be in the U.S. interest to engage
Syria in a direct dialogue regarding regional security and stability?
Answer. I understand that the administration is engaged in a review
of its Syria policy. The Department of State should take the lead on
any diplomatic initiatives with Syria. I agree with the President's
view that Syria is best engaged in the context of an aggressive
regional diplomatic approach.
saudi arabia
Question. What is your assessment of the current state of U.S.-
Saudi security relations and defense cooperation activities? What
changes, if any, would you recommend in this relationship?
Answer. Saudi Arabia is one of our most important relationships in
the Middle East. The United States continues to invest major efforts
into our security assistance programs with the Ministry of Defense and
Aviation (MODA) and Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG). If confirmed,
I will support the Department's efforts in coordination with State
Department colleagues to encourage the Saudis to develop better ways
and means to deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kingdom's critical
infrastructure, enhance maritime security, enhance ballistic missile
defense, counterpiracy, and conduct counterterrorism operations. I will
also look for opportunities to increase Saudi support for multilateral
security activities among GCC countries, to include regional air and
missile defense and maritime security efforts.
china
Question. China is viewed by some in the United States as a
potential threat and by others as a potentially 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 Secretary Gates noted in a recent speech, ``China is a
competitor but not necessarily an adversary, and there is no reason for
China to become an adversary.'' Without question, China's sustained
rise over the past decade is due to its progressive integration into
the global economy. While the ultimate destination of the Chinese
people is for them to decide, I believe that the United States and
other countries, both in East Asia and beyond, can exert a positive
influence upon the direction of China's development. Indeed, no country
has done more to assist, facilitate, and encourage China's development
and international integration than the United States. That alone
provides no assurance of China's willingness to play the role of
constructive partner, but it does give both sides a clear appreciation
of the stakes involved in maintaining a reasonable working relationship
on a wide range of issues, including first and foremost in dealing with
the current economic crisis.
Question. What do you believe are China's political-military
objectives regarding Taiwan, the Asia-Pacific region, and globally?
Answer. I agree with the view that the overriding objectives of
China's leaders appear to be to ensure the continued rule of the
Chinese Communist Party, continue China's economic development,
maintain the country's domestic political stability, defend China's
national sovereignty and territorial integrity, and secure China's
status as a great power. Within this context, preventing any moves by
Taipei toward de jure independence is a key part of Beijing's strategy.
Within each dimension there are both challenges and opportunities for
the United States that will continue to deserve priority attention.
Question. What do you see as China's objectives for its military
modernization program and steady increases in defense spending?
Answer. The pace and scale of China's military modernization,
coupled with the lack of transparency surrounding both capabilities and
intentions, are a source of concern for the United States as well as
for its allies and the region more broadly. I believe that the United
States should continue and expand engagement efforts to fully
comprehend the future direction of China's programs in order to reduce
the potential for miscalculations and build mutual trust. At the same
time, we must strive for a prudent level of defense preparedness so as
to ensure we are able to protect U.S. national interests and fulfill
our alliance responsibilities.
Question. What is your view of the U.S. policy of selling military
equipment to Taiwan, despite China's objections?
Answer. U.S. policy on arms sales to Taiwan is based on the 1979
Taiwan Relations Act, which provides that the United States will make
available to Taiwan defense articles and services in such quantities as
may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense
capability. That policy has contributed to peace and stability in the
region for nearly 30 years and is consistent with the longstanding U.S.
calls for peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue in a manner
acceptable to the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. I believe
our arms sales have been carried out in a responsible manner.
Question. In its 2008 Report to Congress, the U.S.-China Economic
and Security Review Commission concluded that China is asserting
various excessive claims of sovereignty, including maritime, air and
space, and also concluded that these claims have negative implications
for the United States. Further, the Commission concluded that more must
be done to ensure that China's rapid expansion of nuclear power does
not result in the decline in safety or an increase in proliferation of
nuclear weapons technology or expertise.
How should the United States respond to excessive claims of
sovereignty by China?
Answer. The United States has a longstanding policy on Freedom of
Navigation, and as recent events relating to the USNS Impeccable have
demonstrated, does not acquiesce to excessive maritime, air, or space
claims that restrict navigation and overflight rights under customary
international law (as reflected for example in the U.N. Convention on
the Law of the Sea). In addition to asserting U.S. rights, I believe
the United States should work with other countries that have a stake in
this issue to engage China.
Question. What do you believe should be the role of DOD, if any, in
helping to ensure that China's nuclear power industry does not
contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region?
Answer. The Obama administration has reiterated that preventing the
proliferation of WMD and delivery systems, along with related
technologies and materials, is a key goal for the United States. I
believe that DOD should work in the interagency process to ensure that
any proliferation concerns relating to China including its nuclear
power industry are expressed to the Chinese Government in appropriate
forums, and should similarly support the development of appropriate
interagency responses in the event that China takes steps that do
contribute to proliferation.
Question. Do you believe any changes in the quality or quantity of
military-to-military relations with China should be made? If so, what
changes and why?
Answer. If confirmed, I would look closely at exchanges with
China's armed forces at all levels and across a range of issues,
including the recently opened dialogue on nuclear policy and strategy,
which I understand is a priority for Secretary Gates. My general sense
is that more can be done to improve the U.S.-China military-to-military
relationship, both in terms of the quality and the quantity of
exchanges between the armed forces of our countries. In general, I
believe we should look to engage in a wide range of areas where we can
work with China on priorities that improve transparency, reduce risks
of miscalculation, and advance stability, both regionally and globally.
Question. On March 8, 2009, five Chinese ships aggressively
maneuvered in dangerously close proximity to USNS Impeccable, a U.S.
ocean surveillance vessel operated by the Military Sealift Command
conducting routine operations in the South China Sea.
How do you think the U.S. Government should respond to provocative
actions of this kind and what actions should the United States take to
try to prevent similar incidents in the future?
Answer. As noted above, the United States has a longstanding policy
on freedom of navigation, consistent with customary international law
and as reflected in the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. I
believe the United States should clearly assert and exercise our
rights, work with other states with similar interests and perspectives
as appropriate, and ensuring effective communication to reduce the
risks of accident or miscalculation. I was very pleased by Secretary
Gates' statement on March 18 that ``. . . based on the diplomatic
exchanges that have taken place, since the aggressive acts against the
Impeccable . . .there won't be a repetition of this [incident].''
japan
Question. Secretary of State Clinton recently signed a U.S.
agreement with Japan on realignment of U.S. forces from Okinawa to
Guam.
What is your understanding of the key provisions of this agreement
and the risks surrounding the likelihood of the move proceeding on the
timeline previously established given financial considerations in Japan
and the United States?
Answer. My understanding of the Guam International Agreement
(``Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and
the Government of Japan concerning the Implementation of the Relocation
of III Marine Expeditionary Force Personnel and their Dependents from
Okinawa to Guam'') is that it was concluded as a means to formalize the
accountability and transparency associated with Japan's eventual
transfer of $2.8 billion for Guam development. The agreement also
reiterates Japan's commitment to build the Futenma Replacement Facility
(FRF) on Camp Schwab and surrounding waters in northern Okinawa, and to
provide additional financing for development of required facilities and
infrastructure on Guam. Both the FRF project in Okinawa and the Guam
project are complex challenges, with ambitious target completion dates
of 2014.
The realignment of U.S. force posture in East Asia and the
Pacific--and in particular the relocation of U.S. forces and their
dependents to Guam--is a major focus for the U.S.-Japan alliance at
present. I believe that while the timelines are challenging, both sides
are committed to timely execution as well as ensuring a quality
program.
north korea
Question. 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 conventional military, WMD, and proliferation
activities continue to pose a significant threat to regional peace and
security. Also, recent North Korean provocations, including its
apparent intent to launch a long-range missile (even if characterized
as a satellite launch), are unhelpful to regional stability and
relations. Working with our allies and other key parties in the region
on diplomatic solutions is an essential element in addressing the
totality of security problems on the Korean peninsula, the most vital
of which is the denuclearization of North Korea. Likewise, it is
essential to maintain the capabilities to deter North Korea's military
threat and proliferation activities. Our strong alliances with South
Korea and Japan remain instrumental in this regard. These alliances
help maintain the peace and stability that has allowed the wider East
Asia region to prosper over the past several decades.
Question. What is your assessment of the threat posed to the United
States, its forward-deployed forces, and its allies by North Korea's
ballistic missile and WMD capabilities and the export of those
capabilities?
Answer. I believe that North Korea missile and WMD programs pose a
serious threat to the United States, our forces, and our allies. This
threat has been evidenced recently in North Korea's announced intention
to launch what it refers to as an ``experimental communications
satellite'' in April (long-range ballistic missiles and satellite
launch vehicles derive from nearly identical technology). Strong
alliances, regional partnerships, and forward military presence remain
key means to deal with these threats. U.S. national capabilities, such
as ballistic missile defense, are also an essential element in
deterring the threat and defending our interests.
Question. In your view, what should be done to maintain or
strengthen deterrence on the Korean peninsula?
Answer. The most critical ingredient for effective deterrence on
the peninsula is found in the strength of the alliances between the
United States and the Republic of Korea, and between the United States
and Japan. If confirmed, I would work with DOD and interagency
colleagues to continue strengthening these alliances.
Question. In view of recent speculation regarding the possible poor
health of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, what do you believe the
United States should be doing now, if anything, to prepare for the
possibility of a change in leadership in North Korea?
Answer. The manifestations of sudden change in North Korea could
take different forms, including a sudden health crisis or change in
leadership in Pyongyang. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the
United States and our allies are capable of addressing sudden onset
crises. Fundamentally, our focus should be ensuring we are ready to
maintain stability in the region, support defense of the Republic of
Korea and Japan, and prevent the proliferation of WMD or other
dangerous technologies from North Korea.
Question. If confirmed, would you undertake a review of the status
of the efforts to obtain from North Korea remains of U.S.
servicemembers who have been missing since the Korean War ?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Under what circumstances do you think that such efforts
should resume?
Answer. I believe these efforts should resume once appropriate
conditions exist that both enable us to carry out the important mission
and ensure the safety of our personnel.
republic of korea
Question. The alliance between the United States and the Republic
of Korea (ROK) is 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. I believe that the U.S.-ROK alliance remains strong and
continues to ensure peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in
Northeast Asia. In the face of changes in the regional security
environment, the United States and the ROK have made great strides in
transforming their collective deterrent and defense posture. In
particular, the ROK has made major strides in developing its defense
capabilities, commensurate with its economic development. Consequently,
the alliance remains relevant and capable both for deterring aggression
on the peninsula and for addressing regional and global security
issues.
Question. If confirmed, what measures, if any, would you take to
improve the U.S.-ROK security relationship?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support the realignment of U.S.
forces on the Korean peninsula and the return of facilities that our
forces no longer require. The United States is also working toward new
command and control relationships with Korea and we need to ensure that
contingency plans remain appropriate to the situations we face.
Additionally, I believe it is important to ensure the U.S. and Korean
publics continue to understand the enduring mutual benefits derived
from this alliance, and that we work effectively with the Republic of
Korea as it plays an increasing role in regional and global security
issues commensurate with its economic clout and influence.
Question. What is your view regarding the planned timing of the
transfer of wartime operational command to the ROK?
Answer. As Secretary Gates said publicly following his meeting with
the Korean Minister of Defense last October, the ROK military forces
and U.S. forces are on track to complete the alliance agreement to
transition wartime operational control in 2012. This effort will enable
the ROK military to take the lead role in the defense of Korea. If
confirmed, I will support the efforts of the Secretary, this committee,
and others to ensure that the important transition in command
relationships is carried out in a manner that strengthens deterrence
and maintains a fully capable U.S.-ROK combined defense posture on the
Korean Peninsula.
Question. What do you view as the optimal timeline, and major
milestones, for consolidating U.S. forces south of Seoul at Camp
Humphreys?
Answer. I understand that Camp Humphreys represents an essential
part of our joint effort with our ROK allies to reduce the overall U.S.
military footprint and consolidate U.S. forces in modern and enduring
facilities away from the congested center of Seoul. This realignment of
U.S. forces is mutually beneficial, and therefore it is our desire to
implement these plans as efficiently as possible. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with United States Forces Korea, U.S. Pacific
Command, and others in DOD to review the timeline involved.
u.s. africa command (africom)
Question. The creation of Africa Command has raised questions about
the role of DOD in U.S. development efforts in Africa.
What do you see as the role of AFRICOM in U.S.-African policy and
in development and humanitarian engagement?
Answer. The Department of State and USAID lead U.S. foreign policy
and development engagements abroad, to include Africa. AFRICOM is
intended to promote a coordinated engagement approach to Africa.
Ideally, AFRICOM's supporting role should promote national security
objectives by working with African states, regional organizations, and
the African Union to enhance regional stability and security.
Specifically, AFRICOM should help pursue closer U.S. military-to-
military relations with African states. If confirmed, I would support
DOD's efforts to maintain strong interagency relationships and work
with Congress to ensure that AFRICOM assists in advancing U.S. foreign
policy and national security objectives.
Question. AFRICOM's leadership has promoted the concept of ``active
security,'' with an increased emphasis on theater security cooperation,
as a guiding principle of the command.
Are DOD's current security assistance authorities (e.g., section
1206 train-and-equip authority) and funding levels adequate to fulfill
AFRICOM's mission? If yes, please explain. If not, why not?
Answer. I have not been briefed in detail on AFRICOM's current and
projected requirements to fulfill its mission. If confirmed and if
asked to study the matter, I will provide my views to USD(P) Flournoy
and if requested the members of this committee.
Question. The Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA)
mission appears to have shifted from counter-terrorism to civil and
humanitarian affairs since its inception in 2002.
What do you see as CJTF-HOA's primary mission?
Answer. I understand that the CJTF-HOA is designed to support the
State Department's and DOD's security strategy in Africa to counter
violent extremism, in part through building partner capacity and
promoting regional stability.
Question. Do you believe it should continue as an enduring
presence? If yes, what recommendations, if any, might you make
regarding manpower, resources, and activities?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support the USD(P)'s interaction with
the Joint Staff and with AFRICOM to assess this issue, and would aid in
efforts to ensure that U.S. security interests in the region are
supported by an appropriate, properly balanced and resourced posture to
promote long-term stability in the region.
darfur
Question. More than 4 years after then-Secretary of State Colin
Powell's declaration that genocide was taking place in Darfur, the
death toll has continued to climb, the camps for displaced persons have
grown more crowded, and humanitarian access to help people in need has
diminished in many areas. The member nations of the United Nations have
pledged to send 26,000 peacekeepers to Darfur, but have sent less than
half that number and has not provided them with the helicopters,
vehicles, and other tools to fulfill their mission.
What do you believe is the appropriate role of the United States
and, in particular, DOD, in assisting with the deployment and mobility
of this peacekeeping mission, given that its creation was largely a
U.S. initiative and today is largely funded by a variety of U.S.
assistance programs?
Answer. I support President Obama's statements concerning the need
to pressure the Sudanese authorities in Khartoum to halt the genocide
in Darfur. It is my understanding that both the Defense and State
Departments have supported the deployment of African contingents to the
U.N. Darfur mission by providing a variety of enablers, to include
equipment, logistical expertise, deployment assistance, and airlift.
united nations peacekeeping
Question. The DOD has provided logistics, communications, and
headquarters staff to a variety of U.N. peacekeeping missions over the
past several years.
In your view, what support, if any, should DOD provide to U.N.
peacekeeping missions?
Answer. The U.N. operates peacekeeping forces in a wide variety of
venues--from Central and West Africa to the Middle East and the
Caribbean--and the United States has important security and
humanitarian stakes in the success of these missions. To ensure the
best use of DOD's logistics, communications, headquarters staffing, and
other forms of enabling assistance, the issue of U.S. support for U.N.
field missions is certainly worthy of careful study in close
consultation with our State Department colleagues, and subsequently
with other U.N. member states.
Question. The United States along with its partners in the G-8
sponsored an initiative to train 75,000 peacekeepers by 2010. This
program, known as the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI), is run
by the Department of State. DOD has provided varying degrees of support
since the program's inception.
In your view, what is the appropriate role of DOD in this program
and, more generally, in the training of peacekeepers?
Answer. DOD has long played an important role in the training and
equipping of international peacekeeping units. In this regard, I
believe that DOD collaboration with State is important to successfully
identifying and vetting viable partners, analyzing indigenous
capacities, developing sustainable train-the-trainer programs, and
promoting self-sufficiency in this critical area so that more nations
can more effectively contribute to the increasing demand for skilled
peacekeepers around the world.
Question. If confirmed, would you support or oppose an extension of
the GPOI program and its mandate beyond its scheduled end date in 2010?
Please explain.
Answer. In general, the United States has a strong interest in
helping to expand the pool of available peacekeepers worldwide,
including those with whom we may need to operate jointly. President
Obama has stated his support for continued funding for GPOI. If
confirmed, I would do my part to work closely with State Department
colleagues as well as Members of Congress to ensure GPOI supports the
President's objectives in this area.
somalia
Question. In your view, what should the U.S. policy towards Somalia
be and what do you believe to be the appropriate role of DOD in support
of that policy?
Answer. Somalia's political turmoil and violence poses not only the
specter of continued humanitarian suffering but also a security danger
in that it provides a safe haven to violent extremists and, more
recently, to pirates who prey upon international shipping routes
through the Gulf of Aden. Instability in Somalia is a threat to the
region and potentially to the United States and our allies. If
confirmed, I will support DOD's efforts to work with the interagency to
develop a coordinated U.S. national security policy toward Africa that
addresses the U.S. strategic interests in the Horn of Africa, and to
determine how DOD can and should best support this policy.
combating terrorism
Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the
Department's comprehensive strategy for combating terrorism, both at
home and abroad?
Answer. The Department's strategy for combating terrorism has three
pillars: protecting the homeland, disrupting and attacking terrorist
networks, and countering ideological support for terrorism. The
strategy includes indirect approaches aimed at building the capacity of
partner governments and their security forces as well as direct
approaches to defeat terrorist networks. Consistent with existing law,
the Department's role within the United States is limited to providing
support to civil authorities.
It is my view that the United States needs a more comprehensive and
cohesive strategy for combating terrorism. An integrated interagency
approach is needed that combines all tools of statecraft, and fully
engages allies and international organizations. If confirmed, and as
directed, I look forward to working with the Assistant Secretary of
Defense (SOLIC & IC) and other colleagues within the Department and
across the interagency to undertake a review and assessment of our
strategy to ensure it meets the goals of the President and the
Secretary of Defense.
Question. How can the Department best structure itself to ensure
that all forms of terrorism are effectively confronted?
Answer. While I have not been briefed in enough detail to provide a
complete answer, if confirmed and as directed I would welcome the
opportunity to work with the Assistant Secretary of Defense (SOLIC &
IC) to assist the USD(P) and the Secretary of Defense in evaluating the
Department's counterterrorism posture to help ensure that it is
appropriately organized to protect and defend against all forms of
terrorism.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the defense
intelligence community to ensure optimal support to combating terrorism
and other homeland security efforts?
Answer. Timely and accurate intelligence is a vital part of U.S.
counterterrorism efforts. If confirmed, I will help the USD(P) continue
the close relationship Policy has with the Under Secretary of Defense
for Intelligence and the Intelligence Community to ensure intelligence
and operations are mutually supportive.
Question. Are there steps the Department should take to better
coordinate its efforts to combat terrorism with those of other Federal
agencies?
Answer. I expect that there is room for improvement in this area of
vital national interest, but because of the sensitive nature of some
activities, I do not at present have a comprehensive view. If
confirmed, I look forward to developing such a view, and supporting the
refinement and implementation of a comprehensive interagency approach
to the challenge of combating extremism and terrorism.
Question. The Department and Intelligence Community have determined
that some terrorist organizations are beginning to rely more heavily on
producing and trafficking narcotics to fund their operations.
Do you believe the DOD should have the lead for the U.S.
Government's efforts to combat the nexus between narcotics and
terrorism?
Answer. The link between narcotics and terrorism is a serious and
growing issue. This requires a comprehensive interagency approach, in
which DOD plays an important part. The Department possesses important
tools and provides extensive capabilities designed to counter networks
that support both terrorist and international criminal organizations.
If confirmed, I expect to support the USD(P) and work with ASD(SOLIC &
IC) to help review DOD's role in this area and coordinate with other
elements of the U.S. Government to determine the best way forward.
war on drugs
Question. DOD serves as the single lead agency for the detection
and monitoring of aerial and maritime foreign shipments of drugs
flowing toward the United States.
What is your assessment of the ongoing efforts of the United States
to significantly reduce the amount of drugs illegally entering into our
Nation?
Answer. Drug trafficking is a significant and growing threat that
affects not only the United States but many of our key partnership
including Afghanistan, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,
Mexico, Nicaragua, and parts of West Africa. Traffickers often employ
advanced technology and corrupt governments to facilitate the drug
trade. Although the U.S. Government has made progress in coordinating
interagency efforts, there is more to be done to counter this threat.
If confirmed, I will assist the Department's effort to work with its
interagency partners in assessing its efforts to date and develop an
improved way forward.
Question. In your view, what is the appropriate role of DOD in U.S.
counterdrug efforts?
Answer. The Department's global focus, organization, capabilities,
and its ability to act as an honest broker provide a useful complement
to law enforcement agencies and make it an effective partner in global
counterdrug efforts. DOD brings effective tools and global capabilities
to interagency efforts to counter both terrorist and international
criminal networks that often utilize the drug trade.
The international community has detected a new narcotics
trafficking route from Colombia to Europe via West Africa. In your
view, what should be the role of the United States in countering the
flow of narcotics to nations other than the United States?
The spread and trafficking of narcotics is a global issue and, like
other complex global issues, cannot be effectively addressed by
individual states pursing different and separate strategies. The United
States should work with its allies and international organizations to
counter the drug trade through coordinated and strategic civil-military
efforts.
nuclear posture review
Question. If confirmed, what role will you play in the NPR?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support the USD(P) in overseeing the
NPR. I would expect to engage other senior officials in DOD, as well
officials in the Departments of Energy and State in this review, and to
consult fully with members of this committee.
dod's cooperative threat reduction program
Question. Do you think the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR)
program is well-coordinated among the U.S. Government agencies that
engage in threat reduction efforts in Russia--namely, DOD and the
Departments of State and Energy?
Answer. I am aware that President Obama has expressed his concern
about the need to break bureaucratic logjams that have slowed the
progress of CTR and other threat reduction programs in the recent past.
If confirmed, I will support USD(P) in giving this matter the urgent
attention it deserves.
Question. The CTR program was recently expanded to geographic areas
outside the former Soviet Union.
What in your view are the key proliferation concerns that CTR
should address outside the former Soviet Union?
Answer. Expanding the geographic reach of the Nunn-Lugar CTR
program beyond the former Soviet Union strikes me as an important step
toward reducing WMD threats and building global partnerships. I am also
aware that recent bipartisan reports, including the report from the
Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction,
Proliferation, and Terrorism, have stressed the importance of reducing
nuclear threats wherever possible and highlight bioterrorism as a key
proliferation concern demanding greater attention. If confirmed, I will
look forward to working closely with Congress, other U.S. Government
agencies, and global partners to strengthen our efforts to prevent WMD
proliferation and terrorism.
Question. The CTR program has completed or will soon complete the
bulk of the scheduled work with Russia.
What in your view is the next step in the U.S.-Russia CTR program?
Answer. I believe that CTR programs in Russia should remain a high
priority. Clearly, the Nunn-Lugar CTR program represents an important
and very successful relationship between our two countries which has
endured even as difficulties have grown in other aspects of our
relations. If confirmed, I will support USD(P) in expanding this
relationship and the capabilities built through CTR for mutually
beneficial purposes to reduce the risks of WMD proliferation and
terrorism outside of Russia.
united nations convention on the law of the sea
Question. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) is currently pending in the Senate.
What are your views on U.S. accession to UNCLOS?
Answer. I support U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention.
It is in America's enduring interest to be at the forefront of
promoting the rule of law, including in the world's oceans. Were we to
become a party to the Convention it would send a clear signal to the
world that we are committed to advancing the rule of law at sea.
Additionally under the Convention, we would provide the firmest
possible legal foundation for the navigational rights and freedoms
needed to project power, reassure our friends and allies, deter
adversaries, respond to crises, sustain deployed combat forces, and
secure sea and air lines of communication that underpin international
trade and our own economic prosperity.
Question. From a national security standpoint, what do you see as
the legal advantages and disadvantages to being a party to UNCLOS?
Answer. Were the United States to join the convention, it would
provide a seat at the table when rights vital to our national interests
are debated and interpreted, including the maritime mobility of our
armed forces worldwide. The navigation and overflight rights and high
seas freedoms codified in the Convention are essential for the global
mobility of our Armed Forces and the sustainment of our combat forces
overseas. America has more to gain from legal certainty and public
order in the world's oceans than any other country. More than 150
nations are parties to the Convention. By becoming a party, the United
States will be better positioned to work with foreign air forces,
navies, and coast guards to cooperatively address the full spectrum of
21st century security challenges. More so than at any time in our past,
it is in our national interest to lead, and be seen to lead, by helping
frame a judicious and prudent approach to better ensure stability at
sea.
bilateral defense trade cooperation agreements
Question. Defense trade cooperation agreements between the United
States and the United Kingdom and between the United States and
Australia are currently pending before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee.
What are your views on the U.S.-U.K. and U.S.-Australia defense
trade cooperation agreements?
Answer. While I have not had the opportunity to review these
agreements in detail, I support the general objectives of the U.S.-U.K.
and U.S.-Australia Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties. I also believe
that robust interoperability with these two key allies along with the
enhanced protection of our defense articles pursuant to the treaties
will further America's national security interests. If confirmed, I
will support the USD(P) and the State Department in working with the
Senate to resolve any issues related to ratification.
Question. In your view, are these agreements in the national
security interest of the United States?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review these agreements
in detail, but I believe that the intent of the treaties to increase
defense trade and interoperability with these two key allies is sound
and in the interest of our national security. If confirmed, and if
asked, I will review the treaties in detail and support the USD(P) and
the Department of State in working with the Senate to address any
issues.
arms control
Question. What role do you see for arms control as a means of
improving U.S. national security?
Answer. Arms control has been an important element of U.S. national
security policy since the Cold War and it remains important today. This
is especially so if such negotiations can help to stave off unwanted
competition among states and strengthen our efforts to curb
proliferation. Engaging other nations in a process that builds
confidence, increases transparency, reduces arsenals, and enhances
cooperation has been, and remains, important to our interests. Arms
control negotiations can also further progress towards the President's
long-term goal of eliminating nuclear weapons.
Question. What are your views on the next bilateral steps to
address nuclear weapons issues between the United States and Russia?
Answer. High level engagement between Washington and Moscow will be
critical in addressing the wide variety of issues, including (but not
limited to) nuclear weapons issues. One key issue that both nations
will need to address in the coming months is the expiration of START in
December 2009.
Question. What elements of START, if any, do you believe should be
retained in any future agreement?
Answer. I believe that the most important element to retain in any
future agreement is the extension of essential monitoring and
verification provisions contained in the current START. In addition, I
believe that the United States should pursue further reductions in
strategic warheads, and should encourage Russia to structure its
strategic forces in ways that promote predictability, security, and
strategic stability.
Question. In the absence of a START extension or successor treaty,
what steps would you take to extend, expand, and to verify the Moscow
Treaty?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support the USD(P) in determining the
best path forward with respect to START, the Moscow Treaty, and any
successor agreements.
Question. What is your view of the role of the Nuclear NPT in U.S.
national security, and how should it be strengthened or improved?
Answer. The NPT is an important tool for constraining further
nuclear proliferation. A first priority in preserving and strengthening
the treaty regime is working with our international partners to roll
back North Korea's nuclear weapons program and stop Iran from acquiring
nuclear weapons. We should also work to strengthen the treaty by
encouraging states to adhere to the NPT and to agree to IAEA safeguards
inspections. I support President Obama's view that we need to work with
our allies, partners, and other nations to achieve a successful outcome
in the 2010 NPT review conference. One way to strengthen the NPT regime
would be to ensure that any violation automatically triggers sanctions.
Others should be examined as well. I believe that success in these
efforts will be more likely if the United States sets an example by
pursuing negotiated reductions with Russia.
Question. Do you support a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)?
Answer. Yes, I share the President's assessment that ratifying and
ultimately acceding to the CTBT is in America's national security
interest, and believe that with careful planning and continued
investment that the United States can ensure the safety, reliability,
surety, security, and sustainability of our nuclear deterrent under a
CTBT.
ballistic missile defense
Question. Do you agree that any ballistic missile defense systems
that we deploy operationally must be operationally effective, suitable,
survivable, cost-effective, affordable, and should address a credible
threat?
Answer. Yes. I understand that the United States currently has
operationally deployed a range of sea-based and ground-based ballistic
missile defense systems to protect our forward-based forces, allies,
and other friendly nations against short- and medium-range missile
threats and to defend the U.S. Homeland against longer-range threats.
If confirmed, I would do my part to ensure that further U.S.
development and deployment of missile defenses is done in a pragmatic,
cost-effective fashion, and is appropriate to the threats of today and
the potential threats of tomorrow.
Question. Do you agree that U.S. missile defense efforts should be
prioritized on providing effective defenses against existing ballistic
missile threats, especially the many hundreds of short- and medium-
range ballistic missiles that are currently within range of our
forward-based forces, allies, and other friendly nations?
Answer. I agree that the threats posed by short- and medium-range
ballistic missiles are growing and deserve priority attention. At the
same time, I believe that it is important to defend the U.S. Homeland
against potential longer-range threats that may emanate for example
from North Korea and/or Iran. If confirmed, I will support efforts to
review our BMD programs and consult with Congress to ensure we have an
appropriate mix of short-, medium-, and long-range ballistic missile
defense capabilities that are responsive to existing and emerging
threats to our Homeland, deployed forces, allies, and other friendly
nations.
Question. Do you agree that ballistic missile defense testing needs
to be operationally realistic, and should include the Operational Test
and Evaluation Office, in order to assess operational capabilities and
limitations of ballistic missile defense systems, prior to making
decisions to deploy such systems?
Answer. Yes. While missile defense testing is not a Policy
responsibility, I strongly concur with the view that missile defense
testing should be operationally realistic and should involve the
Operational Test and Evaluation office as well as our warfighters.
Question. If the United States and Russia could agree on a
cooperative approach on missile defense issues, do you believe it would
be in the security interest of the United States to pursue such an
effort?
Answer. I believe that it is possible that a cooperative approach
on missile defense could be in U.S. interests; the answer would depend
on the details of such an approach. More broadly, I believe that
working with Russia in areas where we have common security concerns can
be in the interests of both of our countries. Efforts to cooperate with
Russia on missile defense to address the risk of ballistic missile and
WMD proliferation go back to the 1990s. I understand that in recent
years, the United States has continued to explore missile defense
cooperation with Russia. If confirmed, I will review the recent
efforts, consult with colleagues in DOD and the State Department, and
help recommend an appropriate course of action for possible
consideration by the administration and Congress.
chemical weapons elimination and the chemical weapons convention
Question. Do you agree that the Department should plan and budget
for the most expeditious elimination of the U.S. chemical weapons
stockpile, consistent with safety and security requirements, in order
to complete the destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile as
close to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) deadline as possible?
Answer. Yes. I am aware, however, there are competing priorities to
balance. Although I have not yet examined this issue in detail, I
understand that in 2006, the United States informed the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) that it would not meet
this deadline, but would accelerate the destruction effort as much as
practical. To date, I understand that the Department is on track to
destroy 90 percent of the U.S. stockpile by the CWC deadline.
space management and organization
Question. What role, if any, do you believe the Principal Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (PDUSD(P)) should play in the
formulation of national security space policy?
Answer. Outer space is becoming a more contested arena for the
United States; we cannot take a complacent attitude about the
motivations and capabilities of other space-faring actors. As the
administration conducts its policy review, I believe that, as directed,
the PDUSD(P) should support the Secretary of Defense and the USD(P) in
defining U.S. interests, objectives, and options, and in representing
DOD perspectives to the interagency. I understand that the recent
congressionally-directed Review and Assessment of the Organization and
Management of Space in DOD has recommended the development of a
National Space Strategy. If this initiative is adopted and I am
confirmed, I will consult with Secretary Gates and Under Secretary
Flournoy on the desired role of the PDUSD(P) in the development and
coordination of any such strategy.
national guard and reserve role in homeland defense
Question. There is current debate about the role the National Guard
and Reserves should play in defending the Homeland and in providing
support to civilian authorities with responsibility for Homeland
Security.
What role do you believe the National Guard and Reserves should
have in defending the Homeland as compared to supporting Homeland
Security?
Answer. The National Guard and the Reserves--the Army Reserve, the
Navy Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, and the Air Force Reserve--do
indeed have complementary roles to play in defending the Homeland and
in supporting Homeland Security. Their allocation for Homeland Security
as opposed to Homeland Defense roles is something that deserves careful
review. The National Guard and Reserves have extensive competencies and
capabilities vital to defending the United States from attack by
executing military missions to deter, defend against, and defeat those
who threaten the United States and to assisting civil authorities in
securing the United States from the threat and effects of natural
disasters, terrorism, and other manmade disasters.
homeland defense
Question. What is your understanding of the difference, or
delineation, between the missions of Homeland Defense and Homeland
Security?
Answer. It appears that DOD and Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) coordination is still a work in progress. The two Departments do
indeed have complementary and mutually supporting roles, missions, and
responsibilities. DOD is responsible for the military defense of the
United States from attack upon its territory at home and securing its
interests abroad; its military missions aim to deter, defend against,
and defeat those who threaten the United States. For its part, DHS is
responsible for leading the Nation's efforts to prepare for, protect
against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate against the risk of
natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters; to
secure the Nation's borders, ports, and airports; and to ensure that
the Federal Government works with States, localities, and the private
sector as a true partner in prevention, mitigation, and response. As
necessary, and consistent with the law, DOD provides support to DHS in
the execution of its missions.
Question. What do you believe are the principal roles and missions
of the Department of Defense for Homeland Defense, and how do they
relate to the roles, missions, and responsibilities of DHS?
Answer. See preceding answer.
reorganization of the office of the under secretary of defense for
policy
Question. What is your understanding of changes that have been
approved, if any, to the organization of the OUSD(P)?
Answer. In response to questions from the Senate Armed Services
Committee during her confirmation process, now-USD(P) Flournoy stated
that she anticipated the need to shift some portfolios to better align
the Policy organization with President Obama's and Secretary Gates'
policy objectives. My understanding is that Under Secretary Flournoy
has advised the Secretary of Defense of potential changes intended to
elevate the functions of strategy development and force management to
better provide policy guidance for the Secretary, to enhance the
oversight and policy role regarding strategic issues (e.g., combating
WMD, nuclear deterrence, missile defense, space, and cyberspace
issues), and to improve integration of efforts across OSD Policy. It is
my understanding that the Secretary of Defense has approved Under
Secretary Flournoy's plan to realign these and other selected functions
within the organization.
Question. What would be your role in implementing any proposed
changes to the organization of the OUSD(P)?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support the USD(P) as directed in
implementing changes that support alignment of the Policy organization
to the President's and Secretary of Defense's policy objectives, and
would provide my assessment of the effectiveness of these changes over
time to the USD(P), the Secretary of Defense, and if requested, to the
Armed Services Committees.
private security contractors
Question. Do you believe DOD and other Federal agencies should rely
on contractors to perform security functions that may reasonably be
expected to require the use of deadly force in highly hazardous public
areas in an area of combat operations?
Answer. In my view, wherever possible it would be preferable for
military and where appropriate other government security personnel
(U.S., coalition, and/or host nation) to perform such security
functions. I understand and appreciate the concerns of Congress on this
issue and believe that a comprehensive review of the role of military
contractors on the battlefield, and the current and potential future
capacities of DOD and other agencies, is needed in order to set the
terms for possible future use. I also believe that improved oversight
and transparency is needed in how private security contractors are
utilized and to establish clear standards regarding accountability,
command and control, Rules of Engagement, and personnel policies. If
confirmed, I will support the USD(P) in working with civilian and
military officials of the Department and others who have responsibility
for policy development and employment of private security contractors.
Question. In your view, has the U.S. reliance upon private security
contractors to perform such functions risked undermining our defense
and foreign policy objectives in Iraq?
Answer. I think it is clear that several high-profile incidents in
Iraq involving private security contractors harmed U.S. policy
objectives. I understand that in December 2007 DOD and the Department
of State agreed on consistent procedures for use of private security
contractors in Iraq; moreover, both Departments have been transitioning
to greater use of local nationals wherever practical. If confirmed, I
expect to work on this issue with the USD(P) and others.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
any private security contractors who may continue to operate in an area
of combat operations act in a responsible manner, consistent with U.S.
defense and foreign policy objectives?
Answer. The use of security contractors in any area of combat
operations must be fully coordinated among all agencies that employ
them. There must be unified procedures and strong oversight for all
such contractors, regardless of which U.S. agency hires them.
Commanders on the ground should have the authority to restrict or
redirect their operations as appropriate. There must be assured legal
accountability for the actions of all security contractors, not just
those employed by the Defense Department.
Question. How do you believe the ongoing operations of private
security contractors in Iraq are likely to be affected by the new
security agreement between the United States and Iraq?
Answer. I understand that since January 1, 2009, U.S. Government
private security contractors no longer have immunity from Iraqi law.
Furthermore, they must comply with Iraqi registration and licensing
requirements. For all contractors, the security agreement has meant
substantially more liaison and coordination with Iraqi authorities at
all levels.
Question. Do you support the extension of the Military
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act to private security contractors used
by all Federal agencies overseas?
Answer. Yes.
information operations
Question. What in your view is the role of the Office of the USD(P)
in managing DOD public diplomacy and information operations activities?
If confirmed, what do you envision would be the role of the PDUSD(P) in
these efforts?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department of State is the
lead agency for public diplomacy and strategic communication, and that
DOD works closely with the Department of State to ensure that DOD
information activities support U.S. public diplomacy priorities and
strategic communication efforts. Within DOD, OSD Policy plays an
important role in the strategic communication planning process,
necessitating close collaboration across the Department. If confirmed
as the PDUSD(P), I would work to ensure that DOD works effectively with
the State Department and others agencies and departments as
appropriate, while continuing to improve the military's ability to
support U.S. efforts in the changing information environment.
Question. In October 2008, DOD announced a plan to award contracts
in excess of $300 million to U.S. contractors to conduct ``information
operations'' through the Iraqi media. The purposes of this contract
include building up support for the Government of Iraq, the security
forces of Iraq, and undermining Iranian influence in Iraq.
What is your view of the appropriate roles of DOD and the
Department of State in media campaigns to build up support for the
government and security forces of Iraq and undermining Iranian
influence in Iraq?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to become familiar with the
details of these programs, but believe they deserve careful scrutiny.
If confirmed, I would expect to look into these matters and look
forward to sharing any conclusions with the committee.
Question. What is your view on the effectiveness of information
operations conducted by the United States through the Iraqi media?
Answer. See previous answer.
Question. Do you see a risk that a DOD media campaign designed to
build up support for the government and security forces of Iraq could
result in the inappropriate dissemination of propaganda inside the
United States through the internet and other media that cross
international boundaries?
Answer. See previous answer.
Question. A spokesman for the Iraqi Government has been quoted as
saying that any future DOD information operations in the Iraqi media
should be a joint effort with the Iraqi Government. According to an
article in the Washington Post, the spokesman stated: ``We don't have a
hand in all the propaganda that is being done now. It could be done
much better when Iraqis have a word and Iraqis can advise.''
Do you believe that DOD information operations through the Iraqi
media should be conducted jointly with the Iraqis?
Answer. See previous answer.
Question. Under what circumstances do you believe that it is
appropriate for the DOD to conduct information operations in a
sovereign country without the knowledge and support of the host
country?
Answer. See previous answer.
detainee treatment policy
Question. Section 1403 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006 provides 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.
In your view, is this prohibition in the best interest of the
United States? Why or why not?
Answer. Yes, I believe that the prohibition on cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment is in America's best strategic
interest and consistent with our values. For decades during the Cold
War with the Soviet Union and during long wars in a variety of theatres
in the last century, America's image as a just and honorable global
leader was retained in large part because of how we treated our
adversaries and not simply our friends. Holding true to the values that
lay at America's foundation is critical to ensuring that America's men
and women in uniform enjoy the moral high ground when we ask them to go
into harm's way. Perhaps more so in this century than during the last,
American influence will stem from the power of our example and not
simply the example of our power. If we are to defeat violent extremism,
we must hold true to the ideals that made this country great, and
continue to inspire the growth of freedom and tolerance around the
world.
Question. Do you believe that the phrase ``cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment'' has been adequately and
appropriately defined for the purpose of this provision?
Answer. I understand that there are potential ambiguities in the
application of these principles to specific cases, but have not
received enough information to form a proper opinion on this question.
If confirmed, I would expect to work with the DOD General Counsel on
this issue.
Question. If confirmed, will you take steps to ensure that all
relevant DOD directives, regulations, policies, practices, and
procedures fully comply with the requirements of section 1403 and with
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 DOD
Detainee Program, dated September 5, 2006?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Section 2441 of title 18, U.S.C., as amended by the
Military Commissions Act of 2006, defines grave breaches of common
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, including torture and cruel and
inhuman treatment.
In your view, does section 2441 define these terms in a manner that
provides appropriate protection from abusive treatment to U.S.
detainees in foreign custody and to foreign detainees in U.S. custody?
Answer. Yes. However, I am not a lawyer, and if confirmed, I would
consult with the DOD General Counsel regarding this issue.
Question. The President has announced his intention to close the
detention facility for enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
What role, if any, would you expect to play, if confirmed, in
reviewing the status of Guantanamo detainees and determining whether
the United States should continue to hold such detainees?
Answer. If confirmed as PDUSD(P) and if asked, I would provide
policy advice to the USD(P) and the Secretary of Defense regarding the
closure of Guantanamo Bay and the disposition of the remaining detainee
population.
Question. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 authorized the trial
of ``unlawful enemy combatants'' by military commission and established
the procedures for such trials.
What role, if any, would you expect to play, if confirmed, in
determining whether Guantanamo detainees should be tried for war
crimes, and if so, in what forum?
Answer. If confirmed, I understand that I would play no role in
determining which specific detainees should be tried for war crimes.
Should there be a review of options for war crimes trials, I would
expect to play a role in advising the USD(P) and the Secretary of
Defense on policy matters.
Question. What role, if any, would you expect to play, if
confirmed, in reviewing the Military Commissions Act and developing
administration recommendations for any changes that may be needed to
that Act?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to play a role in advising the
USD(P) and the Secretary of Defense on policy options.
Question. In the past 2 years, significant changes have been made
in Iraq in the way detention operations have been conducted in a
counterinsurgency environment, including through the establishment of
reintegration centers at theater internment facilities.
What do you consider to be the main lessons learned from the
changes to detention operations in Iraq?
Answer. I believe the main lessons learned from the changes to
detention operations in Iraq reflect the insight that during
counterinsurgency and stability operations, the strategic center of
gravity is the health and welfare of the population, and not
necessarily the strength or disposition of insurgent groups. Protecting
the population--including those incarcerated by U.S. or host nation
forces--and being seen to treat the people with respect and honor, is
perhaps the most effective force multiplier that can be generated
during these complex operations. If confirmed as PDUSD(P), I would be
interested in working to ensure these counterinsurgency based programs
can be tailored and applied more broadly to our detention operations in
Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Question. What should be done to incorporate those lessons learned
into DOD doctrine, procedures, and training for personnel involved in
detention and interrogation operations?
Answer. Like many of the hard won lessons gleaned from our ongoing
experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think civilian leaders have a
vital role to play in ensuring that valuable innovations concerning
detention and interrogation operations should be institutionalized in
order to prevent a recurrence of future mistakes and oversights. If
confirmed as PDUSD(P), I would work to ensure that these efforts
continue in DOD schoolhouses, manuals, publications, and training, and
that these lessons are applied in all of our detention operations.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Principal Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
Question. 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 of any good faith delay or denial in providing such
documents?
Answer. Yes.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. James N. Miller, Jr.,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
March 10, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
James N. Miller, Jr., of Virginia, to be Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, vice Christopher Ryan Henry.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. James N. Miller, Jr., which
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. James N. Miller, Jr.
Dr. James N. Miller, Jr. is Senior Vice President and Director of
Studies at the Center for a New American Security, where he has served
since February 2007. Previous positions include serving as Senior Vice
President (2003-2007) and Vice President (2000-2003) at Hicks and
Associates, Inc.; Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Requirements, Plans, and Counterproliferation Policy (1997-2000);
assistant professor at Duke University (1992-1997); and senior
professional staff member for the House Armed Services Committee (1988-
1992). He is a member of the International Institute for Strategic
Studies and the Combating WMD Panel of DOD's Threat Reduction Advisory
Committee. He has served as an advisor to the Defense Science Board, as
senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
and as senior associate member at St. Antony's College, Oxford. In 2000
he received the Department of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public
Service. Dr. Miller received a B.A. degree with honors in economics
from Stanford University, and Master's and Ph.D. degrees in public
policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. James N.
Miller, 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.)
James Northey Miller, Jr. (Nicknames: Jim, Jimmy).
2. Position to which nominated:
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
3. Date of nomination:
March 10, 2009.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
August 15, 1959; Waterloo, IA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to former Adele Marie Balk.
7. Names and ages of children:
Allison Northey Miller; 18.
Zoe Adele Miller; 16.
Colin James Miller; 14.
Lucas Eugene Miller; 12.
Adrienne Sara Miller; 8.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Harvard University, 1985-1988. Ph.D. in Public Policy, March 1989.
Harvard University, 1983-1985. Masters in Public Policy, June 1985.
Stanford University, 1981-1983. (graduate study in Statistics. No
degree).
Stanford University, 1977-1981. B.A. with honors in Economics, June
1981.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Senior Vice President and Director of Studies, Center for a New
American Security, 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite #403, Washington,
DC; February 2007-present.
President, Adaptive Strategies, LLC, 3701 N. Harrison St.,
Arlington, VA; August 2006-present. (Sole-person company used for
consulting).
President, The Miller Agency, Inc., 2615 W. 4th St, Waterloo, IA;
July 2006-present. (Assumed unpaid position upon death of father. The
company is pending dissolution.)
Consulting Employee, SAIC, 1710 SAIC Drive, McLean, VA; February
2007-November 2008.
Senior Associate, CSIS, 1800 K St., NW, Washington, DC; October
2006-February 2007.
Senior Vice President, Hicks and Associates, Inc., 1710 SAIC Drive,
McLean, VA; October 2000-February 2007. (Started in 2000 as Vice
President).
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Requirements, Plans, and
Counterproliferation, Department of Defense, September 1997-October
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.
Member, Defense Science Board Summer Study Task Force on Challenges
to Military Operations in Support of National Interests
(uncompensated), 2007.
Member, Threat Reduction Advisory Council Panel on Combating
Weapons of Mass Destruction (uncompensated), 2006-present.
Consultant to Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and
Requirements, Defense Department, June-September 1997.
Consultant to Deputy to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy,
Defense Department, April 1994-April 1995.
Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget, June-September 1984 (summer employment).
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.
Senior Vice President and Director of Studies, Center for a New
American Security, 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite #403, Washington,
DC.
President, Adaptive Strategies, LLC, 3701 N. Harrison St.,
Arlington, VA. (Sole-person company used for consulting).
President, The Miller Agency, Inc., 2615 W. 4th St, Waterloo, IA.
(Assumed unpaid position upon death of father. The company is pending
dissolution.)
The following all as part of consulting done under Adaptive
Strategies, LLC:
Consultant, Systems Planning & Analysis, Inc., 2001 N.
Beauregard St, Alexandria, VA.
Consultant, National Institute for Public Policy, 9302 Lee
Highway, Suite 750, Fairfax, VA.
Consultant, Northrop Grumman Corp., 1000 Wilson Blvd. Suite
2300, Rosslyn, VA.
Consultant, Booz Allen Hamilton, 8283 Greensboro Drive,
McLean, VA.
Consultant, CSIS, 1800 K St., NW, Washington, DC.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member, International Institute for Strategic Studies.
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.
Barack Obama Presidential Campaign: $100 (Nov. 7, 2008).
Barack Obama Presidential Campaign: $1,000 (Oct. 2, 2008).
Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign: $1,500 (Sept. 26, 2007).
Committee for Senator Jack Reed: $1,000 (June 29, 2006).
14. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Member, International Institute for Strategic Studies (2007-
present).
Department of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service (2000).
Atlantic Fellow in Public Policy (1995-1996).
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Iran: Assessing U.S. Strategic Options, with Christine Parthemore
and Kurt M. Campbell (Washington, DC: Center for a New American
Security, June 2008).
``Enhancing Synergies and Gaining Efficiencies: Integrating the
`INTs' to Transform Operations and Mission Management,'' Building
Strategic Concepts for the Intelligence Enterprise-Conference Report
(Washington, DC: Office of the Director of National Intelligence/
Policy, Plans, and Requirements, January 2008).
``U.S. Strategic Capabilities for Preventing War: The Way
Forward,'' with Robert Barker (Washington, DC: Los Alamos/Livermore
Laboratories Conference on Strategic Weapons in the 21st Century,
January 2008).
``Iraq: Response to Max Boot,'' with Shawn W. Brimley, Commentary
(December 2007): 3.
Phased Transition: A Responsible Way Forward and Out of Iraq, with
Shawn W. Brimley (Washington, DC: Center for a New American Security,
June 2007).
``No More Iraqs,'' American Security Project, December 6, 2007.
``On the Road to Ruin,'' Defense News op-ed, with TX Hammes, May 7,
2007.
``Reducing Homeland Security Risks with a Balanced R&D Portfolio:
Analytical Tasks & Supporting Methods,'' Hicks & Associates, Inc.
report to Department of Homeland Security, January 2006.
``DART Review of Joint Operating Concepts and Joint Functional
Concepts,'' Defense Adaptive Red Team Report, October 2003.
``Operational Net Assessment: What are the Real Challenges?''
Defense Adaptive Red Team Report, March 2003.
``Challenges in Conducting Rapid Decisive Operations,'' Defense
Adaptive Red Team Report, February 2002.
``Red Teaming in Joint Forces Command's Unified Vision 01
Experiment: A Defense Adaptive Red Team (DART) View,'' Defense Adaptive
Red Team Report, August 2001.
``Talking Trash: Analytic Aids for Understanding and Improving
Judgments in Landfill Siting Processes,'' Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management, fall 1998, with Marie Lynn Miranda and Timothy L.
Jacobs.
``Seeking Truth for Power: Integrating Policy and Political
Analysis,'' Working Paper 95-1, Terry Sanford Institute of Public
Policy, May 1995, with Frederick W. Mayer.
Approaching Zero: An Evaluation of Radical Reductions in Superpower
Nuclear Arsenals, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, March 1989.
``Zero and Minimal NuclearWeapons,'' Chapter 1 in Fateful Visions:
Beyond Nuclear Deterrence, edited by Graham Allison, Albert Carnesale,
and Joseph Nye, Jr., Ballinger Press, 1988.
``How Study Design Affects Outcomes in Comparisons of therapy. I.
Medical,'' Statistics in Medicine, Vol. 8, 1989, with Graham Colditz
and Frederick Mosteller.
``How Study Design Affects Outcomes in Comparisons of Therapy. II.
Surgical,'' Statistics in Medicine, Vol. 8, 1989, with Colditz and
Mosteller.
``Measuring Gain in the Evaluation of Medical Technology: The
Probability of a Better Outcome,'' International Journal of Technology
Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1988, with Colditz and
Mosteller.
``The Effect of Study Design on Gain in Evaluations of New
Treatments in Medicine and Surgery,'' Drug Information Journal, Vol.
22, 1988, with Colditz and Mosteller.
``From Babbling to Speech: A Reassessment of the Continuity
Issue,'' Language, Vol. 61, No. 2, 1985 (numerous coauthors).
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.
``Game Changing Diplomacy with Iran,'' Panel discussion at June 11,
2008 CNAS conference [briefing].
``WMD Non-Use: Have We Been Effective, Lucky, or Overly
Concerned?'' Presentation to NDU WMD Center Symposium, May 7, 2008
[briefing].
``U.S. Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century: Aiming for the
Midterm,'' supporting presentation to Nuclear Weapons in 21st Century
U.S. National Security Report by a Joint Working Group of AAAS, the
American Physical Society, and the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, April 2008 [briefing].
``The U.S. Military Index: Overview of Findings,'' Summary of
findings from a poll conducted for Foreign Policy magazine, February
19, 2008 [briefing].
``U.S. Strategic Capabilities for Preventing War: The Way
Forward,'' talk to Livermore & Los Alamos National Laboratories
Conference on Strategic Weapons in the 21st Century, January 31, 2008
[briefing].
``Interview on Iraq,'' Mother Jones, October 18, 2007.
``Phased Transition,'' Presentation to American Enterprise
Institute, September 6, 2007 [transcript].
``Assessing the Surge in Iraq,'' Presentation to American
Enterprise Institute, July 9, 2007 [transcript].
``Phased Transition: A Responsible Way Forward and Out of Iraq,''
presentation to CNAS Conference, June 7, 2007 [briefing].
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 N. Miller, Jr.
This 12th day of March, 2009.
[The nomination of Dr. James N. Miller, Jr., was reported
to the Senate by Chairman Levin on April 1, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on April 3, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Ambassador Alexander R.
Vershbow by Chairman Levin 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. Goldwater-Nichols was landmark legislation that led to
dramatic improvements in operational effectiveness, unity of effort,
and civilian oversight. There is now a generation of military leaders
who are experienced with operating in a coordinated and joint, multi-
service environment. At this time, I do not see the need to change the
provisions of this legislation.
If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to address in
these modifications?
Answer. See my previous answer.
relationships
Question. What do you see as the relationship between the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (ASD(ISA) and
each of the following?
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. Under the direction of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy (USD(P)), the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Affairs (ASD(ISA)) advises the Secretary of Defense on
international security strategy and policy on issues of DOD interest
that relate to the nations and international organizations of Europe
(including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), the Middle East,
and Africa.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. Under the direction of the USD(P), the ASD(ISA) advises the
Secretary of Defense on international security strategy and policy on
issues of DOD interest that relate to the nations and international
organizations of Europe (including the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization), the Middle East, and Africa.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Answer. The ASD(ISA) provides similar support to the USD(P) as
described above.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
Answer. At the direction of the USD(P), the ASD(ISA) works closely
with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Deputy to
achieve the Secretary's objectives and ensure that policy formulation
and execution are well informed and supported by intelligence. The
ASD(ISA) also provides policy input, as appropriate, to intelligence
activities handled by the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
that relate to the nations and international organizations of Europe,
the Middle East, and Africa.
Question. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
Answer. As the principal military advisor to the Secretary of
Defense, the President and the National Security Council, the Chairman
has a unique and critical military role. At the direction of the Under
Secretary or Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy,
the ASD(ISA) works with the Chairman and Vice Chairman to provide
support on matters that affect strategy and policy for Europe, the
Middle East, and Africa, working to ensure that military advice is
taken into account in an appropriate manner.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. The ASD(ISA) works with the Secretaries of the Military
Departments on a broad range of issues related to international
security strategy and policy.
Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.
Answer. The ASD(ISA) works with the Chiefs of Staff of the Services
on a broad range of issues related to international security strategy
and policy.
Question. The combatant commanders, in particular the commanders of
U.S. Central Command, U.S. Africa Command, U.S. European Command, and
Supreme Allied Commander Transformation/Commander, U.S. Joint Forces
Command.
Answer. The ASD(ISA) works closely with the commanders of U.S.
Central Command, U.S. Africa Command, U.S. European Command, and
Supreme Allied Commander Transformation/Commander, U.S. Joint Forces
Command to support the efforts of the USD(P), Secretary and Deputy
Secretary, particularly in the areas of strategy and policy,
contingency planning, and policy oversight of operations.
Question. The Commanding General, Multi-National Force, Iraq.
Answer. In coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, the ASD(ISA) works closely with the Commanding General, Multi-
National Force, Iraq to provide policy oversight of strategy, plans,
and operations in Iraq in support of the USD(P), the Secretary of
Defense, and the President of the United States.
Question. The Commander, International Security Assistance Force
(ISAF) and Commander, U.S. Forces, Afghanistan.
Answer. In coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, the ASD(ISA) works closely with the Commander, ISAF and
Commander, U.S. Forces, Afghanistan to provide policy oversight of
strategy, plans, and operations in Afghanistan in support of the
USD(P), the Secretary of Defense, and the President of the United
States.
Question. The Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy.
Answer. The ASD(ISA) is the principal advisor to the Principal
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy on international security
strategy and policy relating to the countries and international
organizations of Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific
Security Affairs.
Answer. The ASD(ISA) works with the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs to provide sound policy advice
to the Under Secretary and the Secretary on cross-cutting international
security strategy and policy issues, such as the NATO ISAF mission in
Afghanistan.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic
Affairs.
Answer. The ASD(ISA) works with the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Global Strategic Affairs to provide sound policy advice to the
Under Secretary and the Secretary on cross-cutting international
security strategy and policy issues, such as arms control policy and
countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict and Interdependent Capabilities.
Answer. The ASD(ISA) works with the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict and Interdependent
Capabilities to provide sound policy advice to the Under Secretary and
the Secretary on cross-cutting international security strategy and
policy issues, such as countering violent extremism, stability
operations, and oversight of security cooperation programs.
Question. The Director of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Answer. The ASD(ISA) works with the Director of the Defense
Security Cooperation Agency on implementation of security cooperation
activities, such as Foreign Military Sales, with countries in Europe,
the Middle East, and Africa to ensure that these activities support
national security policy objectives and strategies.
Question. The proposed Deputy Under Secretary for Policy
Integration and Chief of Staff.
Answer. Although I have not had the opportunity to review the
responsibilities of the proposed Deputy Under Secretary for Policy
Integration and Chief of Staff, the ASD(ISA) would work with this
organization on cross-cutting policy issues to support the objectives
of the Secretary of Defense and the USD(P).
Question. The proposed Deputy Under Secretary for Policy for
Strategy, Plans, and Forces.
Answer. Although I have not had the opportunity to review the
responsibilities of the proposed Deputy Under Secretary for Policy for
Strategy, Plans, and Forces, the ASD(ISA) would work with this
organization on cross-cutting policy issues to support the objectives
of the Secretary of Defense and the USD(P).
duties
Question. Department of Defense Directive 5111.07 (11/7/2008)
delineates the functions and duties of the ASD(ISA). Under this
directive, the ASD(ISA) is the principal advisor to the USD(P) and the
Secretary of Defense on international security strategy and policy on
issues of DOD interest that relate to the nations and international
organizations of Europe (including NATO and Russia), the Middle East,
and Africa, their governments and defense establishments; and for
oversight of security cooperation programs.
What is your understanding of the duties and functions of the
ASD(ISA)?
Answer. The ASD(ISA) primary responsibility is to advise and
support the USD(P) and the Secretary of Defense on defense policy and
strategy for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.
Question. Under the proposed reorganization of the OUSD(P), what
specific changes do you anticipate and please discuss what you believe
to be impact these changes to your functions and duties?
Answer. I look forward to speaking with the Secretary and the
USD(P) further about how I could best support their efforts beyond
those set forth in section 134(b) of title 10.
Question. How would the proposed creation of an Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs impact the functions and duties
of the ASD(ISA), particularly with regard to Russia?
Answer. The ASD(ISA) will have to coordinate closely with the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs to balance
the regional and functional perspective in the development of
international security strategy and policy, including the U.S. approach
to nuclear arms reductions negotiations with Russia, and in providing
advice to the USD(P) and the Secretary of Defense.
qualifications
Question. What background and experience do you have that you
believe qualifies you for this position?
Answer. I believe that my 32 years of experience in the Foreign
Service dealing with national security issues provide me with the
necessary background to handle the responsibilities of the ASD(ISA).
Throughout my State Department career, I worked closely with the DOD in
shaping and implementing U.S. policy toward the former Soviet Union and
NATO, in contributing to U.S. efforts on nonproliferation and
counterterrorism, and in managing a wide range of international
conflicts and crises. Over the years, I have come to appreciate the
importance of close civil-military coordination to the achievement of
U.S. objectives--something that is especially important in meeting the
new threats and challenges of the 21st century.
strategy and contingency planning
Question. One of the purposes of Goldwater-Nichols was to increase
military and civilian attention on the formulation of strategy and
contingency planning.
What is your view of the civilian role, as compared to the military
role, in the formulation of strategy and contingency planning?
Answer. I believe that civilian leadership is critical in the
formulation of strategy and planning. Civilian defense leadership is
particularly vital in translating broad national security policies and
principles into the strategic goals that ultimately drive military
planning. The Joint Staff is a critical partner in the development of
guidance for contingency planning and provides independent military
advice to the Secretary of Defense and the President. In addition to
the provision of written guidance, an important civilian role is to
review contingency plans submitted for approval by the combatant
commanders.
Question. In your opinion, does the civilian leadership currently
have an appropriate level of oversight of strategy and contingency
planning?
Answer. As the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michele
Flournoy, has said, the United States is at a critical time in
history--with multiple wars, enduring threats, and imminent challenges.
Strong civilian and military partnership on the range of national
security issues facing our Nation is vital. If confirmed, I will
examine this issue closely and seek to ensure that civilian leadership
has the appropriate level of oversight on the full range of strategy,
planning, and use-of-force issues, while respecting the importance of
receiving independent military advice from the Joint Staff and the
combatant commanders.
Question. What steps do you believe are necessary to ensure
effective civilian control and oversight of strategy and contingency
planning?
Answer. I support the USD(P)'s view that the strategy and planning
capacity in the Office of the Secretary of Defense should be
strengthened. If confirmed, I would strive to provide the best advice
possible to the Under Secretary of Defense in the provision of written
policy guidance and in the review of contingency plans for Europe, the
Middle East, and Africa.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the ASD(ISA)?
Answer. If confirmed, my office will likely play an important role
within the Department and the interagency process in developing policy
for a number of key issues, including among others: responsibly ending
the war in Iraq; ensuring that NATO develops and employs a more
effective strategy in Afghanistan and the surrounding region; working
to prevent WMD proliferation; combating terrorism; strengthening
security and stability across the Middle East; strengthening America's
alliances with key partners and allies; and shaping a more constructive
relationship with Russia while supporting the sovereignty and
independence of Russia's neighbors. Beyond ensuring that the Secretary
of Defense receives the best possible policy input on these vital
questions, another major challenge will be to strengthen the
organizational capacity to support these efforts.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I would engage closely with my counterparts
at the Department of State and NSC to develop comprehensive and
coordinated strategies that bring to bear all elements of national
power to advance U.S. interests.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the ASD(ISA)?
Answer. If confirmed, I would give priority to the major challenges
identified by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the USD(P)
and to strengthening the organizational capacity of ISA to address
them. I would also give priority to ensuring effective working
relationships with both military and civilian counterparts through the
Department and the interagency.
iraq
Question. The President has announced his plans for the drawdown of
U.S. forces in Iraq and their transition to an overwatch mission, to be
completed by the end of August 2010. The U.S.-Iraqi agreement on the
Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of
Their Activities During Their Temporary Presence in Iraq (the
``security agreement'') requires that U.S. combat forces withdraw from
cities and towns by June 2009 and that all U.S. forces withdraw from
Iraq by the end of December 2011. Additionally, if Iraqi voters reject
the security agreement in a referendum scheduled for July 2009, U.S.
troops would be required to withdraw by July 2010.
What in your view are the greatest challenges facing DOD in meeting
these deadlines and what actions, if any, would you recommend to
maximize the chances of meeting these requirements?
Answer. The challenge in Iraq will be to continue the phased
redeployment of U.S. forces while maintaining a secure environment to
support elections, political reconciliation, and economic development.
If confirmed, I would review DOD plans and work with colleagues across
the Department and in other agencies to make any necessary
recommendations to the Secretary of Defense.
Question. What is your understanding and assessment of U.S. plans
to support implementation of the President's drawdown plans and the
SOFA requirements for repositioning and redeployment of U.S. forces,
including contingency planning relating to the Iraqi referendum?
Answer. The President's drawdown strategy reflects a careful
consideration of events on the ground and respect for the bilateral
agreements between the United States and Iraq. If confirmed, I look
forward to implementing this strategy and working with the Joint Staff
and our commanders to ensure we continue to meet our obligations under
the security agreement and plan for contingencies, while we continue to
support the Iraqi Government and help its security forces develop into
a professional, non-sectarian force.
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. One of many critical lessons learned from the Iraq invasion
and the ongoing stability operations, is that better and more
integrated civilian-military planning is required before any military
endeavor. It is essential for policymakers to recognize that wars in
the 21st century require preparation and competence along the entire
spectrum of conflict--not just military, but often times political,
ethnic, and social. The military cannot be prepared only for high-
intensity combat. The government, as a whole, must be prepared to plan
and execute an effort to win the peace. We have also learned that the
appropriate force strength must be deployed to accomplish our
objectives as well as account for a broad array of contingencies and
the changing reality of the battlespace. Furthermore, our forces must
plan and train with their civilian counterparts and be prepared to
operate effectively in all phases of conflict, as well as post-conflict
environments. The Iraq war also teaches us that the right training and
doctrine must also be in place prior to any incursion.
nato
Question. What are the greatest challenges and opportunities that
you foresee for NATO over the next 5 years?
Answer. The United States continues to have an enormous stake in a
strong, capable, and mutually supportive NATO alliance. Both the
President and the Secretary of Defense have stressed their strong
desire to adapt and modernize transatlantic security relationships to
meet 21st century security challenges. Over the next 5 years, the
primary NATO-related challenges include, first and foremost, achieving
durable progress on Afghanistan; developing a common approach toward
managing relations with Russia, drafting a new Strategic Concept to
define emerging threats and required capabilities, and improving the
prospects for unity-of-action between NATO and the European Union.
Question. Do you envision further enlargement of NATO, beyond
Albania and Croatia, within the next 5 years? What criteria should the
United States apply in evaluating candidates for future NATO
enlargement?
Answer. The President has stated that NATO enlargement should
continue so long as new candidates are democratic, peaceful, and
willing to contribute to common security. NATO's door remains open to
all European democracies that share our values and who can contribute
to our common security. Precisely which countries and within what
applicable timeframe NATO would undertake further enlargement are
important questions which the administration will need to address in
close consultation with Congress and our allies. It is important that
each NATO aspirant be judged on its individual merits and progress in
implementing political, economic, and military reforms. No country
outside NATO can exercise a veto over other countries' NATO
aspirations.
Question. What more can the United States do to encourage NATO
members to develop the capabilities and provide the resources necessary
to carry out NATO missions in Afghanistan and elsewhere?
Answer. We will continue to look to our allies to shoulder a
significant share of the military burden in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and
other theaters, and to allocate sufficient resources to the
modernization of their defense capabilities. At the same time, the
President and Secretary Gates have both stressed the need for the
United States and NATO to invest more in non-military instruments of
national power. Many of our NATO allies have unique civilian governance
capabilities that can enhance the overall effort in Afghanistan; the
European Union (EU) has developed a capability to provide police and
police training to help in stabilizing post-conflict situations.
Forging a shared strategic view of the emerging threat environment and
updating NATO's Strategic Concept from both a military and civilian
governance perspective will be critical to success in Afghanistan and
future operations.
Question. What are your views on the potential for the NATO-Russia
Council to serve as a useful forum for improving security relations
between NATO and Russia?
Answer. The NATO-Russia Council has the potential to be a useful
forum for developing security cooperation between NATO and Russia in
areas of common interest, such as Afghanistan, nonproliferation,
counterpiracy, counterterrorism, and possibly missile defense. The NRC
also can serve as a venue for dialogue with Russia on European security
issues, including areas where we disagree, such as Georgia.
Question. What is your assessment of the impact of France rejoining
the integrated military structure within NATO?
Answer. President Obama has already underscored to French President
Sarkozy his strong support for France's full participation in NATO's
integrated military structure. As Vice President Biden stated in his
speech to the Munich Security Conference in early February, ``France is
a founding member of NATO and a major contributor to its operations. We
would expect France's new responsibilities to reflect the significance
of its contributions throughout NATO's history, and to strengthen the
European role within the alliance.''
Deeper than this, full French participation in NATO's forces
planning processes will result in French military capabilities being
formally and openly designated for alliance use. The alliance will also
benefit from having well trained French officers in the integrated
military structure and from having full French participation in NATO
common budgets. We believe that France will play an important role in
the alliance's development of a new Strategic Concept.
nato-eu relations
Question. A potential challenge facing the United States and NATO
in the months and years ahead is the EU implementation of its European
Security and Defense Policy (ESDP), that is, an EU capability to
conduct military operations in response to international crises in
cases where ``NATO as a whole is not engaged.'' At the same time, NATO
and EU are working alongside each other in addressing a number of
common security challenges, including police training in Afghanistan
and crisis management in Kosovo.
In your view, what should be NATO's position with regard to
European efforts to strengthen the ESDP and build military capacity
within the EU?
Answer. NATO and the EU have agreed to ensure that their capability
development efforts are ``mutually reinforcing.'' In defense and
security-related realms, I would consider NATO to be the preferred
vehicle for cooperation between our European allies and the United
States in responding to shared security challenges. At the same time,
NATO has rightly reaffirmed the value of a stronger, more capable ESDP
in dealing with crises in which NATO as a whole is not engaged, and has
agreed to provide planning and material support in such cases, based on
our shared security interests. I believe we have already seen the
benefits of this approach in Bosnia, where the EU has assumed greater
responsibility as NATO redeployed its forces elsewhere.
Question. What steps do you believe the United States and NATO
should take to ensure that ESDP is implemented in a way that
strengthens the alliance?
Answer. Over the past several years, ESDP-related activities have
grown in number and diversity, to include the EU's current anti-piracy
operations off the coast of Somalia. Given these trends, high priority
must be given to promoting policy-level consultation and coordination,
good communications, and a common operating picture between NATO, its
allies, and partners.
Question. What is your view of the future of NATO-EU relations in
areas relating to security, defense, and crisis management? Should NATO
do more to institutionalize cooperation between the two organizations?
Answer. Both NATO and the EU have important roles to play in
meeting future security, defense, and crisis management challenges. As
noted above, from an alliance perspective, it is important for DOD and
U.S. interagency partners to take a clear-eyed view of the entire range
of current EU activities--from civilian policing, to military, border
control, or other missions--to identify both areas of duplication and
where closer NATO-EU coordination is required. NATO should fully use
the valuable existing NATO-EU cooperation mechanisms, and consider
additional mechanisms where they could help strengthen cooperation.
engagement policy
Question. One of the central pillars of our 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,
humanitarian demining operations, and similar activities were used to
achieve this goal. However, the demands of supporting wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan have drained resources needed by combatant commands to
sustain military engagement activities.
Do you believe that military engagement activities contribute to
U.S. national security? If so, what do you consider to be the main
benefits of these activities?
Answer. Yes. I believe military-to-military contacts contribute to
U.S. national security in a variety of important ways and, as such, I
support continued military-to-military engagement. Such activities can
build capacity among partner nations to participate in coalition
operations to counter terrorism and other transnational threats,
potentially relieving stress on U.S. forces. They can help harmonize
nations' views of common security challenges. Military-to-military
activities can also help sustain investments made by other U.S.
assistance programs. Finally, when performed effectively, military-to-
military activities should show by example how military forces can act
effectively while respecting human rights and civilian control.
Question. If confirmed, would you advocate for continuing or
expanding U.S. military-to-military engagement? If not, why not? If so,
what would you recommend to address the combatant commanders' need for
additional resources dedicated to these activities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support continued U.S. military-to-
military engagement. I believe the current and emerging security
environment will require robust engagement with the militaries of our
partners and allies around the world, and building productive
relationships with many states in which our past military-to-military
engagements have been limited or absent entirely. I have not had an
opportunity to investigate the specific resource needs of combatant
commanders. If confirmed, I will look into the resource needs
associated with combatant commander military-to-military engagements.
building partner capacity
Question. In the past few years, Congress has provided DOD a number
of temporary authorities to provide security assistance to partner
nations. These include the global train and equip authority (section
1206) and the security and stabilization assistance authority (section
1207).
What should be our strategic objectives in building the capacities
of partner nations?
Answer. One of the greatest threats to international security is
the violence that is sparked when human security needs are not met by
governments. This creates space for terrorists, insurgents, and other
spoilers to operate and, as the September 11 attacks demonstrated, to
threaten the United States and its allies. The goal, therefore, is to
close this space through efforts that strengthen bilateral
relationships; increase U.S. access and influence; promote militaries
that respect human rights, civilian control of the military and the
rule of law; and build capacity for common security objectives. In
addition to promoting regional and global security, enhanced partner
capacity reduces the risk of future military interventions and reduces
stress on U.S. Armed Forces.
Question. Do these objectives differ by region, e.g. do our
objectives within the EUCOM area of responsibility (AOR) differ from
those in the AFRICOM AOR?
Answer. I am not in a position to render a definitive judgment on
this important question. I will, if confirmed, study the matter and, if
changes are needed, provide views to Secretary Gates and the members of
this committee. My understanding is that the basic objective of the
1206 program is to build partner capacity to work with the United
States or independently to address the threat of terrorism. My
understanding is that 1207 allows DOD to transfer funding to the State
Department with the goal of assisting State's reconstruction, security,
or stabilization efforts. The overall objectives of these programs are
the same around the globe. U.S. interests vary in different regions so
I would expect that 1206 and 1207 activities would vary accordingly,
though the core objectives are the same.
Question. What is your understanding of the purpose of the section
1206 global train and equip authority?
Answer. My understanding is that section 1206 is intended to
provide a quicker, more targeted ability to build partner capacity than
the more traditional routes of security assistance, and is focused on
building capacity to achieve security objectives. Under law, it has two
discrete purposes: to build a partner's national military or maritime
security forces' capacity either to: (1) conduct counterterrorism
operations; or (2) conduct or support stability operations where U.S.
forces are participating. I have not been involved in 1206
implementation, but I understand that the program has enthusiastic
support from embassies and COCOMs and reflects a close collaboration
between State and DOD, which work together in a ``dual key'' process to
approve funding allocations. If confirmed, I will assist the Secretary
in fully assessing how well this authority is working and whether it
meets congressional intent.
Question. What is your assessment of the implementation of the
global train and equip program?
Answer. See my previous answer.
Question. What is the relationship of the global train and equip
authority to other security assistance authorities, such as
counternarcotics assistance and foreign military financing?
Answer. The Departments of State and Defense need to work together
very closely to avoid duplication of effort among these important
activities. The global train and equip authority fills two specific
legal requirements: to build capacity for counterterrorism and for
stability operations where U.S. forces are a participant. Foreign
Military Financing serves a broader set of diplomatic and foreign
policy objectives such as improving bilateral relations, encouraging
behavior in the U.S. interest, increasing access and influence, and
building capacity particularly where host-nation and U.S. interests
align.
Counternarcotics authorities are focused on providing DOD the
ability to support U.S. or other Government efforts to counter the flow
of narcotics globally. If confirmed, I will support any interagency
assessment of potential overlaps and work to ensure that DOD programs
are focused on supporting U.S. and other agency efforts to counter the
flow of narcotics.
Question. What should be done to ensure that the global train and
equip authority does not duplicate the efforts of these other
assistance programs?
Answer. See my previous answer.
Question. What is your understanding of the purpose of the security
and stabilization assistance authority (section 1207)?
Answer. Section 1207 was, as I understand it, originally designed
to help the State Department's Coordinator for Reconstruction and
Stabilization to become operational. It facilitates security,
stabilization, and reconstruction missions--bringing civilian expertise
to bear alongside or in lieu of U.S. military forces. I have not been
involved in 1207 implementation, but I understand that the program has
been useful in facilitating a ``3D'' (Development, Defense, Diplomacy)
approach to security, stabilization, and reconstruction challenges. If
confirmed, I will monitor this effort closely.
Question. What is your assessment of how this authority has been
utilized?
Answer. See my previous answer.
Question. Secretary Gates has called for an expansion of the
Government's resources devoted to instruments of nonmilitary ``soft
power''--civilian expertise in reconstruction, development, and
governance.
Do you believe that there is a need to expand the Government's
resources devoted to the ability of civilian departments and agencies
to engage, assist, and communicate with partner nations?
Answer. Yes. The President and Secretary Gates have both made clear
their strong desire to see more robust non-military instruments of
national power. Congress has the authority to expand significantly the
Government's ``soft-power'' resources and U.S. civilian agency
capacity. If confirmed, I will certainly make it my priority to assist
in this effort.
Question. In your view, what should be the role of DOD, vis-a-vis
other civilian departments and agencies of the Government, in the
exercise of instruments of soft power?
Answer. Generally, the Department's role should be to support, not
lead, in the exercise of ``soft power.'' But DOD plays a vital role in
helping to promote--through the full gamut of planning effort,
exchanges, exercises, operations, and bilateral defense relationships--
the conditions that enable these instruments to be applied with maximum
beneficial effect.
Question. What is your view of the criticism that these security
assistance programs have contributed to a ``militarization'' of U.S.
foreign policy?
Answer. In general, I believe that our national security challenges
require that the President have a broad set of options. I have not had
experience with the 1206 and 1207 programs. However, I understand that
all 1206 activities are approved by both the Secretaries of Defense and
State. Further, I understand that 1207 is intended to ensure that State
can better carry out its reconstruction, stabilization, and security
responsibilities. It may be that the critics do not appreciate how
deeply State is involved in the approval and authorization of these
activities. If confirmed, I will work with Congress to ensure that 1206
and 1207 activities are framed and implemented appropriately, and based
on thorough State-Defense coordination.
Question. Do you believe that there is an independent value to
Section 1206 and 1207 funded activities or do you believe these
authorities and associated funding should be switched to the Department
of State?
Answer. I do not believe that 1206 and 1207 authorities and funding
should be switched to the Department of State. Although I am not
intimately familiar with these activities, I understand that the
combatant commanders find them extremely valuable. If confirmed, I will
be able to develop a more informed opinion on this issue.
russia
Question. What role will you play, if confirmed, in establishing
policy with respect to the U.S.-Russia national security relationship?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with other members of the
administration to advance the President's goal of building a more
constructive relationship with Russia, while managing differences in
areas where U.S. and Russian interests may diverge. This will involve
exploring renewed cooperation in a wide range of priority areas,
strategic arms control, nonproliferation, Afghanistan, and improved
cooperation on Iran.
Question. What do you believe are appropriate objectives for U.S.-
Russian security relations, and what do you believe are the areas of
common interest between the United States and Russia in the security
sphere?
Answer. As the President has stressed, it is in no one's interest
to see our relations return to a Cold War posture. Our interests
clearly overlap in areas such as strategic arms control,
nonproliferation, counterterrorism, Afghanistan, and counternarcotics.
Ultimately, I believe we should work to create the conditions that make
clear that stable, democratic neighbors on Russia's borders are in
Russia's own interest.
Question. In your view what steps should DOD take to improve
security relations with Russia? For instance would you support
increased military-to-military relations and exchanges with Russia?
Answer. If confirmed, I will make it a priority to assess areas
where greater military-to-military and other exchanges with Russia
might be beneficial. It is certainly important for U.S. security
interests that we work to keep our lines of communication open and to
cooperate to address key global challenges.
Question. Would you support any joint development or other
cooperative programs with Russia, including cooperation on, or joint
development of, missile defense capabilities in relation to Iran?
Answer. If confirmed, I will explore the potential for additional
cooperation with Russia in relations to Iran. I believe it is in our
interest to continue to explore a potential joint missile defense
architecture with Russia to counter the emerging ballistic missile
threat from Iran.
iran
Question. Do you believe it would be in the interest of the United
States to engage Iran in a direct dialogue to promote regional
stability and security?
Answer. I support the President's view that the United States
should be willing to engage with all nations, friend or foe, and with
careful preparation, to pursue direct diplomacy. Furthermore, I fully
support the President's view that we should not take any options off
the table and that engagement is the place to start our efforts to
prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and end its support for
destabilizing activities and terrorism in the region.
Question. Do you believe it would be in the interest of the United
States to engage Iran in a direct dialogue regarding the narcotics
problems in Afghanistan?
Answer. This issue is being examined as part of a broader
interagency policy reviews on Iran and Afghanistan.
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? Specifically, what actions do you believe that
DOD ought to undertake to support diplomatic efforts to dissuade Iran
from pursuing a nuclear weapon?
Answer. I support the President's view that it is very important
for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power,
including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran. I fully support the
President's view that we should be willing to talk to Iran, to express
very clearly where our differences are, but also where there are
potential avenues for progress. Furthermore, by working with our
international partners and allies, and by creating more favorable
conditions in the surrounding region, we can increase the chances of
making useful inroads with Iran. DOD should therefore continue
developing ongoing bilateral and multilateral cooperation with the Gulf
Cooperation Council countries and other allies in the region, in
support of the State Department's diplomatic initiatives.
african regional security concerns
Question. What do you see as the greatest threat to U.S. national
security interests in Africa?
Answer. There are many national security challenges to U.S.
interests in Africa. There is, however, a growing concern over the
compounding effects that transnational threats--such as the
proliferation of small arms, the trafficking in illicit goods and
persons, pandemic diseases, violent extremism, environmental
degradation, piracy, and narcotics trade--will have on an already
vulnerable security framework.
Question. How should the United States address the security
challenges in the Niger Delta?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to work closely with the
State Department to enhance our security relationship with the
Government of Nigeria by offering our assistance, as appropriate, in
the areas of maritime security and military capacity building.
Question. Is DOD the appropriate department to lead any U.S.
Government effort in this area?
Answer. I believe there are certain situations within the African
context where it is appropriate for DOD to lead, usually in response to
requests by the Department of State. There are other instances where
DOD, while not in the lead, can and does play a significant role as an
enabler or supporter to other U.S. Government agencies in advancing
U.S. national security interests in Africa.
Question. Given the increasing threat of piracy in East African
waters, would you advocate an increased focus on maritime security
assistance to regional governments?
Answer. I support DOD's efforts to work with the interagency to
build the maritime security capacity of our African partners.
Increasing African maritime capacity addresses not only the threat of
piracy, but also other enduring security concerns, such as illegal
fishing in territorial waters, smuggling of arms and drugs, and
trafficking of people.
Question. If not, what do you believe to be the most effective
method for the United States to combat the threat of piracy?
Answer. I support DOD's efforts to work with the interagency to
build the maritime security capacity of our African partners, and to
encourage our allies in Europe and Asia to contribute to counter-piracy
efforts. Increasing African maritime capacity addresses not only the
threat of piracy, but also other enduring security concerns, such as
illegal fishing in territorial waters, smuggling of arms and drugs, and
trafficking of people.
Question. What is your understanding of planning to expand naval
cooperation or offer new foreign military sales to improve the naval
capabilities of U.S. partners in the region?
Answer. The United States already cooperates with multiple
international partners to address piracy off the coast of Somalia. DOD
established Combined Task Force 151, and international participants
include Turkey, the U.K., and Denmark. DOD is supportive of other
interested partners joining this task force. In addition, DOD
coordinates with other nations undertaking counterpiracy operations in
the region, including Russia, China, Malaysia, India, Saudi Arabia,
South Korea, and the European Union. Regarding a requirement for
foreign military sales in the region, if confirmed, I will work closely
with the Department of State to assess the naval capabilities of
partners in the area and possible requirements for foreign military
sales in the region.
u.s. africa command
Question. The creation of AFRICOM has raised questions about the
role of DOD in U.S. development efforts in Africa.
What do you see as the role of AFRICOM in U.S. policy towards
Africa and in development and humanitarian engagement?
Answer. The Department of State and USAID lead U.S. foreign policy
and development engagements abroad, to include Africa. President Obama
has argued that AFRICOM should promote a more united and coordinated
engagement plan for Africa. Ideally, AFRICOM's supporting role should
be to promote national security objectives by working with African
states, regional organizations, and the African Union to enhance
stability and security in the region. In particular, AFRICOM should
continue forging closer U.S. military-to-military relations with states
on the African continent. If confirmed, I will continue the close
working relationship with State, USAID, other agencies and Congress to
ensure that AFRICOM's roles and missions assist in advancing U.S.
foreign policy and national security objectives.
Question. What impact, if any, might AFRICOM's lack of standing
forces have on the command's counterterrorism activities or on its
ability to maintain the level of security cooperation activities
conducted with Special Operations personnel from U.S. Central and
European Commands?
Answer. The Global Force Management (GFM) process allows AFRICOM,
like all the other geographic combatant commands, to request forces as
necessary to accomplish missions tasked by the Secretary of Defense.
These requests are reviewed and approved by the Secretary of Defense,
allowing a dynamic balancing of military force application between
emerging requirements and ongoing sustained operations. If confirmed, I
will work closely with the Joint Staff in developing recommendations
for the Secretary on allocation of forces to the regional combatant
commanders.
libya
Question. In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee in March 2009, Commander U.S. Africa Command discussed
AFRICOM's intent to expand engagement with the Libyans via military
education exchanges and foreign military sales. Libyan leader Colonel
Muamar Gaddafi has stated on more than one occasion that he is opposed
to that command and has suggested it is a version of American
colonialism. A recent New York Times article also suggested that the
Libyans feel snubbed by the United States following their 2005 decision
to give up their WMD program.
How do you see the U.S.-Libyan relationship moving forward on
military-to-military engagement?
Answer. Speaking only about the defense part of the bilateral
relationship, I understand that defense cooperation with Libya is
continuing to develop in a positive direction. Our objective is to work
with Libya to enable it to make a positive contribution to regional and
continental security. The United States and Libya are discussing areas
of cooperation that would be in our mutual security interest, such as
border and coastal security.
Question. In light of Gaddafi's reported concerns about
establishment of AFRICOM, do you believe these issues can be overcome?
Answer. Yes, it is my understanding that those issues have already
been overcome. General Ward recently visited Tripoli and was well
received. This outreach provides a foundation on which to build and
continue to develop our defense relations with Libya in a positive way.
Question. What has been the impact of the recent agreement between
the United States and Libya to establish a fund for settlement of
outstanding claims related to terrorist acts committed by Libya?
Answer. I would defer to the Department of State on this question,
as they led the U.S. side in negotiating this settlement with Libya.
However, from DOD's perspective, the settlement opened up the
relationship to the possibility of normalization.
darfur
Question. The U.N. has pledged to send approximately 26,000
peacekeepers to Darfur, but has sent less than half that number and has
not provided them with the helicopters, vehicles, and other tools to
fulfill their mission.
What do you believe is the appropriate role of the United States
and, in particular, DOD, in assisting with the deployment and mobility
of this peacekeeping mission?
Answer. I agree with President Obama's statements about the need to
bring pressure to bear on Sudanese authorities in Khartoum to halt the
genocide in Darfur. The U.N. has two major peacekeeping missions in
Sudan that seek to create a secure environment conducive to a political
settlement of the cultural, ethnic, and religious differences that
divide Sudan's periphery from the center. I understand that the
Departments of State and Defense have supported the deployment of
African contingents to the U.N. Darfur mission by providing personnel,
training, equipment, logistical expertise, deployment assistance, and,
when required, airlift. If confirmed, I will look closely at what
additional support DOD could reasonably provide in this area if so
directed by the President.
united nations peacekeeping
Question. DOD has provided logistics, communications, and
headquarters staff to a variety of U.N. peacekeeping missions over the
past several years.
In your view, what support, if any, should DOD provide to U.N.
peacekeeping missions?
Answer. From Haiti to Liberia, Lebanon and other venues, the United
States has important stakes in the success of U.N. peacekeeping
operations. In addition to logistics, communications, and headquarters
staff-related assistance, the issue of DOD help for U.N. field missions
should be studied closely and in close consultation with other U.N.
member states.
Question. In your view, should DOD provide U.S. military personnel
to U.N. peacekeeping missions?
Answer. The United States can make important contributions to U.N.
peacekeeping missions, though these should come in areas where we truly
have an ``edge,'' such as leveraging of technology, organizational and
logistics capabilities, et cetera. Given their high level of training,
our military personnel can also play useful roles as military observers
in areas where the U.N. is preserving stability in a relatively secure
environment. I would be extremely cautious about assigning U.S.
military personnel to traditional U.N. peacekeeping missions, though I
would want the President to have the option of doing so if he deemed it
appropriate.
Question. The United States along with its partners in the G-8
sponsored an initiative to train 75,000 peacekeepers by 2010. This
program, known as the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI), is run
by the Department of State. DOD has provided varying degrees of support
since the program's inception.
In your view, what is the appropriate role of DOD in this program
and, more generally, in the training of peacekeepers?
Answer. DOD plays an important role in bringing its expertise to
bear in the training and equipping of peacekeeping units. DOD
collaboration with State is important to successfully identifying and
vetting viable partners, analyzing indigenous capacities, developing
sustainable train-the-trainer programs, and promoting self-sufficiency
in this critical area so that more nations can effectively contribute
to the increasing demand for skilled peacekeepers around the world.
Question. If confirmed, would you support or oppose an extension of
the GPOI program and its mandate beyond its scheduled end date in 2010?
Please explain.
Answer. President Obama has stated his support for continued
funding for GPOI. In general, I believe the United States has a strong
interest in effective training that expands the pool of available
peacekeepers worldwide, including those with which we may need to
operate jointly. If confirmed, my intent would be to work closely with
State Department colleagues as well as Members of Congress to ensure
GPOI supports the President's objectives in this area.
piracy
Question. Piracy off the coast of Somalia grew at a significant
rate in 2008. Dozens of successful acts of piracy have meant the
capture of hundreds of hostages, valuable cargoes including arms, oil,
and humanitarian aid, and have resulted in the payment of millions of
dollars in ransoms. By all accounts, Somalia is unable to manage this
problem, and the U.N. has adopted resolutions designed to generate
international cooperation in addressing the scourge of piracy in that
part of the world. Recently, the United States reached an agreement
with Kenya regarding the detention and prosecution of suspected
pirates.
What do you believe should be the role of the United States in
general, and DOD in particular, in stemming the tide of piracy in the
waters off the coast of Somalia?
Answer. The United States supports international efforts to address
piracy off the coast of Somalia. To this end, DOD works closely with
the interagency to support a multi-faceted approach to this problem.
The interagency Counter-Piracy Action Plan (CPAP) outlines a strategic
approach to address piracy off the coast of Somalia, including self-
protection measures by commercial shippers, and international
cooperation with authorities inside Somalia to address the land-based
origins of the problem. In support of international efforts, DOD
established Combined Task Force 151, a multinational task force that is
executing counter-piracy operations off the Horn of Africa.
Question. Given the lack of an effective government or functioning
court system in Somalia, what should be done to assist Somalia in
strengthening its own operational capacity to fight piracy and bring to
justice those involved in piracy?
Answer. Long-term instability in Somalia has enabled piracy to
flourish in the region. An effective solution to piracy will require
Somalis to lead efforts to create governance mechanisms that are able
to effectively secure their territory, while also providing economic
opportunities to their people that reduce the appeal of piracy.
Question. Are the international legal processes in place sufficient
to ensure full and fair prosecutions of suspected pirates?
Answer. I am not in a position to render a definitive judgment on
this issue. If confirmed, I will work with the interagency to review
this issue and, as needed, provide recommendations to the USD(P) on
this issue and how DOD can and should support efforts regarding the
legal framework for prosecution of suspected pirates.
united nations convention on the law of the sea
Question. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) is currently pending in the Senate.
What are your views on U.S. accession to UNCLOS?
Answer. Like the President and the Secretary of Defense, I strongly
support U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention. The United
States should be at the forefront of promoting the rule of law,
including in the world's oceans. By becoming a party to the Convention,
we would send a clear signal to all nations that we are committed to
advancing the rule of law at sea. Additionally by joining the
Convention, we would provide the firmest possible legal foundation for
the navigational rights and freedoms needed to project power, reassure
friends and deter adversaries, respond to crises, sustain combat forces
in the field, and secure sea and air lines of communication that
underpin international trade and our own economic prosperity.
Question. From a national security standpoint, what do you see as
the advantages and disadvantages to being a party to UNCLOS?
Answer. Joining the Convention will give the United States a seat
at the table when rights vital to our national interests are debated
and interpreted, including the maritime mobility of our armed forces
worldwide. The navigation and overflight rights and high seas freedoms
codified in the Convention are essential for the global mobility of our
Armed Forces and the sustainment of our combat forces overseas. America
has more to gain from legal certainty and public order in the world's
oceans than any other country. More than 150 nations are parties to the
Convention. By becoming a party, the United States will be better
positioned to work with foreign air forces, navies, and coast guards to
cooperatively address the full spectrum of 21st century security
challenges.
bilateral defense trade cooperation agreements
Question. Defense trade cooperation agreements between the U.S. and
the U.K. and between the U.S. and Australia are currently pending
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
What are your views on the U.S.-U.K. and U.S.-Australia defense
trade cooperation agreements?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review these agreements
in detail but support the general objectives of the U.S.-U.K. and U.S.-
Australia Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties. I believe that robust
interoperability with two key allies along with the enhanced protection
of our defense articles pursuant to the treaties will further our
national security interests. If confirmed, I will support the USD(P)
and the State Department in working with the Senate to resolve any
issues related to ratification.
Question. In your view, are these agreements in the national
security interest of the United States?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review these agreements
in detail, but the intent of the treaties to increase defense trade and
interoperability with two key trusted allies is sound and in the
interest of our national security. If confirmed, I will review the
treaties in detail and support the USD(P) and the Department of State
in working with the Senate to address any issues.
Question. What do you consider to be the main advantages and
disadvantages of these defense trade cooperation arrangements?
Answer. I am told that, if ratified, these two treaties will allow,
under defined conditions, the transfer of defense articles without
prior written authorization. By reducing trade barriers to the exchange
of defense hardware, technical data, and services, we will strengthen
U.S.-Australia and U.S.-U.K. defense cooperation, increase
interoperability, and lend greater support to current and future
coalition operations. There will also be substantial benefit to the
respective three industrial bases. The treaties promise to enhance our
bilateral government and industry research, development, and production
efforts by providing a flexible, agile export control environment that
will expedite the delivery of new technologies to our warfighters.
Moreover, the treaties will increase competition in the defense
marketplace by creating an approved community of companies in all three
nations, which will result in improved quality and reduced costs in the
defense equipment we provide to the men and women of our Armed Forces.
u.s. military basing in europe
Question. Current DOD plans provide for the drawdown of U.S. Army
forces in Europe to 32,000 U.S. soldiers by no later than 2013.
However, General Craddock, Commander, U.S. European Command, is
reviewing a recommendation that the two brigades currently scheduled
for redeployment back to the United States should remain in Europe,
keeping U.S. forces based in Europe at a force of around 42,000 beyond
2013.
Do you support maintaining a larger U.S. force presence in Europe
than the 32,000-force level planned for 2013? Why or why not?
Answer. I understand that the Department intends to review posture
issues such as European basing requirements as part of the upcoming
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). If confirmed, I look forward to
actively participating in the QDR process.
arms control
Question. What role will you have, if confirmed, in future arms
control negotiations, such as a follow on to the Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty?
Answer. If confirmed, I would provide advice to the USD(P) on arms
control policy with respect to Europe, the Middle East, and Africa and
would perform any further duties as assigned by the Under Secretary. It
is my understanding, however, that the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Global Strategic Affairs will have lead responsibility within DOD
for talks on a follow-on to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
private security contractors
Question. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction
reported that Federal agencies including DOD have spent more than $5
billion for private security contractors in Iraq since 2003. Over this
period, there have been numerous reports of abuses by private security
contractors, including allegations of contractors shooting recklessly
at civilians as they have driven down the streets of Baghdad and other
Iraqi cities.
Do you believe DOD and other Federal agencies should rely upon
contractors to perform security functions that may reasonably be
expected to require the use of deadly force in highly hazardous public
areas in an area of combat operations?
Answer. I understand the concerns of Congress on this issue and
believe that a comprehensive review of the role of military contractors
on the battlefield is needed in order to set the terms for how they
might be utilized in the future. I also agree with President Obama's
views on the need to improve oversight and transparency in how private
security contractors are utilized and to establish clear standards
regarding accountability, command and control, rules of engagement, and
personnel policies. Currently, there are a number of international
efforts supported by the Department to establish open, transparent, and
enforceable standards of conduct and good practices, such as the
Montreux Document, that will enhance our ability to ensure that
contractors perform in support of U.S. policies. If confirmed, I will
work with civilian and military officials of the Department and others
who have primary responsibility for policy development and employment
of private security contractors.
Question. In your view, has the U.S. reliance upon private security
contractors to perform such functions risked undermining our defense
and foreign policy objectives in Iraq?
Answer. I do believe that several high-profile incidents in Iraq
involving private security contractors have harmed U.S. policy
objectives in Iraq. In December 2007 DOD and the Department of State
agreed on consistent procedures for use of private security contractors
in Iraq; moreover, both Departments have been transitioning to greater
use of local nationals wherever practical. If confirmed, I expect to
work on this issue and will keep Congress informed.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
any private security contractors who may continue to operate in an area
of combat operations act in a responsible manner, consistent with U.S.
defense and foreign policy objectives?
Answer. The use of security contractors in any area of combat
operations must be fully coordinated among all agencies that employ
them. There must be unified procedures and strong oversight for all
such contractors, regardless of which U.S. agency hires them.
Commanders on the ground should have the authority to restrict or
redirect their operations as appropriate. I believe there must be
assured legal accountability for the actions of all security
contractors, not just those employed by the Defense Department.
Question. How do you believe the ongoing operations of private
security contractors in Iraq are likely to be affected by the new SOFA
between the United States and Iraq?
Answer. It is my understanding that since January 1, 2009, U.S.
Government private security contractors in Iraq no longer have immunity
from host nation law. Furthermore, they must comply with host nation
registration and licensing requirements. For all contractors, the SOFA
has meant substantially more liaison and coordination with Iraqi
authorities at all levels.
Question. Do you support the extension of the Military
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act to private security contractors of
all Federal agencies?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What is your view of the appropriate application of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice to employees of private security
contractors operating in an area of combat operations?
Answer. If confirmed, I would consult with the General Counsel on
this question.
contractor performance of information operations
Question. In October 2008, DOD announced a plan to award contracts
in excess of $300 million to U.S. contractors to conduct ``information
operations'' through the Iraqi media. The purposes of this contract
include building up support for the Government of Iraq and the security
forces of Iraq, and undermining Iranian influence in Iraq.
What is your view of the appropriate roles, if any, of DOD and the
Department of State in media campaigns to build up support for the
government and security forces of Iraq and undermining Iranian
influence in Iraq?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to become familiar with the
details of these programs, but believe they deserve careful scrutiny.
If confirmed, I would expect to look into these matters and discuss
them with members of the committee.
Question. What is your view on the effectiveness of information
operations conducted by the United States through the Iraqi media?
Answer. See previous answer.
Question. Do you believe that it is appropriate for the United
States to pay for media campaigns to build up support for the
government and the security forces of Iraq at a time when the Iraqi
Government has a surplus of tens of billions of dollars?
Answer. See previous answer.
Question. Do you see a risk that a DOD media campaign designed to
build up support for the government and security forces of Iraq could
result in the inappropriate dissemination of propaganda inside the
United States through the internet and other media that cross
international boundaries?
Answer. See previous answer.
Question. A spokesman for the Iraqi Government has been quoted as
saying that any future DOD information operations in the Iraqi media
should be a joint effort with the Iraqi Government. According to an
article in the Washington Post, the spokesman stated: ``We don't have a
hand in all the propaganda that is being done now. It could be done
much better when Iraqis have a word and Iraqis can advise.''
Do you believe that DOD information operations through the Iraqi
media should be conducted jointly with the Iraqis?
Answer. See previous answer.
Question. Under what circumstances do you believe it is appropriate
for DOD to conduct information operations in a sovereign country
without the knowledge and support of the host country?
Answer. See previous answer.
detainee treatment policy
Question. Section 1403 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006 provides that no individual in the custody or
under the physical control of the U.S. Government, regardless of
nationality or physical location shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment.
In your view, is the prohibition in the best interest of the United
States? Why or why not?
Answer. I believe the prohibition on cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment is clearly in America's best strategic interest
and consistent with our values. During the long history of the Cold
War, when America's way of life was challenged by a powerful competing
ideology, we were ultimately successful, in part, because we held true
to the best ideals and principles that sustained America as a shining
beacon to millions under totalitarian rule. Power in the 21st century
will stem as much from the strength and appeal of our ideas and moral
principles as from our military might. If we are to defeat violent
extremism, we must hold true to those ideas that make this country
great, and continue to inspire the growth of freedom and tolerance
around the world.
Question. If confirmed, will you take steps to ensure that all
relevant DOD directives, regulations, policies, practices, and
procedures fully comply with the requirements of section 1403 and with
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions?
Answer. Yes, I will.
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. In the past 2 years, significant changes have been made
in Iraq in the way detention operations have been conducted in a
counterinsurgency environment, including through the establishment of
reintegration centers at theater internment facilities.
What do you consider to be the main lessons learned from the
changes to detention operations in Iraq?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to study the changes in
detention operations in detail in order to assess lessons learned. If
confirmed as ASD(ISA), I would be interested in examining changes to
detention operations.
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 ASD(ISA)?
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. 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 of any good faith delay or denial in providing such
documents?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
darfur
1. Senator Reed. Ambassador Vershbow, the Departments of State and
Defense formed the Missing Assets Task Force to conduct a global search
for 28 attack and transport helicopters, logistics units, and other
assets for the operation in Darfur. As of December 2008, the task force
was unable to obtain commitments for the helicopters. Can you please
describe the efforts the Department of Defense (DOD) is undertaking to
find those assets for the United Nations (U.N.) operation in Darfur?
Ambassador Vershbow. The Government of Ethiopia has offered five
attack helicopters which the U.N. stated will fill the attack
helicopter needs for the United Nations/African Union Mission in Darfur
(UNAMID) peacekeeping force. The U.N. is building facilities for these
helicopters and working with the Governments of Sudan and Ethiopia to
get them deployed.
DOD continues to work with the State Department to identify other
sources for these critical enabling assets, using U.S. Defense Attache
Offices (DAOs) to canvas host nation counterparts and providing input
to the State Department in developing its diplomatic engagement
strategy. Particular areas of focus are advising the State Department
in its efforts to secure equipment support for the second Ethiopian
multi-role logistics unit; supporting the deployment of Nepalese
special forces and sector Reserve companies; and ensuring equipment
missing from infantry battalions in UNAMID is en route or will be
shortly.
2. Senator Reed. Ambassador Vershbow, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 included a reporting requirement
that the Secretary of Defense report on the efforts the Department is
undertaking ``to provide training and guidance to the command of an
international intervention force that seeks to prevent mass
atrocities.'' Do you have that report and can you speak to the
Department's efforts in that regard?
Ambassador Vershbow. Section 1266(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 required the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report to Congress on ``the capability of the DOD
to provide training and guidance to the command of an international
intervention force that seeks to prevent mass atrocities.'' This report
is under review by senior DOD officials. We expect it will be
transmitted to Congress within the next few months.
DOD has no formal training program or doctrine aimed specifically
at command of international intervention forces seeking to prevent mass
atrocities. DOD does, however, provide training and possess doctrine
adaptable to such forces. DOD maintains the capability to support the
development of new doctrine for the training and guidance of an
international intervention force if appropriately authorized and
resourced to do so. If directed, DOD is prepared to work in cooperation
with other Federal departments and agencies to this end.
DOD support to the Department of State-led Global Peace Operations
Initiative, which facilitates both the African Contingency Operations
Training and Assistance program and the Center of Excellence for
Stability Police Units, provides foreign peacekeepers with capabilities
that could be useful in the prevention of mass atrocities.
DOD doctrinal documents at both the Capstone and Operational levels
do not address the prevention of genocide or mass atrocities
specifically, but do highlight related issues such as stability
operations, humanitarian relief, human rights and human rights law, the
building of civilian capacity to preclude internal conflict, and the
separation of combatants.
______
[The nomination reference of Ambassador Alexander Vershbow
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
March 12, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Alexander Vershbow of the District of Colombia, to be an Assistant
Secretary of Defense, vice Mary Beth Long, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Ambassador Alexander R.
Vershbow, which was transmitted to the committee at the time
the nomination was referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Alexander Vershbow
Alexander Vershbow served as Ambassador to the Republic of Korea
from October 2005 to September 2008, his final assignment in a career
with the U.S. Foreign Service spanning 32 years. Before coming to
Korea, Vershbow was recognized as one of the State Department's leading
experts in East-West relations, nonproliferation and European security
affairs. As Ambassador to Korea, he was centrally involved in the
transformation of the Korea-U.S. defense alliance, policy for the Six-
Party Talks on North Korea, and securing Korea's participation in the
U.S. Visa Waiver Program. In 2007 he won the State Department's Cordell
Hull Award for Economic Achievement for his significant contributions
to the negotiations on the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
From 2001 to 2005, Alexander Vershbow served as U.S. Ambassador to
the Russian Federation. During his tenure, the Ambassador worked to
promote U.S. Russian cooperation in the areas of counterterrorism and
counterproliferation, and to expand the agenda to encompass new
challenges such as HIV/AIDS. He was a consistent advocate for the
causes of democracy, human rights and rule of law in Russia, and
received the American Bar Association's 2004 Ambassador's Award for
these efforts. He also promoted U.S. business interests in Russia,
advancing American trade, exports and investment while campaigning for
the protection of intellectual property rights.
From 1998 to 2001, Alexander Vershbow served as the U.S. Ambassador
to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). As U.S. Permanent
Representative on the North Atlantic Council, Ambassador Vershbow was
centrally involved in transforming NATO to meet the challenges of the
post-Cold War era, including the admission of new members and the
development of relations with Russia, and in NATO's campaign to end the
conflict in Kosovo. In June 2001, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
awarded Ambassador Vershbow the State Department's Distinguished
Service Award for his work at NATO.
From 1994 to 1997, Alexander Vershbow served as Special Assistant
to the President and Senior Director for European Affairs at the
National Security Council. During this period, he helped shape U.S.
policy toward NATO enlargement, the conflict in Bosnia and other U.S.-
European issues. He was a principal member of the U.S. team that helped
negotiate the Founding Act between NATO and the Russian Federation
signed in 1997. In October 1997, former Secretary of Defense William
Cohen presented Mr. Vershbow with the first annual Joseph J. Kruzel
Award for his contributions to the cause of peace.
Alexander Vershbow is a long-time student of Russian Affairs and
international relations. He received a B.A. in Russian and East
European Studies from Yale University (1974) and a Master's Degree in
International Relations and Certificate of the Russian Institute from
Columbia University (1976). Vershbow was director of the State
Department's Office of Soviet Union Affairs during the last years of
the USSR and participated in numerous U.S.-Soviet summits and
ministerial meetings. In 1990, he was awarded the Anatoly Sharansky
Freedom Award by the Union of Councils of Soviet Jews for his work in
advancing the cause of Jewish emigration from the USSR. Earlier Foreign
Service assignments included postings to the U.S. Embassies in Moscow
and London and Advisor to the U.S. Delegation to the Strategic Arms
Reductions Talks in Geneva.
Ambassador Vershbow was born in Boston, MA. His wife, Lisa, is a
prominent designer of contemporary jewelry.
______
[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 Ambassador
Alexander R. Vershbow 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.)
Alexander Russell Vershbow.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.
3. Date of nomination:
March 12, 2009.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
July 3, 1952; Boston, MA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Lisa Kaufman Vershbow (maiden name: Lisa Nan Kaufman).
7. Names and ages of children:
Benjamin Charles Vershbow, 29; Gregory Michael Vershbow, 26.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
1974-1976, Columbia University, School of International Affairs,
New York, NY - Master of International Affairs (M.I.A.) & Certificate
of the Russian Institute.
1970-1974, Yale University, New Haven, CT - B.A. Russian/East
European Studies.
1963-1970, Browne & Nichols School, Cambridge, MA - High School
Diploma.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
U.S. Department of State - Career Member of the Foreign Service,
1977-2008.
Assignments in last 10 years:
10/05-09/08, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea, Seoul.
07/01-07/05, U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation, Moscow.
01/98-07/01, U.S. Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO), Brussels, Belgium.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Earlier Assignments in the Foreign Service (only other Government
experience):
06/94-09/97, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director
for European Affairs, National Security Council, Washington, DC.
06/93-06/94, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
European and Canadian Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington,
DC.
02/93-06/93, Acting U.S. Permanent Representative on the North
Atlantic Council, Charge d'affaires, U.S. Mission to NATO, Brussels,
Belgium.
08/91-02/93, Deputy U.S. Permanent Representative and Deputy Chief
of Mission, U.S. Mission to NATO, Brussels, Belgium.
08/88-07/91, Director, Office of Soviet Union Affairs, U.S.
Department of State, Washington, DC.
07/85-07/88, Deputy Counselor for Political Affairs, U.S. Embassy,
London, U.K.
08/83-07/85, Deputy Director for Multilateral and Security Affairs,
Office of Soviet Union Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington,
DC. Part-time Advisor to the U.S. Delegation to Strategic Arms
Reductions Talks (START), Geneva, Switzerland.
07/81-07/83, Multilateral and Security Affairs Officer, Office of
Soviet Union Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC.
06/80-07/81, Political Officer, U.S. Embassy, Moscow, USSR.
06/69-06/80, Consular Officer, U.S. Embassy, Moscow, USSR.
05/77-06/79, Politico-Military Affairs Officer, Office of
International Security Policy, Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs,
U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC. Part-time Advisor to the U.S.
Delegation to Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT II), Geneva,
Switzerland.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), 1977-present.
Phi Beta Kappa, 1974-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.
2008: Obama/Biden Campaign, $500.
14. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
2008, Cordell Hull Award for Economic Achievement by Senior
Officers, U.S. Department of State - for work on Korea-U.S. trade
negotiations.
2008, Diplomatic Order of Merit - Award presented by the President
of the Republic of Korea for contributions to U.S.-Korea relations.
2008, Agency Seal Medal, Central Intelligence Agency.
2007, Honorary Doctor of Public Affairs, University of Maryland,
University College.
2005, Honorary Doctor of Philosophy, Nizhniy Novgorod State
Linguistic University, Russia.
2005, Gold Record, Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
- for efforts to combat CD/DVD piracy in Russia.
2004, Ambassador's Award, American Bar Association's Central
European and Eurasian Law Initiative (ABA-CEELI) - for efforts to
promote democracy and the rule of law in Russia.
2004, Friend of the American Chamber of Commerce, Moscow, Russia.
2002, Commander of the Order of Grand Duke Gediminas of the
Republic of Lithuania - for work in support of the enlargement of NATO.
2001, Distinguished Service Award, U.S. Department of State - for
work as Ambassador to NATO on Kosovo and transformation of NATO.
2001, Commander (Commendatore) of the Order of Merit of the
President of the Republic of Italy - for work as U.S. Ambassador to
NATO.
2000, Group Superior Honor Award, U.S. Department of State - for
work on NATO's 50th-anniversary summit in 1999.
1997, Joseph J. Kruzel Award, U.S. Department of Defense - award in
memory of U.S. official killed in Bosnia 1995, for work for peace in
the Balkans.
1990, Anatoly Sharansky Freedom Award, Union of Councils of Soviet
Jews for work to overcome obstacles to Jewish emigration from the USSR.
1997, Various Presidential Senior Foreign Service Awards, State
Department.
2008, Meritorious Service, Superior Honor and Senior Performance
Awards.
1980s, Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
1975-1976, Fellowship of School of International Affairs, Columbia
University.
1974, White History Prize, Yale University.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Chapter in Ambassadors' Memoir U.S.-Korea Relations Through the
Eyes of the Ambassadors, Korea Economic Institute, 2009.
``Offering a Broader Vision for the Alliance,'' Interview with the
Korea Herald (April 15, 2008).
``FTA: It's Time to Make it Happen,'' Joongang Daily, Feb. 13,
2007. (Op-Ed on Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.)
``KORUS FTA Launch,'' Washington Times, June 18, 2006. (Joint Op-Ed
with Korean Ambassador Lee Tae-sik on the Korea-U.S. Free Trade
Agreement.)
``United States-Republic of Korea Relations: A Confident and Strong
Alliance,'' The Ambassadors' Review, Council of American Ambassadors,
Spring 2006.
``Working Together to Create a Viable FTA,'' Korea Herald, Feb,
2006. (Op-Ed on Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.)
``The U.S. Remains Committed to the Six-Party Talks Despite Serious
Concerns About North Korea's Illicit Activities,'' Hankyoreh Shinmun,
Dec. 26, 2005.
``A Time for Leadership in Global Trade and Development,'' Hankook
Kyungje Shinmun (Korea Economic Daily), Dec. 19, 2005. (Op-Ed on the
WTO.)
``United States-Russia Relations: The View After Bratislava'' (The
Ambassadors Review, Spring 2005).
``The World Needs a Strong Russia'' (The Moscow Times, April 11,
2005).
``On Intellectual Property Rights'' (Vedomosti, February 16, 2005).
``History Does Not Honor Bystanders'' (on the anniversary of the
liberation of Auschwitz) (Kommersant, January 26, 2005).
``The End of the Road for Human Traffickers in Russia'' (Vremya
Novostey, December 29, 2004).
``Turning Our Backs on AIDS Will Not Make It Go Away'' (Izvestia,
December 1, 2004).
``The United States and Russia Together in the Fight Against
Terrorism'' (Izvestia, September 7, 2004).
``America Stands with Russia in the Waron Global Terrorism''
(Izvestia, September 6, 2004).
``A Shared Legacy of Environmental Cooperation'' (Nezavismaya
Gazeta, April 21, 2004).
``Human Rights, Civil Society and Freedom of the Press'' (Izvestia,
December 10, 2003).
``World AIDS Day: The U.S.-Russian Partnership in the Fight Against
HIV/AIDS'' (Izvestia, December 1, 2003).
``Piracy Against Progress'' (The Moscow Times and Vedomosti,
November 25, 2003).
``The Partnerships for Prosperity and Security Tradeshow: Building
U.S.-Russian Partnerships in Science and Technology'' (Rossiyskaya
Gazeta, November 5, 2003).
``Taking on the Problem of Trafficking in Persons'' (Izvestia,
October 15, 2003).
``Allies Against Terrorism'' (Nezavismaya Gazeta, September 11,
2003).
``Toward a Free, Prosperous Iraq: Security, Political, Economic
Efforts On Track'' (Izvestia, July 4, 2003).
``Agricultural Biotechnology is a Safe Way of Meeting the World's
Food Needs'' (Kommersant, June 30, 2003).
``U.S.-Russian Relations: From St. Petersburg to Camp David''
(Nezavisimaya Gazeta, June 23, 2003).
``Getting U.S.-Russian Relations Back on Track'' (Izvestia, May 30,
2003).
``The Iraqis Are Ready For Democracy'' (Izvestia, April 27, 2003).
``This is Not A War for Oil'' (Izvestia, April 2, 2003).
``Resolutions Should Be More Than Wishes'' (Nezavisimaya Gazeta,
March 21, 2003).
``The Iraq Crisis: Asking the Right Question'' (Nezavisimaya
Gazeta, March 13, 2003).
``Resolute About War'' (The Moscow Times, March 20, 2003).
``Disarming Iraq: Debunking the Myth of American Unilateralism''
(Kommersant, March 3, 2003).
``Iraq's Failure to Disarm'' (Izvestia, February 13, 2003).
``Iraq is Not Living Up to Its U.N. Commitments'' (Rossiyskaya
Gazeta, February 4, 2003).
``NATO-Russia Relations: Looking Ahead'' - in Russian (Contemporary
Europe, No. 1, January-March 2003) (translation of speech delivered in
December 2002).
``Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: Let's Not Forget the Root of
the Problem'' (Kommersant - September 23, 2002).
``September 11, 2001 - One Year After'' (The Moscow Times and
Izvestia, September 11, 2002).
``Russia, U.S.A., and 21st Century Challenges'' (Obshchaya Tetrad'
- Journal of the Moscow School of Political Sciences, #4 (23), 2002).
``The New United States-Russian Relationship'' (The Ambassadors'
Review - Spring 2002).
``How Not to Do Business in Russia'' (Kommersant, May 21, 2002).
``NATO and Russia - A New Approach to Relations in the 21st
Century'' (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, March 4, 2002).
``Transforming NATO-Russia Relations in NATO in the 21st Century -
The Road Ahead,'' U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda, an Electronic Journal of
the U.S. Department of State, Vol. 7, No. 1, March 2002.
``The New U.S.-Russia Relationship and the Role of an Independent
Press'' (Kommersant - December 24, 2001).
``Almost Real Allies'' (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, December 7, 2001).
``The New U.S.-Russian Economic Relationship'' (Kommersant -
November 26, 2001).
``The Beginning of a U.S.-Russia Alliance?'' (The Moscow Times -
November 23, 2001).
``It's Time to Join Ranks Against International Terrorism,''
(Izvestia - September 29, 2001).
``NATO and the New Europe - U.S. Leadership is Still Essential,''
Article in European Affairs journal, Winter 2000.
``An Alliance of Shared Values and Common Interests,'' Article in
NATO 50 Years On: Enlargement and Renewal, London, Atalink Ltd., 1998.
Letter to the Editor of The New York Times, December 8, 1998.
``The Case for NATO Expansion,'' Letter to the Editor of the
Washington Post, April 7, 1998.
``NATO's Role in Bosnia: Past, Present and Future,'' Article in
``U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda,'' Electronic Journal of the USIA, Vol. 3,
No. 2, April 1998.
``Toward an Undivided Europe,'' Op-Ed article in The Christian
Science Monitor, July 31, 1996 - co-author with Daniel Fried and Steven
Pifer.
``U.S. Offers Moscow an Alliance with an Expanding NATO,'' Op-Ed
Article in The Christian Science Monitor, October 4, 1995 - co-author
with Daniel Fried and Coit Blacker.
``The Dynamics of NewWeapons Systems: Arms Race Without End?''
Published in German in Rissener Jahrbuch 1983/1984, Haus Rissen,
Hamburg, FRG.
Introduction to Controlling Future Arms Trade, The 1980s project,
Council on Foreign Relations, NY, McGraw Hill, 1977 (co-author with
David Gompert).
``The Cruise Missile: The End of Arms Control?'' Article in Foreign
Affairs, Council on Foreign Relations, NY, October 1976.
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.
Examples of speeches as Ambassador to Russia and Korea provided
separately.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to appear and testify before any duly constituted
committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Alexander R. Vershbow.
This 13th day of March, 2009.
[The nomination of Ambassador Alexander R. Vershbow was
reported to the Senate by Chairman Levin on April 1, 2009, with
the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on April 3, 2009.]
NOMINATIONS OF RAYMOND E. MABUS, JR., TO BE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY;
ROBERT O. WORK TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE NAVY; ELIZABETH L. KING TO
BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS; DONALD M.
REMY TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; DR. MICHAEL
NACHT TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR GLOBAL STRATEGIC
AFFAIRS; WALLACE C. GREGSON TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
ASIAN AND PACIFIC SECURITY AFFAIRS; JO-ELLEN DARCY TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS; AND DR. INES R. TRIAY TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:04 a.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Reed, Akaka,
Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Webb, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Begich,
Burris, McCain, Inhofe, Martinez, Wicker, and Collins.
Also present: Senators Baucus, Cochran, and Landrieu.
Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff
director; Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk; and
Paul J. Hubbard, receptionist.
Majority staff members present: Madelyn R. Creedon,
counsel; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member;
Creighton Greene, professional staff member; Michael J. Kuiken,
professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; Peter K.
Levine, general counsel; William G.P. Monahan, counsel; Russell
L. Shaffer, counsel; and William K. Sutey, professional staff
member.
Minority staff members present: Joseph W. Bowab, Republican
staff director; Pablo E. Carrillo, minority investigative
counsel; Daniel A. Lerner, professional staff member; David M.
Morriss, minority counsel; Lucien L. Niemeyer, professional
staff member; Christopher J. Paul, professional staff member;
and Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Kevin A. Cronin and Christine G.
Lang.
Committee members' assistants present: Christopher Griffin,
assistant to Senator Lieberman; Ann Premer, assistant to
Senator Ben Nelson; Jon Davey and Patrick Hayes, assistants to
Senator Bayh; Gordon I. Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb;
Jennifer Barrett, assistant to Senator Udall; Brady King,
assistant to Senator Burris; Anthony J. Lazarski, assistant to
Senator Inhofe; Jason Van Beek, assistant to Senator Thune;
Brian W. Walsh, assistant to Senator Martinez; Erskine W. Wells
III, assistant to Senator Wicker; Rob Epplin and Chip Kennett,
assistants to Senator Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody. This is a very,
very exciting morning for many of us, for families and friends.
We have a huge agenda ahead of us. So we are going to have to
push on.
Instead of the nominees sitting at that table, I would
suggest if you can find room on the side, you do that, and let
our introducers all sit at that table because we are going to
start off with them as soon as I make a brief opening
statement.
I wonder if the Senators who are going to be making
introductions can just sit right at the green table there right
now, and then we will call on you in order. We are going to
change things around a little bit here, save some time.
Senator Baucus, you can just sit anywhere there, too.
Today, the committee considers a number of nominations for
the Department of Defense (DOD). In the first panel, we are
going to hear from the following nominees: the Honorable
Raymond Mabus to be Secretary of the Navy, Robert Work to be
Under Secretary of the Navy, Elizabeth King to be Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs, and Donald Remy
to be General Counsel for the Department of the Army.
In the second panel, we are going to hear from the
following nominees: Dr. Michael Nacht to be Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, Wallace Gregson to be
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security
Affairs, Jo-Ellen Darcy to be Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works, and Dr. Ines Triay--I hope I am pronouncing
that name correctly--to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for
Environmental Management.
Now, I am going to cut short my comments about each of the
nominees until we come to their panel because we want to give
the Senators who are with us to make introductions an
opportunity to proceed because of the schedules that they have,
and then I will also avoid repeating a lot of what we expect
they will be saying.
Let me call on Senator McCain for his opening comment.
Senator McCain. As I always follow your lead, Mr. Chairman,
I will do the same.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator McCain, as
always for your great cooperation.
Senator McCain. I welcome the nominees, and I know our
colleagues will make their remarks very brief also. [Laughter.]
Chairman Levin. Well, I think we may leave each other at
that point. I am not sure.
Now we are going to call on our colleagues who are going to
be making the introductions first. Senator Baucus.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Abraham Lincoln once said, ``Character is like a tree and
reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it.
The tree is the real thing.''
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member McCain, fellow Senators, as
you prepared for this hearing, you likely learned about the
fine reputation of Jo-Ellen Darcy. Having known and worked with
Jo-Ellen for the last 16 years, I can assure you that Jo-Ellen
has an unprecedented knowledge of the Army Corps of Engineers
and has the highest character. She has earned her reputation.
Jo-Ellen is the real thing.
She joined the staff of the Environment and Public Works
Committee in 1993 when I became chairman. She worked on the
committee for more than a decade, responsible for, among other
things, legislation relating to the Clean Water Act, Safe
Drinking Water Act, and Endangered Species Act.
Perhaps her most important contribution in this area was
her work on the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996, which is, to
my mind, a model environmental law because it makes the law
work more efficiently for cities and towns, and at the same
time, it improves the protection of public health.
Most relevant to the position to which she has been
nominated, Jo-Ellen was also the principal staffer responsible
for legislation leading to the Water Resources Development Act.
She became one of the Nation's foremost authorities on that
law.
During her tenure, she helped pass some of the Corps' most
sweeping initiatives, from restoring the Everglades to better
protecting New Orleans in the wake of Hurricanes Rita and
Katrina and requiring independent peer review of Corps
projects.
Jo-Ellen's work has restored ecosystems, improved public
safety, repaired our water infrastructure, and made the Corps
more transparent and more accountable. If confirmed, I am sure
she will continue to improve the work of the Army Corps of
Engineers.
In 2006, I was able to persuade Jo-Ellen to join the staff
of the Senate Finance Committee, where she was instrumental in
developing a series of tax initiatives for environmental
protection, including those that were enacted as part of the
farm bill. She has a record of great accomplishment, which is
reflected in important environmental laws and environmental
restoration projects all across the country.
She knows the Civil Works Programs of the Army Corps as
well as anyone. She knows the law. She knows the Congress and,
in particular, the Senate and its committees, and she is
uniformly respected for an effective, pragmatic, and bipartisan
approach to her work.
On a personal note, I would like to add that Jo-Ellen has
achieved all of these accomplishments not only because of
brains and hard work, but also because of her values. Her
father, Dick Darcy, was a detective on the Fitchburg,
Massachusetts, police force. He and his wife, Jean, raised Jo-
Ellen to have strong values, especially fairness and open-
mindedness, qualities that will serve her well.
I am sure that, although he has passed away, Dick Darcy
would be proud of his daughter today. I know that Jo-Ellen's
mom, who is not able to travel here today, and her sisters,
brothers, cousins, nieces, and nephews, many of whom I have
met, could not be more pleased and proud about this nomination.
So, Mr. Chairman, like you, I believe that there are few
higher callings than public service. Jo-Ellen Darcy is the
epitome of someone who has devoted her professional career to
service, and I could not be more proud that the President has
nominated her to serve as Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works. Jo-Ellen is the real thing.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator Baucus. We
appreciate you and all of our colleagues coming here today for
these very special moments in introduction.
Senator Cochran.
STATEMENT OF HON. THAD COCHRAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
opportunity to be here before the committee.
I am here to introduce to the committee the Honorable Ray
Mabus, who has been nominated by the President to serve as
Secretary of the Navy.
This distinguished nominee has had a career of public
service in our State that is quite impressive. After graduating
summa cum laude from Old Miss in 1969 and completing a Woodrow
Wilson fellowship at Johns Hopkins University in 1970, he
served 2 years as a naval surface warfare officer onboard the
USS Little Rock.
After completing his active duty in naval service, he
attended Harvard Law School and graduated magna cum laude in
1976. He served as a law clerk to Judge J.P. Coleman on the 5th
Circuit Court of Appeals, and he also worked as legal counsel
to the U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Committee here
in Washington.
He returned to Mississippi to work in Governor William
Winter's office and was elected Mississippi State auditor in
1983, where he served with distinction. Four years later, he
was elected Governor of our State, and he led a period of
record economic development, streamlined State government, and
improved Mississippi's public schools.
Ambassador Mabus was appointed by President Clinton to be
United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia in 1994. He served
there for 2 years before returning to the private sector. He
served on several corporate boards of international businesses.
He is a member of the RAND Center for Middle East Public Policy
and the Council on Foreign Relations.
I know that Ambassador Mabus will bring to this job the
same high level of energy and skill that has been the hallmark
of his career throughout the many responsibilities of public
service that he has held. His academic credentials, his record
of distinguished service to the State of Mississippi and to our
country has been exemplary.
His integrity and judgment will also serve him well, and he
will certainly prove to be, in my opinion, an excellent choice
to be Secretary of the United States Navy. I commend President
Obama for nominating him, and I look forward to working with
him in this new capacity.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
I think we will complete the introductions for Governor
Mabus and call on Senator Wicker now.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and my
fellow colleagues on the committee.
It is an honor for me to be here today. Senator Cochran and
I represent the Magnolia State of Mississippi. If you could sit
a little closer to me, in honor of Governor Mabus, I am wearing
my magnolia tie this morning.
We are joined by two colleagues from the House of
Representatives, Chairman Bennie Thompson of the 2nd District
of Mississippi and Representative Travis Childers of the 1st
District of Mississippi. So it is a proud moment for people in
the Magnolia State--Republican, Democrat, and Independent.
Senator Cochran's presence and introduction testifies that we
are continuing today in a strong tradition of bipartisanship of
this Congress when it comes to matters of national defense.
Let me simply reiterate that in nominating Governor and
Ambassador Mabus, President Obama has chosen well. Senator
Cochran mentioned the stellar academic record of Governor Mabus
as a top graduate from the University of Mississippi, a
master's at Johns Hopkins, and a law degree from Harvard.
Clearly, a great quantity of gray matter will be housed in the
Navy department in the person of Ray Mabus.
His service as a naval surface warfare officer I think will
serve him well in this capacity. As Thad mentioned, he has
twice been elected to State-wide office as auditor of public
accounts and as Governor of Mississippi.
When I had the opportunity to serve with Governor Mabus as
a freshman Republican State senator from Lee County, I think it
is fair to say that when Ray Mabus and Roger Wicker were
sitting around the Governor's office, perhaps sharing differing
views on various approaches to revenue challenges that we were
having during that time, neither of us expected to be in this
room at this particular moment in 2009 with this introduction.
Nevertheless, I am delighted to be here and to join Senator
Cochran in this introduction. I think Governor Mabus'
experience as Ambassador to Saudi Arabia will also stand him in
good stead, as will his experience in the private sector as
Chief Executive Officer of Foamex, a polyurethane company,
where he helped to move the company out of Chapter 11
bankruptcy.
Governor Mabus is joined today by his lovely family, and I
am sure, Mr. Chairman, you will want him to make that
introduction. But, indeed, they are a credit to Governor Mabus,
Ambassador Mabus.
I expect Ray to run a tight ship for the taxpayers, and I
think the President has chosen well on behalf of national
security and on behalf of the best interest of America's
sailors and marines.
I thank you very much, and I am delighted to join my senior
colleague in this introduction.
Chairman Levin. Well, thank you both for a wonderful
introduction, and thanks to your colleagues from the House for
joining us here today as well.
Senator Landrieu.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY L. LANDRIEU, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF LOUISIANA
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Senator McCain and fellow Senators, ladies and gentlemen.
I am here for two reasons this morning, and I will be
brief. One is to reluctantly support my friend Ray Mabus for
Secretary of the Navy, only under the condition that he be fair
to the State of Louisiana in shipbuilding with our neighbor
Mississippi. But I am convinced that he will, and I have
observed him for many years, and he will be an outstanding
leader.
Second, Mr. Chairman, to joyfully introduce to you Donald
Michael Remy, who is being nominated for General Counsel for
the Department of the Army. Although Mr. Remy was born close
here to Washington, DC, his roots go very deep in Louisiana. He
is here with his parents, who I would like the committee to
welcome: Master Sergeant Donald E. Remy and his wife, Mrs. Ann
Remy, who come from Harvey, LA.
His father dedicated many of his years to the Army,
retiring finally from Fort Polk. Ann is the bedrock that has
kept this family Army strong these many years and, I am
confident, had a great influence in preparing her son for the
position that he is being nominated by President Obama this
morning.
Of course, Don's wife, Monitra, and his two sons, Alex and
Jason. Would you welcome the family this morning?
Thank you.
As I said, he was born in Fort Lee, VA, but his roots run
deep, graduating from Leesville High School, and graduating cum
laude Howard University Law School. He received his
undergraduate degree from Louisiana State University.
Throughout his career, Mr. Remy has served in numerous
capacities, both the Government and private sector. Early on as
an Army officer assigned to the Pentagon, he advised senior
Army officials on numerous legal and policy issues related to
major weapon acquisition systems. He has also served in the
Department of Justice as senior counsel for policy and as
Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Torts in Federal program
branches of the Civil Division.
Moving into the private sector, where he has extensive
experience, he served as attorney for a major U.S. company. He
currently is a partner in a major and very prestigious
Washington, DC, law firm of Latham & Watkins.
Mr. Remy has demonstrated tremendous commitment to this
field over many years. He is no stranger here on Capitol Hill,
having published, lectured, and testified before Congress on
numerous occasions.
I have appreciated the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to work
over the years with Don Remy. Our paths have crossed,
particularly as he led efforts to help our continued work to
rebuild the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Confirming him will bring credit to this committee as well as
to DOD and our Nation. So I urge you to confirm him as
expeditiously as possible for general counsel of the Department
of the Army.
Thank you very much, and I appreciate the opportunity, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator Landrieu, and
thank you all for coming.
Senator Wicker. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Levin. Senator Wicker?
Senator Wicker. I have noticed that since the hearing
began, we have been joined by a third colleague from the House,
Chairman Gene Taylor of Mississippi, the chairman of the
Seapower Subcommittee of our counterpart at the other end of
the building. So we are delighted to have three members of the
House here in support of Governor Mabus.
Senator Landrieu. Now I am really feeling nervous, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you. [Laughter.]
Chairman Levin. Another old friend. We welcome them all.
Now, Senator Reed has an introduction.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACK REED, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
RHODE ISLAND
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am privileged and extraordinarily proud to introduce
Elizabeth L. King, the President's nominee to be Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. Liz and I have
been colleagues for 13 years, as she has been a colleague to
this committee.
She has an extraordinary grasp of the legislative issues
and the legislative process. But she is also outstanding in
terms of her intelligence, her integrity, her judgment, and her
commitment to the men and women who serve in the military
forces.
That commitment is not just rhetorical. I doubt there are
very few civilian appointees to DOD that can claim they have
traveled 11 times to Iraq to visit forces in the field, 7 times
to Afghanistan, 4 times to Pakistan, to Colombia, to Bosnia
when we had troops committed there, and to East Timor when we
had a Marine Expeditionary Corps there. She has seen what
soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen do, how difficult it is,
and she will represent them extremely well on Capitol Hill.
She has great experience not only here in the Senate, but
in the process of the 1995 Base Realignment and Closure
Commission, she was a chief assistant to the chairperson. She
served in the House with Congressman Marty Meehan of
Massachusetts. She is, again, an extraordinary individual.
She is a product of a strong, devout family of Chicago. Leo
and Rita King are not with us today, but their legacy lives on
in a woman committed to public service. Her sister Celeste and
Liz are raising their nephew Brendan, who is not here today
because he is getting ready for the SAT. Brendan's mother,
Bernadette, passed away too soon, but with two strong Irish
women behind him, he is going to be a great success, I am sure.
It is difficult to part company with someone you have
worked with as a colleague for 13 years, but I do so knowing
that she can serve even more widely and more adroitly than any
woman in the armed services in her new position. I am proud to
introduce her to this committee.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Reed.
Now Senator Webb will be introducing General Gregson, but
he is on the second panel. We expect Senator Webb will be able
to get here for that second panel.
Let me just make one introduction because there was no one
here to introduce Mr. Work.
Mr. Work served a career in the Marine Corps, retiring
after 27 years of service. He then served at the Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, where he has focused on
defense strategy, transformation, and also maritime affairs.
Our other nominees on the first panel have all been
introduced, so I will not repeat what has been said about them.
I will put my statement regarding them, however, in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Carl Levin
Today, the committee considers a number of nominations for the
Department of Defense. In the first panel, we will hear from the
following nominees: the Honorable Raymond E. Mabus to be Secretary of
the Navy; Robert O. Work to be Under Secretary of the Navy; Elizabeth
L. King to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs;
and Donald M. Remy to be General Counsel of the Department of the Army.
In the second panel, we will hear from the following nominees: Dr.
Michael Nacht to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic
Affairs; Wallace Gregson to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian
and Pacific Security Affairs; Jo-Ellen Darcy to be Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Civil Works; and Dr. Ines R. Triay to be Assistant
Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management.
Each of our nominees has a long history of public service. Governor
Mabus served as Governor of Mississippi, and from 1994 to 1996, was
Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Subsequently, Governor Mabus served as
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Foamex, a large manufacturing
company, where he led that company out of bankruptcy. Notably, Governor
Mabus served in the Navy as a surface warfare officer aboard the
cruiser USS Little Rock.
Mr. Work served a career in the Marine Corps, retiring after 27
years of service. Thereafter, he has served at the Center for Strategic
and Budgetary Assessments, where he focused on defense strategy and
transformation and maritime affairs.
Ms. King is well known to this committee. For the past 12 years,
Ms. King has served as Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor for Senator
Jack Reed for defense, foreign affairs, and veterans' issues. Prior to
that, she was legislative director for a member of the House Armed
Services Committee, and was counsel to the 1995 Base Realignment and
Closure Commission.
Mr. Remy is a partner at the law firm of Latham & Watkins, where he
has dealt with criminal and civil litigation, and advised clients on
International Traffic and Arms Regulations, the Office of Foreign
Assets Control and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement. From 1997
to 2000, Mr. Remy served in the United States Department of Justice as
a Senior Counsel for Policy and as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General
for the Torts and the Federal Programs Branches of the Civil Division.
Earlier, as an Army Captain, Mr. Remy was an Assistant to the General
Counsel of the Army from 1991-1995, where he advised senior Army
officials on legal and policy issues concerning all aspects of
government contracting, specifically including major weapon system
acquisition.
I will save the introductions for the second panel until we have
finished questioning the first panel.
We welcome our nominees and their families to today's hearing.
Senior Department of Defense officials put in long hours every day, and
we appreciate the sacrifices that our nominees and their families are
willing to make to serve their country.
If confirmed, Governor Mabus and Mr. Work will assume leadership of
the Navy organization at a difficult time. There are well known
concerns about naval aviation and potential shortages of aircraft, Navy
shipbuilding programs that are behind schedule and over budget, and
more recently, we are hearing reports of readiness problems with the
fleet. These are very difficult issues that will merit their personal
attention.
If confirmed, Ms. King will join DOD when communications between
Congress and the Department of Defense will be critical. As I am sure
Ms. King knows, the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, has
two sets of clients: one set in the Department, where she will assist
the Secretary in representing Departmental positions to Congress, and
another set in Congress, where she will represent the concerns of
Congress to the Secretary and his team as they consider and decide
major policy issues.
If confirmed as General Counsel for the Department of the Army, Mr.
Remy will lead the Army legal team as the Army's chief legal officer,
determine the controlling legal positions of the Department of the Army
and provide professional guidance to the Army's legal community. He
will come to this position at a time when there are many concerns and
issues to be addressed relating to personnel and acquisition matters.
I look forward to the testimony of our nominees on these and other
important issues.
Senator McCain, do you have a statement that you would like to make
at this time?
I know that we have a number of Senators who have requested time to
make introductions this morning. In the interest of time, we will hear
from those Senators at the beginning of the hearing, without regard to
the panel which includes the nominee to be introduced.
Chairman Levin. I guess the order of battle here is first
to call on Governor Mabus.
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND E. MABUS, JR., NOMINEE TO BE SECRETARY OF
THE NAVY
Ambassador Mabus. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, members
of the committee, thank you so much for giving me this
opportunity to appear before you.
I want to thank Senator Cochran and Senator Wicker for
their very kind introductions. I have worked with both for more
than two decades, and I appreciate it very much.
I also thank the members of the Mississippi congressional
delegation: Gene Taylor, Bennie Thompson, Travis Childers, and
Congressman Gregg Harper had a conflict today and could not be
here. But thank you so much for being here today in support of
my nomination.
Chairman Levin. Governor, I am sorry, let me interrupt you
just for a minute.
Ambassador Mabus. Absolutely.
Chairman Levin. I failed to say something which is perhaps
the most important, which is how indebted we are to all of your
families, whether they are here or they are not able to be
here, for their great support of you. It makes a huge
difference in your lives, as you all know because you have been
in public service. Each of you feel free to make those
introductions as you proceed.
Ambassador Mabus. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and that
gives me a great segue into introducing my family.
My wife, Lynne, who is a nurse and whose father was an Air
Force doctor when she was born; our daughter Elisabeth, who is
a freshman at Harvard; our daughter Annie, who is a junior at
St. Andrew's Episcopal School in Mississippi; and our daughter
Kate, who is a second grader, also at St. Andrew's.
I want to echo what the chairman said about how important
families are, particularly in just being there when people are
in public service.
I also want to express my deep appreciation to President
Obama for nominating me to this position and Secretary Gates
for everything that he has done.
The Navy and the Marine Corps play critical roles in our
Nation's service: fighting America's wars, projecting power
where needed, protecting the sea lanes, delivering disaster
relief, cooperating with other countries in efforts to multiply
force, trying and preventing conflicts from arising or from
turning into things which are larger, more dangerous, and
harder to control, providing training and other assistance to
nations around the globe, and doing many of these things in a
sea-based, minimum footprint way.
The job of the Secretary has many facets. They range from
making sure that the Navy and Marine Corps recruit, train, and
retain exceptional forces, to ensuring that those forces have
enough of the right equipment to do their job, to caring for
them and their families daily and especially in times of
crisis, to working with Congress and the other Services in the
larger DOD.
These are important times for the Marine Corps and the
Navy. Thousands of brave marines and sailors are engaged in
Iraq and Afghanistan while courageous thousands more carry out
hazardous duties around the globe. These incredible, wonderful
young Americans all volunteered to serve and are defending and
representing the United States and all of us.
The Navy Department faces complex challenges. One of the
most important is gaining control of an acquisition process,
which far too often overpromises and underprices, breaks--
sometimes spectacularly--budgets and schedules, ups
requirements while lowering quantities, and resists
accountability. If confirmed, this will be one of my areas of
concentration.
Again, if confirmed, I look forward to working with the
members of this committee to make sure we don't shortchange our
sailors, marines, and taxpayers because of an out-of-control
process.
My family history and my life's experiences will, if you
confirm me, be crucial in doing this exacting job. My father
served as a naval officer during World War II. His brother, my
uncle, was a West Point graduate who was at the academy during
World War I and served again during World War II. My mother's
youngest brother, another uncle of mine, flew in both the North
African and European theaters during World War II.
When it came my time to serve, I became a surface warfare
officer in the Navy, and the time I spent in the Navy as a
young man was one of the most profound experiences of my life.
It helped me so much in the other things that I have
undertaken.
The people of Mississippi have honored me beyond measure by
electing me both Governor and, before that, State auditor. As
auditor, it was my job to make sure public money was being
spent correctly. In it, I learned about hard decisions
involving finance.
From my period as Governor, I know that one person cannot
do everything and that cooperation and collaboration,
especially with the legislative branch, is crucial if anything
is to be accomplished.
Later, when I served as United States Ambassador to Saudi
Arabia, I saw firsthand what our military and all of us face in
that critical and exceedingly complex part of the Earth. From
my time in the private sector, I bring lessons of efficiency
and competition.
As a youngster growing up in Ackerman, MS, I could not have
imagined how rich and varied my life was to be so far. I, like
so many people in this room, have lived my own part of the
dream that is quintessentially American.
If you confirm me, I look forward to working with you, the
President, Secretary Gates, and many others to make sure that
the country which allows such dreams is well protected by our
Navy and Marine Corps.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Governor.
Next we will call on Robert Work, nominated to be Under
Secretary of the Navy.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT O. WORK, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF
THE NAVY
Mr. Work. Mr. Chairman and Senator McCain, distinguished
members of the committee, I am truly honored to be before you
today as President Obama's nominee as the Under Secretary of
the Navy. Serving in this post would be a great privilege, and
I am grateful to both the President and Secretary Gates for
choosing me for this position.
I would also particularly like to thank my family for being
here today and supporting me, and I would like to introduce
them to the panel and yourself, sir.
First is the love of my life, my bride of 31 years,
Cassandra. She is a former Army nurse and mother of my
beautiful daughter, Kendyl, who is finishing her first year at
Randolph Macon College here in Virginia. I am forced to tell
you that she is a proud new sister in Delta Zeta sorority. I am
also joined by my brother, Skip, a former marine and now a
director for contracting and an author.
Unfortunately, neither my dad nor mom could be here today.
My father fought as a marine in three different wars, retired
after over 30 years of active duty. But he was a marine until
the day he died. My mom was a Navy nurse, served in World War
II. I, myself, was a marine for 27 years, and my brother, Skip,
a marine for another 20.
So my birth family has contributed about 84 years of active
service to the Nation in the Department of the Navy, my wife
another 6 in the Department of the Army, and my wife and
daughter another 34 years supporting me while I was on active
duty.
So as you might imagine then, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee, I am both humbled and excited about the prospect
of returning to service and especially at having the
opportunity of being in a department that I so respect and
love. If we are confirmed, I look forward to helping Governor
Mabus lead the finest Navy and Marine Corps in the world and
working closely with members of the committee and your
respective staffs in carrying out the duties and
responsibilities of the Under Secretary of the Navy.
Being called upon to serve our country at any time is a
great honor, but being asked to serve in time of war is an
especially high one and one that comes with important
responsibilities. If confirmed, I give you my word I will do
everything possible to ensure that our brave sailors and
Marines have what they need to prevail in combat and that they
go into harm's way knowing that their families will receive the
support that they deserve.
I will also work hard with the Secretary of the Navy to
ensure that our nearly 11,000 wounded warriors receive the best
care possible and that the families of our fallen are treated
with the dignity and respect they deserve.
I am also mindful that because of what looks like to be an
especially challenging fiscal and budgetary environment, the
incoming Secretary and Under Secretary will be forced to make
hard decisions about the future Navy and Marine Corps. If
confirmed, I believe that my lifelong experience, first as an
active duty dependent, then a military officer, a husband and
father of a military family, and a leader strategist and
analyst, well prepares me to contribute to these decisions.
However, I pledge not to enter this important job with any
preconceived notions or positions. I will listen to the best
available civilian and military advice and, when asked, give
honest, pragmatic advice and counsel to the Secretary of the
Navy, the Secretary of Defense, and the President.
If confirmed as the Under Secretary, I will also work hard
as the department's Chief Management Officer (CMO) to tee up
well thought-out positions and recommendations to the Secretary
on a full range of Department of Navy activities, lead and
manage the Department's Senior Executive Service, and explore
ways to improve departmental business practices across the
board.
In closing, I want to again thank President Obama for
nominating me to this position and Secretary Gates for
supporting my nomination. I am honored and truly humbled to be
before you today. If the Senate chooses to confirm me in this
position, I hope to justify your trust fully and look forward
to working closely with all of you in maintaining our great
Navy and Marine Corps.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the questions.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Levin. Yes?
Senator Inhofe. Just a brief comment. I am ranking member
on the Environment and Public Works Committee. My attendance is
required at a meeting coming up.
But I want to say and get on the record that I am in full
support of all the nominees today on both panels. I have worked
with Ms. King back when she was with Marty Meehan on different
causes, and certainly with Jo-Ellen Darcy, I agree with
everything that Senator Baucus said.
I want to make this one comment, though. I know there is
some request to have a confirmation hearing for Ms. Darcy
before the Environment and Public Works Committe, and I think
that if I can just go ahead and submit the questions as it
would pertain to that committee, maybe that can be avoided. We
will try to do that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Now Liz King is an old friend of this committee. It is
wonderful to see you here in any capacity, but a little bit
strange to see you on the other side of this dais.
Ms. King. Indeed.
Chairman Levin. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH L. KING, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
Ms. King. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Levin, Senator McCain, members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear here today.
I would like to begin by recognizing and thanking my sister
Celeste and my nephew Brendan. While they could not be here
today, I know they are with me in spirit, and their love,
understanding, and camaraderie mean the world to me.
I would also like to thank a small army of friends, many of
whom are here today. They have given me their love, support,
and loyalty for many years, and it has made all the difference.
Finally, I would like to thank Senator Reed not only for
his introduction, but for the privilege of working for him for
the past 13 years. He has been a wonderful boss, mentor, and
friend. Opportunities to work for someone like him do not come
along often in one's life, and I will always treasure the
experience.
It has been an honor to work on Capitol Hill for the past
14 years. If I am confirmed, I may be switching offices, but I
look forward to continuing to work with the members of the
Senate and House and their staffs to solve problems, implement
legislation, and provide needed information in a timely
fashion.
I hope to foster a strong partnership between Congress and
the DOD so that together we can reach the common goal of
meeting the needs of the men and women in uniform who
tirelessly serve our Nation.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Ms. King.
Now Mr.--is it ``Ray-mee'' or ``Ree-mee''?
Mr. Remy. It is ``Rem-mee,'' Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Remy. I will get it right the third time.
Mr. Remy?
STATEMENT OF DONALD M. REMY, NOMINEE TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Mr. Remy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and distinguished members
of the committee, it truly is an honor and a privilege to
appear before you today as the nominee for General Counsel of
the Army.
I am grateful to President Obama for his confidence in me
and, if confirmed, for giving me the opportunity to return to
my roots at the Pentagon and serve alongside the men and women,
civilian and uniformed, who protect and defend our country.
Mr. Chairman, I am especially thankful to you, to Senator
McCain, the committee, and your staffs for holding this hearing
so promptly. I also want to thank Senator Landrieu for her kind
introduction.
If I may, I would like to follow up on the introduction
that Senator Landrieu provided of my family. Were it not for
the unconditional love and support of my family, my friends,
and for the grace of God, I would not be before you today.
In the audience today is my partner and head coach in what
we refer to as ``Team Remy,'' Monitra, my wife. She has been
with me on our journey for 22 years, since our days in Reserve
Officers' Training Corps as cadets together.
Seated beside her are our two terrific sons: Alex, who is
15, and Jason, who is 11. Members of the committee, these two
boys are happy to be here today and enjoy this civics lesson
rather than go to school. [Laughter.]
Their mother and I could not be more proud of the young men
they have become and the future that they have ahead of them.
Indeed, it wasn't until I was a parent myself that I truly
appreciated all that my parents did to help me become the man
that I am.
Last year, Secretary of the Army Geren declared 2009 the
Year of the Noncommissioned Officer (NCO), and I can think of
no better tribute to the NCO than to offer my thanks in this
forum to my father, retired Army Master Sergeant Donald Remy,
who was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Vietnam.
But we all know that beside every great soldier is the
soldier's spouse. Just as my father dedicated 25 years of
service to this Nation, so, too, did my mother, Ann Remy.
Whether my father was deployed or at home, my mother was
steadfast in caring for and raising not just me and my brother
Adrian and sister Renee, who could not be here today, but also
many other sons and daughters of our Army community.
While many friends and colleagues are here today, I want to
thank, in particular, my sister-in-law, Christine Butler, for
her presence and always being there for our family. I also want
to recognize one of my closest friends, former Federal
Communications Commission chairman, the Honorable Michael
Powell.
America's Army is pivotal to the strength of our Nation. In
an ever-changing global dynamic, the Army continues to adapt
its aim to achieve and maintain balance for the 21st century.
The issues, particularly the legal issues that arise in that
context are complex, challenging, and, in some instances,
unprecedented.
If confirmed, I want to assure the committee that I am
committed to working cooperatively with the Judge Advocate
General (JAG) to provide expert, timely, value-added advice to
the Army Secretariat and the Army staff. I am committed to
assisting the department's efforts to assure that the
acquisition process for materiel and services is efficient,
effective, and compliant with our laws and regulations.
I am committed to making certain that the Army's
transformation is accomplished consistent with the rule of law
and a practical understanding of the issues affecting our All-
Volunteer Force and their families.
Senator Landrieu kindly noted my background and dedication
to public service. I have served our Nation in uniform as a
soldier and as a public servant in both the Department of the
Army and the Department of Justice. I am greatly humbled by the
opportunity to serve again. If confirmed, I pledge to work
closely with this committee to support and promote the
outstanding men and women of the United States Army and their
families.
I welcome your questions, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Mark R. Warner
It's an honor and a privilege to support Donald Remy's nomination
before the Senate Armed Services Committee. I strongly endorse Don's
nomination and look forward to his confirmation as General Counsel of
the Army. I know that Don will perform admirably as the chief attorney
for the Army. This is a job of utmost importance as the General Counsel
is charged with the weighty responsibility of determining the Army's
legal stance on many of our Nation's most challenging issues.
Don brings a wealth of experience to this position from the private
sector including his distinguished work as an attorney and businessman.
In the private sector, he served in numerous high level legal roles and
has tremendous experience in employment, procurement, and contracting
law.
Don completed his undergraduate schooling at Louisiana State
University, where he graduated with honors and was commissioned a 2nd
Lieutenant in the United States Army. He then finished Cum Laude at
Howard University Law School, where he also served as the Executive
Articles Editor of the Law Journal. Upon graduation from Howard he was
selected to serve as a clerk to The Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Don has also made public service a priority during his career. He
has published, lectured and testified before Congress on legal topics
relating to torts, constitutional law, employment law, diversity,
government contracts, litigation and compliance. During his time in the
Army General Counsel's Office, he lectured at the Judge Advocate
General's School and the Army Materiel Command. In 2005, Don was
recognized by Black Enterprise as one of America's most powerful
executives under 40.
Don is also a respected leader, admitted to Practice Law in
Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Courts
of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Sixth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, Eighth
Circuit, Fifth Circuit and Fourth Circuit. He is a DC Bar Delegate to
the American Bar Association and a member of the National Bar
Association and Washington Bar Association. Don also sits on the Boards
of Louisiana State University--University College, the Washington
Lawyers Committee on Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, the Abramson
Foundation, and the Legal Counsel for the Elderly.
Now more than ever, the Nation needs his skills and commitment. I
offer my strongest support to his nomination, and I look forward to his
confirmation by the Senate.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Mr. Remy.
Now, I will ask you to answer the following standard
questions. You can all answer at once.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
[All four witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which
would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation
process?
[All four witnesses answered in the negative.]
Will you ensure your staff complies with deadlines
established for requested communications, including questions
for the record in hearings?
[All four witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in
response to congressional requests?
[All four witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Will those witnesses be protected from reprisal for their
testimony or briefings?
[All four witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and testify upon
request before this committee?
[All four witnesses answered 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?
[All four witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
We thank you.
Let us try 8-minute rounds and see if we can get all of our
questions that we need to ask during that period. We are trying
to fit a lot in this morning. If we can do it, it would be
great.
If we can't get both panels completed, we will have to
figure out other arrangements. But we will give it a go.
First, Governor Mabus, one initiative to improve management
of our acquisition process within the department is Senate Bill
454, which is sponsored by Senator McCain and myself. This bill
would make several changes to current acquisition law:
presuming that programs would be terminated if they breached
the Nunn-McCurdy threshold, elevating the level of independent
cost estimating, and dealing with organizational conflicts of
interest.
Governor Mabus first, and then I will ask you, Mr. Work,
the same question. Are you familiar with our legislation?
Ambassador Mabus. Yes, sir. Senator, I have read the
legislation.
Chairman Levin. Can you give us your personal opinion
regarding any of the components of that legislation?
Ambassador Mabus. It is very obvious that our acquisition
process needs reforming in some fundamental ways that this
legislation seeks to address. If I am confirmed, I look forward
to working with this committee to make sure that those reforms
are implemented, the reforms that Congress mandates are
implemented effectively, timely, and in a very professional
way.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Work, do you have any comment?
Mr. Work. Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with the intent of
the legislation. I am especially drawn to trying to establish
cost controls over out-of-control programs, independent cost
estimation, and solving conflict of interest issues. I haven't
been able to discuss fully with staff all of the aspects of the
legislation and how it might be implemented, but I fully
subscribe to the intent.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Work, if confirmed as Under Secretary, you are going to
also become the first CMO of the Department of the Navy. We
established this position in 2007 out of frustration with the
inability of the military departments to modernize their
business systems and processes.
We chose to have the Under Secretary serve concurrently as
CMO because no other official in the Department of the Navy,
other than the Secretary, sits at a high enough level to cut
across stovepipes and implement comprehensive change.
Will you make the modernization of the Navy's business
systems and processes a top priority?
Mr. Work. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will.
In my interviews with both Secretary Gates and the Deputy
Secretary, they indicated how important this position is and
how much that they were going to exercise it. I look forward to
working with the members of the committee to understanding the
intent of the legislation and implementing it, if confirmed.
Chairman Levin. Will you report back to this committee on a
regular basis on any obstacles that you are encountering in
that effort?
Mr. Work. Absolutely, sir. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Now Chapter 633 of Title 10 establishes the
requirement for a board of officers, commonly referred to as
the Board of Inspection and Survey, to examine naval vessels.
The committee is concerned about recent reports from that
board, which have found that certain front-line ships of the
Navy are unfit for combat operations, and forward-deployed mine
countermeasure ships were unable to get underway in 2006. The
Navy attacked the material issues to restore those ships to
high readiness.
However, subsequent reports of serious degradation to
amphibious ships and, more recently, the determination that two
Aegis combatants are unfit for combat operations raises
concerns that there are systemic issues associated with
organic-level maintenance and self-assessment that might
jeopardize the Navy's ability to meet the objectives under the
Navy's concept of operations called the Fleet Response Plan.
Governor and Mr. Work, are you aware of recent reports that
Navy readiness of the fleet has some real problems such that
additional ships have been unable to get underway and have
inoperable systems that might threaten crew safety? Are you
familiar with those reports? Governor, you can answer first.
Ambassador Mabus. I am aware of the reports, Senator. I
have not had an opportunity to study them in any detail.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Work, are you aware of the reports?
Mr. Work. Yes, sir. I am.
Chairman Levin. Will you both assure this committee that
you are going to look into this matter to ensure that any
classification of these reports is handled properly and not
just done to shield the Navy from some unflattering press
articles?
Ambassador Mabus. Yes, sir.
Mr. Work. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Ms. King, members and staff of this
committee, we work well with the DOD officials on a day-to-day
basis. We request and receive information that we need to
understand the programs and activities of the Department and to
meet the committee's oversight responsibilities.
From time to time, the Department has decided to impose
formal requirements on such exchanges, such as all
communications having to go through the Office of Legislative
Affairs, all requests for information to be in writing, no
official of the DOD could discuss an issue until the Secretary
has made a decision, and so forth.
Now in our experience, and you have had an experience
second to none for anybody who has, I think, ever been in the
position to which you have been nominated, the imposition of
that type of formal requirement could unnecessarily undermine
the working relationship between this committee and the
Department that has been so beneficial to both sides.
I am wondering if you could give us your assessment as to
the desirability of informal communication between department
officials and the committee and whether it is necessary and
essential at times? Also then why impose any formal
requirements on such communications?
Ms. King. I am aware that recently there has been some
imposition of formal requirements. If I am confirmed, I plan on
reviewing those procedures and processes because I believe that
open channels of communication, getting everyone what they need
in a timely manner in the most efficient way possible, is the
best way to form a partnership between Congress and DOD.
Chairman Levin. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Remy, increasing violence along the border with Mexico
has brought renewed calls to use our military to assist the
Border Patrol and Customs Service. Can you give us your
thoughts on that? Any implications in terms of posse comitatus?
Mr. Remy. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the posse comitatus law deals with the
ability of the uniformed personnel in our United States
military to help States. I understand that there have been some
circumstances where our military has been deployed, and there
is a study underway looking at the deployment of our military
forces along the border.
That is something that I believe would require a
significant amount of analysis and thought. If confirmed, I
pledge to do that.
Chairman Levin. All right. Mr. Remy, during the Iraq war,
private security contractors were used to perform a wide
variety of security functions requiring the use of deadly force
in a hostile environment. To some extent, this was done out of
necessity because we just didn't have and don't have yet
sufficient troops to provide needed security.
However, the extensive use of private security contractors
in Iraq has resulted in a number of problems, including the
2007 shooting incident in Baghdad, which resulted in the recent
indictment of some employees.
Do you agree that the Department needs to take steps to
undertake first a comprehensive review of whether and to what
extent it is appropriate for contractors to engage in functions
that require them to make discretionary decisions about the use
of deadly force, which is not in the military chain of command
by definition?
Mr. Remy. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do believe that such a study
is necessary.
Chairman Levin. Do you undertake that review and your
commitment to do it with any particular thoughts along that
line?
Mr. Remy. Yes. Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, if I have an
opportunity to look into these issues, I will examine the
question of whether or not individuals are doing functions that
are inherently governmental functions and to determine whether
or not it is appropriate to have contractors conduct
interrogations, especially in the circumstance where those
interrogations may impact the life or liberty of the
individuals that are being interrogated.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
congratulations to the nominees, we look forward to as rapid
confirmation as possible of your nominations.
Ambassador Mabus and Mr. Work, you are aware of the
situation concerning cost overruns. This has been particularly
true of the United States Navy, whether it be on acquisition of
aircraft, a Littoral Combat Ship, or other acquisition
requirements that have had dramatic and really terrible cost
overruns associated with them.
Do you have thoughts on that, particularly in relation to
the legislation that Senator Levin and I have introduced? We
will begin with you, Governor.
Ambassador Mabus. Yes, sir. The acquisition process has to
be gotten under control or we are going to unilaterally disarm
ourselves. We must begin to match up requirements with
resources and make sure that our technology is mature before
proceeding, stabilize the requirements for ships and aircraft
during the manufacturing process, and have fair and adequate
contracts going forward. If confirmed, one of my areas of
intense concentration and focus will be on this whole
acquisition process, both for new systems and for those already
in place.
Senator McCain. Have you looked at Senator Levin's and my
legislation?
Ambassador Mabus. Yes, sir. I have read it. As Mr. Work
said in his statement, I believe the intent of the legislation
absolutely goes to the heart of some of these matters. We have
to make sure that we have good, independent cost estimates, so
if systems spin out of control, there is some teeth to looking
at whether to continue them or not.
Senator McCain. Mr. Work?
Mr. Work. This is a problem that has long years in
building. I believe that the U.S. Navy, along with other
members of the DOD acquisition team, lost what Admiral Phil
Balisle used to refer to as ``technical authority,'' being able
to set good requirements, being able to understand when a
program is in trouble, and being able to set remedial actions
to take care of problems.
The intent of the legislation, especially on the
independent cost estimation and tracking closely the costs as
they grow and taking action as required, I think are exactly
right. I don't fully understand the intent of the conflict of
interest provisions of the legislation. Hopefully, if
confirmed, I will be able to work with the committee to
understand the intent and to keep these cost overruns from
occurring.
Senator McCain. Ms. King, I note that Senator Reed is next,
and he will probably pose the most difficult questions for you.
But, we have had a problem from administration to
administration, whether it be Republican or Democrat, with
candid views from the members of the administration that work
on the other side of the river.
This sometimes leads to needless conflict. Sometimes it
leads to legislation which isn't developed in the closest
coordination possible. I hope you will work to keep the
committee informed and help us perform our constitutional
duties.
Ms. King. Yes, Senator McCain, I plan to do that.
Senator McCain. So, you know from sitting on this side that
some of the problems that we have had are both Republican and
Democrat.
Ms. King. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
Mr. Remy, I noticed in your bio that you said you worked
for a well-known company or corporation. That happened to be
Fannie Mae, one of the organizations that is responsible for
the severe crisis we are in today. I will be submitting
questions to you concerning what responsibilities you had there
and what decisions were made during that period of time that
you worked there. Certainly, the collapse of Fannie Mae was a
direct contributor to many of the economic difficulties we have
today.
Mr. Remy. Senator McCain, I am happy to answer any
questions of yours or the committee's.
Thank you.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
On the issue of the deployment of the military, I also
serve on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee, and we had a hearing in Phoenix, AZ, which is now
the kidnapping capital of America, about border violence. From
talking with the mayors, the sheriffs, the Governor, and the
attorney general of my State, it is very clear that there is
great danger of that violence spilling over into our State,
Texas, New Mexico, and California.
Now, all four Governors of border States have requested the
deployment of the National Guard to the border for the reasons
that I have just stated. Do you have views on this subject,
particularly in light of the fact that the National Guard has
been deployed in the past and there doesn't seem to be any
large national crisis, constitutional crisis, associated with
it?
Mr. Remy. Senator McCain, I understand the concerns that
the States are voicing, and I understand the need to have the
security forces that are adequate to deal with the issues on
those borders. I believe that, if appropriate, it would make
sense to further examine that issue if it is something that is
put into my space and, if confirmed, if it is something that I
am charged with looking at.
Presently, it is not an issue that I have studied at great
length, but it is something that I would be committed to
examine.
Senator McCain. Let me even recommend to you that you take
a trip down to the border and are briefed personally by the
individuals not only that are tasked to enforce our border, but
also the residents, the mayors, city councils, and others who
are grappling with this very serious issue.
I could give you numerous examples of how close this
violence has come to spilling over, and actually has spilled
over, into the United States of America. Now all of it, of
course, is exacerbated by this threat of swine flu, which we
all know is originated in the country of Mexico, as well.
So you will have significant input into the decisions
concerning deployment of Guard or regular forces to the border,
and I hope that you will give it a priority of familiarizing
yourself with this situation.
Mr. Remy. Yes, Senator McCain. I will make it a priority.
Senator McCain. Finally, Mr. Work, you said in your
statement that you had some ideas about new approaches you are
considering to curb rising health and personnel costs. What
approaches are you considering?
Mr. Work. During the last 2 weeks, we have received several
briefings on both the Safe Harbor program and the Wounded
Warrior program, as well as all of the health care issues that
are facing the Department. The costs, Senator McCain, are
rising much faster than the rate of inflation, and it is really
causing a problem as far as execution in the Department of the
Navy's budget.
The only clear idea that I have right now, if confirmed, is
to work with the Secretary, the two Service Chiefs, the
Assistant Commandant, and the Vice Chief of Naval Operations to
take a hard look at how we might be able to handle the problem
within the service and then to work with members of the
committee and also DOD to try to get a handle on healthcare
costs writ large.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Mabus, you bring an extraordinary range of
experience to the task before you. I think the President made a
very wise choice. I think particularly, as you point out, your
experience as a young officer on the deck of a service
combatant is going to be very critical.
As my colleagues have suggested, the shipbuilding program
in the Navy needs reform and attention, and there are just two
issues that I think you probably don't have firm opinions, but
I would like your comments upon.
There is always a tradeoff between advanced technology and
new hulls. Building ships or just improving technology, if you
could comment on that?
Also, any sense of whether you feel there is excess
capacity, particularly in service combatant capabilities of
building those ships?
Ambassador Mabus. In terms of the first question, Senator,
new technology, first, has to be looked at to decide whether it
is appropriate; second, whether it is mature enough to be put
on a combatant surface, subsurface ship, or airplane. Then
there is the issue of stability of requirements because once
you have begun, as you well know, construction, making major
changes is one of the leading causes of stretching the
completion date and raising the cost.
I think you should look at, if new technologies come along,
building ships in blocks so that the next block of ships can be
upgraded in terms of technology, but not trying to make the
ships that are currently under construction be the most perfect
ships that you can have.
Forgive me, but I have forgotten the second part of your
question.
Senator Reed. Just the issue of the excess capacity of
particularly surface combatants in terms of the capacity to
build these ships, the number of yards?
Ambassador Mabus. Well, I believe, sir, that the number of
yards is very small in terms of just sheer numbers. To keep the
industrial base and to keep a well-trained workforce in order
to build these ships that we are going to need, both today and
in the future, we don't have any excess capacity, but we do
need to work very hard to make sure that there remains
competition among those shipyards.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Governor. Governor, Ambassador,
and soon-to-be Secretary, thank you.
Ambassador Mabus. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Mr. Work, let me ask the same question, but a
focus on the Marine Corps in terms of the technology that they
need for this new asymmetric warfare. I know you have done a
lot of work in terms of looking at this issue of how the Navy
participates and the Marine Corps participates in asymmetric
warfare, but are there technologies that the Marine Corps might
need that they don't have, and would you focus on that?
Mr. Work. Senator Reed, the Marine Corps combat development
command has been, as I understand it, working very closely with
the Department at large to determine these new capabilities.
For example, I know that they have specifically looked at
unmanned aerial vehicles and populating more of those
throughout the Force, ground robotics, and advanced body armor
for the Marines.
I believe that the Commandant of the Marine Corps is very
much interested in getting the right gear to the troops at the
right time, as quickly as possible.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
I just want to note, too, that Congressman Taylor was here,
Gene Taylor from Mississippi, a dear friend whom I served with.
He has since departed, but looking at him, I just discovered
how the Senate ages you. He still looks remarkably good.
Mr. Remy, one of the issues that you will face is working
with your uniformed colleagues, and you had the privilege of
being a young captain JAG officer, I presume, in the general
counsel's office. Is that correct?
Mr. Remy. Yes, I was in the honors programs in the general
counsel's office, Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. We have found out that the best source of
advice, particularly with respect to these issues of compliance
with the Geneva Convention, has been from uniformed officers,
who raised the cry very early and who consistently were, I
think, principal critics of some of the policies.
This is less a question and more a comment. I hope you, as
a former uniformed JAG, recognize the real skill and talent and
experience of those uniformed officers you will serve with.
Mr. Remy. I absolutely do, Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much.
I will refrain from asking the question who your favorite
boss is, Ms. King. [Laughter.]
I will just simply say I neglected to indicate for the
record that Liz is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania
and Georgetown Law School.
So, good luck. Thank you all for your commitment to the
Country and your service.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Martinez.
Senator Martinez. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I want to congratulate all of the nominees and your
families and wish you the very best as you undertake your
service. Thank you for undertaking the service.
I want to begin with Governor Mabus and Mr. Work and ask a
question of both of you. Since 1952, there have been aircraft
carriers based in two different homeports on the east coast of
the United States. The USS Tarawa was homeported in Mayport in
1952, and ever since that time, we have had that kind of a
dispersal policy.
Admiral Mullen, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), before
this committee stated that he was very supportive of strategic
dispersal of our carrier force. His predecessor, Admiral Vern
Clark, also stated on February 2005, and I quote, it is his
belief that, ``It would be a serious strategic mistake to have
all of those key assets of our Navy tied up in one port.''
Secretary England, who was Secretary of the Navy before he
was Deputy Secretary, also stated in this committee that, in
his judgment, dispersion was still a situation. A nuclear
carrier should be in Florida to replace the USS John F. Kennedy
to get some dispersion.
Even more recently, Secretary Donald Winter, with the
concurrence of the current CNO, Admiral Gary Roughead, signed
the record of decision to upgrade Mayport to be nuclear ready,
continuing the Navy's 54-year commitment of east coast
strategic dispersal.
My question to both of you is would you let us know, today,
what your intentions are with regards to the strategic
dispersal of the Nation's nuclear aircraft carriers along the
east coast? Would you tell us whether you agree or disagree
with the prior three CNOs on their recommendations that there
should be strategic dispersal of the nuclear carrier force?
Ambassador Mabus. Senator, I understand this issue and its
importance. I also understand that this issue has been put into
the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). If confirmed, I expect to
be an active member of that review, and I commit to making this
a priority item if confirmed as Secretary.
Senator Martinez. I need an answer to my question, though.
Ambassador Mabus. Sir, I simply do not have enough
information to give you an answer in terms of what the final
outcome should be.
Senator Martinez. You would not disagree with three CNOs
that all have indicated in their opinion the importance of
strategic dispersal of the nuclear fleet, though, would you
not?
Ambassador Mabus. Again, Senator, I do not have the
information, as I am sitting here today, to give you an answer
on that, except to acknowledge that I do understand that is
their position.
Senator Martinez. Mr. Work?
Mr. Work. Senator, we haven't had an opportunity to talk
with the former CNOs. As the Governor has said, this is an
issue that has been briefed to us at the broadest level, and I
look forward, if confirmed, to working with DOD and the
Secretary of Defense to look at this issue again in the 2009
QDR.
Senator Martinez. There is also an issue of funding. A
decision was made, and that decision, to my knowledge, was
final in deciding that there would be strategic dispersal and
that Mayport would become a homeport. You both are aware of
that decision having been made, correct, by the prior Secretary
of the Navy and right up the chain of command?
As a result of that decision, there was some work that
needed to be done. We have had an environmental impact
statement that has all gone through the process, a prior QDR.
As I say, this is a decision that goes back to when Vern Clark,
Admiral Clark, was the CNO.
Do you foresee supporting the continuation of the work that
is already in the pipeline, including dredging and other
improvements to Mayport that would make it capable of
homeporting a nuclear carrier?
Ambassador Mabus. Senator, I believe that the two items
that you mentioned, one is the dredging and second the pier
upgrade and repair in Mayport, have been recommended by the
Secretary of Defense to be included in the President's budget
for this year. As the President's nominee and reporting
directly to the Secretary of Defense, of course, I support
their recommendations.
Senator Martinez. Mr. Work?
Mr. Work. Senator, I agree with exactly what Governor Mabus
said. As we understand it, the record of decision was made at
the Department of the Navy in early January, and DOD reviewed
that decision. Secretary Gates decided to delay or to look at
the decision as part of the 2009 QDR, but to continue the work
that Governor Mabus referred to, which would not pre-close any
option after the 2009 QDR.
Senator Martinez. The Navy has a goal and a plan to have a
313 ship fleet. Do you have an opinion on that issue and how we
should get there?
Ambassador Mabus. Senator, this is another issue that the
313 ship fleet came out of the QDR 4 years ago. It was the best
estimate at the time of what the Navy combatant needs would be
going forward. There is another QDR underway right now, and I
know that the size of the fleet is one of the critical parts of
that QDR.
I will, if confirmed, be a very active participant, and
this will be one of the areas that I concentrate on to make
sure that the size of the fleet is adequate and matches up with
the requirements that we have and will give the Navy in terms
of what its mission is both today and in the future.
Senator Martinez. Mr. Remy, I want to ask a question of
you, and I think it is, frankly, one of candor. I want to
suggest to you that I think it is important to have good
communication with the committee and to be clear.
I have looked at your resume, and I find it astonishing
that you do not list your employer for a number of years. I
can't even see the number of years because also your resume
does not state when you began and when you ended your
employment with what you describe as ``a major U.S. company.''
Now I know by description and also what Senator McCain said
that it appears to have been Fannie Mae, but you don't disclose
that or the years that you were at Fannie Mae. Am I correct
that it is Fannie Mae that you were employed by before you were
at Latham & Watkins?
Mr. Remy. Yes, Senator. Yes, Senator.
Senator Martinez. When did you go to work there, and how
long did you work there?
Mr. Remy. Senator, I worked at Fannie Mae from the years of
2000 through 2006.
Senator Martinez. To my knowledge, there is nothing wrong
with having done that, and I think it should be on your resume
clearly stated for all to see. Although there has been some
controversy with the company, I know a lot of honorable people
who have worked there, and I just don't think it is appropriate
not to disclose it clearly.
Mr. Remy. Senator Martinez, you are right. I have nothing
to hide. I did disclose my employment at Fannie Mae on a number
of forms that I filed with the committee. I have many different
versions of my biography. The version that apparently made it
to this committee did not include Fannie Mae as my employer,
although it did have the responsibilities that I had undertaken
at Fannie Mae at the time.
That was a mistake. I take responsibility for that bio
coming to the committee. Indeed, my time at Fannie Mae was a
time period where I am personally proud of all of the work that
I did at Fannie Mae. Some shameful things may have happened
there, but I have nothing to hide from my responsibilities.
Senator Martinez. I don't disagree with that at all,
particularly from the timeframe you describe and the
responsibilities that appears that you held there. So I wasn't
trying to imply anything other than I think it is important to
speak with candor to the committee when you are up for
nomination, and that is my only point. I appreciate your
explanation.
I wish you all well, and thank you very much.
Mr. Remy. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Martinez.
I concur. I think we all would concur with your point that
there is nothing to be ashamed of. In any event, it should be
fully disclosed, and apparently, it was on a number of your
other bios. It was stated more generically you worked for a
major company, I gather, in terms of the bio that came to us,
as you indicated.
I am not familiar offhand with that bio. But apparently,
that is what happened. You have acknowledged it, and I think
that Senator Martinez's point is a good one, and you agree with
it that.
Mr. Remy. Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. There may be questions for the record on
that, as Senator McCain suggested. If there are, we will try to
get them to you quickly, and you can then answer them promptly
as well as to specifically what those duties were.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to begin by thanking each of you on the first
panel for your dedicated public service and your desire to
serve our Nation in these very important leadership roles. I
also want to add my welcome to your families and your
supporters who are here with you this morning.
If confirmed, each of you will face, without question,
enormous challenges in DOD. You will be charged with forming a
comprehensive national security strategy to address today's
crises while planning for a complex and uncertain future for
our Nation. I would say that, with your backgrounds and
expertise, I feel each of you are well qualified to handle
these challenges that you will face.
I have been a strong advocate of our military readiness,
military presence, and our military engagements around the
world. We cannot overstate the importance of our work.
With the recent activities we have witnessed from China and
North Korea, it is obvious that the challenges are many. I want
to pose this question to Governor Mabus and to tell you at the
outset that I feel that the men and women of the Pacific
Command have maintained a remarkable level of stability, but we
must ensure that they are properly manned and equipped to
address possible future conflicts that are part of our
challenges.
I also wanted to mention that I feel that Admiral Keating
has done a tremendous job. He is helping to maintain the
stability with the forces that are there in the Pacific.
I am particularly interested in readiness. The question I
ask of you, Governor, is what thoughts do you have on the
overall readiness of the naval fleet in our country and, in
particular, in the Pacific Command as it relates to the
military personnel and available equipment?
Ambassador Mabus. Senator, at this point in the process, I
do not have enough information to give you a definitive answer
on that except to say that the readiness of the fleet in
performing the mission that the Country has given it is of
highest importance and that, if confirmed, it will be one of
the things that will occupy my time more than any other.
Senator Akaka. Governor, you and I know that readiness is
so important to our military.
Ambassador Mabus. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Akaka. Training and taking care of personnel,
including the care of families, are part of the importance of
readiness, and I look forward to continuing to work with you,
if confirmed, in this area.
Mr. Work, I have been really concerned about the position
of CMO of Defense and, in this case, of the Navy. The
Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that the
Navy has not yet followed DOD's lead in establishing a template
to address business transformation. As Navy CMO, it is critical
that you establish performance goals and measures for improving
the efficiency and effectiveness of the Navy.
My question to you is what is your understanding of the
roles and responsibility of the CMO?
Mr. Work. Senator, the CMO is responsible to the Secretary
of the Navy for the efficient business processes throughout the
department. For the last couple years, the Department of the
Navy hasn't had an Under Secretary, and as I understand it, the
CMO slot was delegated to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
for Financial Management and the Comptroller. The Department of
the Navy also set up an Office of Business Transformation, as
required by the legislation.
If confirmed, one of my top priorities will be to find out
exactly what these offices and people have done and to work
very closely with the committee to understand exactly what the
intent of the legislation is and to work with the Secretary and
the Deputy Secretary to have a very, very good CMO operation.
Senator Akaka. Ms. King, I am so glad to see you moving
into this area in Defense and look upon your move as one that
will help our cause, both Defense and the Congress, because of
your work here, your relationships, and your understanding of
what needs to be done to carry out the goals that we have.
My simple question to you, with all of your experience, is
what do you intend to do that may be different in bringing
about a relationship of partnership as well as integrating our
working processes between Congress and DOD?
Ms. King. Senator Akaka, if I am confirmed, what I would
like to do is to make sure that the Congress and DOD see the
relationship as not adversarial, but as working together toward
a common goal and to review the processes and the communication
to make sure that we are working toward one goal instead of
against each other.
Senator Akaka. I am asking that because I am chairman of
the Veterans Affairs Committee here in the Senate, and what we
have done in the last 3 years has been to try to create what we
call a ``seamless order'' between Defense and Veterans Affairs.
This has been working out well.
Ms. King. Yes.
Senator Akaka. So that both deputies are talking to each
other once a week, and it is amazing what we have been able to
do by phone. I hope this can grow and continue as we move along
here.
Ms. King. I plan to keep that model going.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
Senator Hagan.
Senator Hagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To all of the nominees here today, congratulations for
being here. I look forward to hearing more of your testimony
and also to meet your families that are with you.
One of the questions I have is to Governor Mabus and to Mr.
Work. Unmanned aerial vehicles have proven to be a critical
resource in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the unmanned ground
vehicles have also proven to be an important and growing tool
to support our military personnel. Although still in an earlier
stage, the Navy's development of unmanned underwater vehicles
is also important.
What is your perspective on the role of unmanned systems
for the Navy and the Marine Corps, and what do you see as the
focus areas for the Navy and the Marine Corps for the
development, training, and deployment of these vehicles?
Ambassador Mabus. Senator, Secretary Gates, in his
recommendations as we move forward, was to put a great deal of
emphasis on these unmanned vehicles. In terms of the Navy, my
level of knowledge there is simply to say that I understand the
importance of these and that I know, going forward, the Navy
and Marine Corps have to look into unmanned vehicles to perform
some critical tasks. I will make sure that the research, the
development, and the technology is there and is adequately
analyzed and, if we move into an acquisition phase, adequately
contracted in a way that is cost efficient and makes sure that
our sailors and our marines get the very best equipment
possible.
If confirmed, this will be an area that I look forward to
working on to make sure that this new cutting-edge technology
makes it to the fleet.
Mr. Work. Senator Hagan, I believe we are on the cusp of a
revolution in unmanned technologies. The last years of war have
really shown how these different systems can help both the
Marine Corps and the Navy. The Navy is about to commission a
class of ships, the Littoral Combat Ships, which is
specifically designed to employ unmanned systems.
I agree with Governor Mabus that this is an extremely high
priority for the Department. If confirmed, I look forward to
trying to populate more of these systems throughout the Navy
and the Marine Corps.
Senator Hagan. Thank you.
Another question I have concerns piracy. I think the media
is focusing so much on the piracy off the coast of Somalia and
some of the other areas in the world. Piracy is certainly
increasingly becoming a strategic threat to the U.S. and our
partners in the Asian Gulf. I think key to combating this
threat is to encourage partnership capacity and
interoperability with the regional navies in the area.
What is your view of countering piracy, and how will you
encourage other navies to contribute to maritime security, such
as the Combined Task Force (CTF)-150 and CTF-151?
Ambassador Mabus. Senator, the whole country is so proud of
the SEALs, the sailors, the marines that took part in the
operation a couple of weeks ago that ended so successfully. But
as you correctly point out, it is going to take a lot more to
combat this problem, particularly in that part of the world.
If confirmed, one of my jobs as Secretary of the Navy will
be to ensure that we have the vessels, the people, and the
equipment to be able to carry out whatever missions are given
by the combat commanders against those pirates. I think it is
particularly important what you brought out about partnering
with other countries.
The Navy now has the Africa partnership to partner with the
navies and the countries along the coast of Africa, both east
and west coasts, to encourage interoperability, to do training,
to do combined exercises and also humanitarian efforts in those
countries. Because one of the quotes from the National Maritime
Strategy that the CNO, the Commandant of the Marines, and the
Commandant of the Coast Guard released says that while people
and equipment can be surged, trust cannot, and that you have to
work for a long time to establish that trust and that operating
together.
I think that the Navy, from my information, has made a good
start there but it is going to have to be very vigilant and
work with the navies and the governments in that region to take
on this problem.
Senator Hagan. Mr. Work?
Mr. Work. Senator, piracy is an issue that has been around
for ages, centuries. It is not only a problem on the sea, but
it also emanates from the land.
So the Navy can do its part in areas where piracy is a big
problem by working with other nations. I would note that even
the Chinese have dispatched ships to fight this problem. But
ultimately, it will require a solution both on the land and at
sea to deny these pirates the ungoverned spaces where they
operate.
Senator Hagan. I had one further question on our wounded
warriors. Certainly, I know that it is of prime importance, and
certainly, it is important for the families, sustaining the
welfare for our sailors and marines. But can you give me any
thoughts on how you emphasize within the branch what you need
to be doing in any different way or to continue the treatment
for our wounded warriors?
Ambassador Mabus. Senator, there is no higher priority, if
confirmed, that I will have than to care for these men and
women who have represented us so well and who have paid so
dearly in this country's defense.
Whether it is in their healthcare, their mental healthcare,
the assistance to families, the reintegration either into their
units or back to their hometowns, the continuing healthcare,
the continuing care for them and their families, we have no
higher duty as a country. If confirmed, I will have no higher
priority as Secretary of the Navy.
Mr. Work. Senator, I believe both the Navy's Safe Harbor
program and the Marine Corps Wounded Warrior Regiment are
extremely well run. As Governor Mabus said, if confirmed, I
look forward to working with the Secretary to make sure that
this is a world-class operation as we take care of our wounded
heroes.
I agree with the Governor that there is no higher priority
in the Department to take care of our sailors and marines who
have given so much.
Senator Hagan. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Hagan.
Senator Burris.
Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to our nominees. I continue to be extremely
impressed with the very high caliber of individuals President
Obama has nominated to run the essential portions of our
Government. This panel is no less, Mr. Chairman. Quite an
impressive panel.
The President and I agree that we need dedicated leadership
to run the affairs of our Government. The Nation is looking for
you nominees to play a role in the redirection of our efforts
to benefit and protect all of our citizens, especially those
who were ignored as a result of the previous policies.
I have office calls scheduled, I think, with several of you
and look forward to these nominees moving quickly as we work on
this ambitious agenda that we have also undertaken. There is an
opportunity for us, in partnership with you nominees, to cause
a real change in our Nation, and I look forward to the mutual
cooperation to the benefit of this great Nation.
Mr. Chairman, there is a relationship here with each one of
these nominees. Mr. Work, I understand that you are a graduate
of the University of Illinois.
Mr. Work. I am, sir. Go Illini.
Senator Burris. Yes, Go Illini. Okay. I am a Saluki. But
you are from Illinois. That will help.
To Ms. King, who has the same name as my chief of staff,
and I just wondered whether or not there was some relationship
there.
Ms. King. We have looked, but no.
Senator Burris. Yes, she told me that you all are just
``play cousins.'' So that is what we call it. But they have the
same name. So Brady has already briefed me in terms of your
skills on the Hill and what you will do as the nominee.
Of course, Mr. Remy is distinguished being a Howard Law
graduate. What is your class, Mr. Remy?
Mr. Remy. 1991.
Senator Burris. 1991 is a recent class. How about the class
of 1963? [Laughter.]
Mr. Remy. Go Bison.
Senator Burris. Go Bison.
I saved the best for last. This young man here who is going
to be our Secretary of the Navy was the State auditor of the
great State of Mississippi when I was State comptroller, and we
worked very closely together in upholding our responsibility
for our States. But not only that, he advanced to the great
position of Governor of the great State of Mississippi.
We kind of shocked the people in my State capital when I
was being honored, Mr. Chairman, for 10 years in public
service. We brought in the guest speaker of our banquet, the
Governor of the State of Mississippi, to Springfield, IL, to be
the guest speaker to honor the State comptroller for 10 years.
Of course, that kind of sent a message to a lot of people in my
capital that there was something going on.
This was in the mid-1980s, and Governor Mabus was very,
very supportive. Not only that, Governor, you may remember when
my wife, who hails from Mississippi, from the great Delta part
of Itta Bena, where Mississippi Valley State is, and I visited
you at the Governor's mansion. It was the first time in her
lifetime she had a chance to go in the Governor's mansion in
the State of Mississippi.
Ray, you are a tribute to the people of your State. I just
noticed how you had bipartisan support. I didn't think that
those two Senators would come and support you like that, but
evidently you have made your record in the State of
Mississippi, and they are very proud of you. I know you will
maintain that record as Secretary of the Navy. I am very
pleased to be with you.
Just one quick question, Governor. Are you familiar with
the contract that the Navy is putting out to a company called
Boeing for the F-18 fighter that is going to replace five
various Navy planes that are on the ships? I think the Navy has
requested some 39 of them, but they only budgeted for 31.
I wondered if you wouldn't look into that, should you be
confirmed--and I know you will have a vote here. But look into
the facts so we can make sure that we are getting an adequate
supply of those F-18 and those Super Hornets that the Navy will
need. Have you had any chance to look into any of that?
Ambassador Mabus. Senator, I know that Secretary Gates'
recommendation going forward is to acquire 31 of the Super
Hornets, 9 tactical fighters, the E/F series, and the other
planes to be the G series, the Growler series of that plane.
His recommendation also was to have 24 planes each of the F-18
E/F series in the next 2 years.
But in specific answer to your question, yes, I will look
into that if I am confirmed.
Senator Burris. Second, Governor, I was listening to your
answer and lost my train of thought. Oh, wow. I can't pull it
back.
Chairman Levin. Perhaps you could just submit that question
for the record.
Senator Burris. Yes, I will submit that question for the
record because it had to do with the follow-up on, oh, I know
what it is. It is the single-year contract. The company Boeing
is seeking a 2-year contract on those F-18s, and they put that
line up. That line now has to come down.
Boeing hired a lot of people from across the river, and the
plant is in St. Louis. But a lot of Illinoisans work in that
Boeing factory, and I wondered if you would look at, when you
get there, whether or not that could be a 2-year contract with
you and Secretary Gates rather than the 1-year contract?
Ambassador Mabus. Yes, sir.
Senator Burris. Okay, thank you. That was my point.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Burris.
Senator Begich is next.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have very few questions. But first, Elizabeth, thank you
for taking the time and meeting with me. It sounds like a
breath of fresh air in the communication that you are going to
bring to the Senate. So I appreciate that, as a new member
here, and I look forward to working with you.
I want to follow up on Senator Hagan's questions, if I
could, to Governor Mabus and Mr. Work in regards to the
pirates. It seems to be a continued growing problem not only
here, but also in the Pacific and the Pacific Rim. How do you
see or do you see a more aggressive role by the United States
in dealing with the pirates?
Ambassador Mabus. Senator, I think that the administration
has talked about a much more comprehensive approach toward
piracy and that you cannot simply deal with the pirates at sea.
You have to deal with where they come from, with the states on
the land.
One of the reasons that there has been more success against
piracy in places like the Straits of Malacca is that you have
governments and states ashore that are willing to use their law
enforcement tools and techniques against pirates when they come
back to their home bases. You simply don't have that situation
in Somalia right now. You have a state that has no government
that can do anything like that.
I know that the President and Secretary Clinton have talked
about a far more comprehensive strategy in dealing with them
and that, if confirmed, I look forward to making sure that the
Navy has the equipment and has the people to carry out whatever
missions the President and the combatant commanders give them
in terms of whatever strategy we pursue.
Senator Begich. If I could follow-up? Again, you may not be
able to fully answer this, but are we going to be in a
situation where we are waiting for the on-land situation to get
resolved or at least become more conducive to dealing with
this?
Somalia has not been the most stable country for many, many
years, but yet the piracy has continued to grow and become more
aggressive in the last few years. I guess I am a little more
direct in how to deal with it, and I think what the SEALs did
was the right thing to do in the sense of sending a message.
How do you see this process moving forward? I recognize
there is a lot of discussion, but Somalia is not necessarily
the place that is going to end up first out to solve this
problem, unless I am missing something. I am new here, though.
Ambassador Mabus. Well, sir, at this point in my process,
and I am very new.
Senator Begich. We share that.
Ambassador Mabus. I have not been given what exactly our
strategy is against these pirates, and I know it is a matter of
intense concern. The things I said about the President and
Secretary Clinton in terms of dealing with it are things they
have said publicly. But I know that it will be something that I
will be intently concerned with should I be confirmed to this
job.
Senator Begich. Thank you.
I am assuming because one of the pieces of the puzzle will
be if there is more intensity from us, the Navy will have to
have the proper equipment, the right kind of ships that can
move and be mobile and be able to deal with the issue.
Ambassador Mabus. Yes, sir.
Senator Begich. Is that part of the equation?
Ambassador Mabus. Yes, sir.
Senator Begich. Mr. Work, do you want to add to that?
Mr. Work. Simply, Senator, that there are two different
ways or two complementary ways to deal with this problem. One
is through law enforcement, using the U.S. Coast Guard
following up on Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safey
of Maritime Navigation. Kenya, for example, is just about ready
to prosecute one of the first piracy cases because they are a
signatory, as are we.
The Coast Guard operates under use of force rules, and the
Navy would operate under rules of engagement (ROE). So, if
confirmed, I think it would be very, very critical for the
naval commanders to understand the ROE and to be given all of
the support they need to accomplish the mission.
Senator Begich. Very good.
Last totally different area. We are going to go north now
because I am from Alaska. I know the Coast Guard has a lot of
comment regarding the Arctic, what the future is, and what the
role they might have there.
Do you from the Navy, from either one of you, have any
comment in where you see the long-term role and participation
in the future of Arctic policy and how the Navy may or may not
participate up there?
Ambassador Mabus. In the National Maritime Strategy that
was put out by the CNO, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and
the Commandant of the Coast Guard, one of the major areas that
they saw our naval forces participating in is climate change
and persistent presence in places all around the world to meet
whatever either potential adversaries that we have or natural
conditions that may be changing or needs attention. Our naval
forces are uniquely positioned to be able to provide a lot of
the information and a lot of the presence in those areas.
Senator Begich. So I think, yes, the Arctic is important?
Ambassador Mabus. A much better answer than I just gave.
Yes.
Senator Begich. I understand.
Mr. Work, do you have any additional comments?
Mr. Work. If the Northwest Passage opens up year round, it
will fundamentally change trade routes and also passage of
warships to the north. The Coast Guard obviously will have a
prime role in supporting our interests up there. But if the
northwest passage opens year round, the U.S. Navy would
obviously find this area a very, very important operational
focus.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
I will end there, Mr. Chairman. I would just say again, as
Senator Burris said earlier and others have said, the President
has continued to bring folks forward for confirmation,
especially to this committee that I have a role in, that are an
impressive group of folks with wide ranges of experience and
the knowledge to bring to the table.
I congratulate you, and I wish your families the best
because you will need a lot of support going through this
process that I hope ends in a positive in the sense of
confirmation of all of you. But also once you are in service,
the service that will be required of you and your families.
So thank you very much for your willingness to serve.
Senator Reed [presiding]. Senator Webb.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, just a follow-up on a couple of things that Senator
Begich just said. I am of the view that on this piracy issue,
we are making it far too complicated. The policies, in terms of
the violation of international law, have been around for a long
time. If you shoot the people who do it and blow up their
boats, they won't be back.
I would like to respond just a bit to what Senator Martinez
said on this Mayport issue. I know you all are kind of in the
barrel on this during your confirmation hearings. But I can
remember when I was Assistant Secretary of Defense, and we had
big push on strategic homeporting when John Lehman was
Secretary of the Navy. Any logical proposition can be carried
to an extreme. That is why you need to measure these things
through risk assessment and other ways.
Actually, there was a big push at that time in the name of
strategic homeporting to put homeporting in Alaska. Senator
Stevens was a great advocate of that, and there actually was a
plan in place at one point.
With respect to the names that Senator Martinez brought
forward in terms of people who support the idea of strategic
dispersal, I don't think there is anybody who disagrees with
the notion that properly constructed and properly analyzed,
there ought to be strategic dispersal. But I will tell you two
former Secretaries of the Navy who certainly don't believe that
applies to the situation we are talking about with moving a
carrier from Virginia to Mayport, and that is Senator John
Warner and myself. If I were a Senator from Nebraska, I would
be saying the same thing.
I am not going to pose this to you directly, Governor
Mabus, today because I am aware that the Deputy Secretary of
Defense has already made a commitment to bring this issue up to
the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) level and to
examine it in the next QDR. But for the record, there has never
been a nuclear aircraft carrier in Mayport. You can check the
data on that. There have been carriers. There has never been a
nuclear aircraft carrier in Mayport.
The number of aircraft carriers from the time that I was
Secretary of the Navy even then, and I say ``even'' because, as
I was saying to you yesterday, there were 930 ships in the
United States Navy when I was commissioned in 1968. But even
when I was Secretary of the Navy in the 1980s, there were 15
carriers, and it was a different situation than there is today.
We have a commitment from OSD on this. The preliminary work
that has been authorized or that we have been informed will
take place, the dredging and the improvement of the pierside, I
am not going to oppose that. I believe, in fact, that it
alleviates a lot of the concerns about possibly having a second
place for a carrier to go in terms of an emergency. But I would
say very strongly that this issue is going to be debated, and I
want it to be debated properly.
I want it to be debated on issues of our national strategy
and the assets that we have available to solve problems. When
the Navy comes in here, as they did last year, and said they
got $4.6 billion in unfunded priorities--requirements, not
priorities--requirements. Unfunded requirements, and then they
turn around and say they want another $1 billion to do this, I
think they have gone from the area of ``need to have'' to the
area of ``nice to have.'' There are a lot of places you can
take $1 billion and do some good for the United States Navy.
Mr. Work, you are uniquely qualified to address that issue.
I am going to get back to that in minute.
Before I ask a question of you, Governor Mabus, I would
like to say something to Ms. King. I would hope in the spirit
of bringing DOD and this panel into harmony that you will take
a look at this 60-day rule.
When we have people come up here and testify and we ask
questions, and their response basically is, ``Well, we will get
back to you with a written answer.'' In too many cases and,
frankly, particularly with the Army, this has been used as a
way to sort of roll issues that are kind of hot-button issue
now and kind of get them off the radar screen.
I hope that you will look at that 60-day period as sort of
the floor rather than the regular process, particularly when
there are issues that come before us that are time sensitive.
Ms. King. I will, Senator.
Senator Webb. Thank you.
Governor, I would like to say, first of all, I think you
bring a great set of qualifications to the job, a very unique
set of qualifications having been Governor, having been an
Ambassador, having served on active duty, and having been a
businessman.
I would say to you, as someone who has spent 5 years in the
Pentagon, been around the military all my life, who loves the
military, who also believes the military sometimes needs tough
love, that I hope that once you assume your position here, you
will resist the notion to get on an airplane and go say ``hi''
around the world, which is what they are going to ask you to
do, and really get your arms around the need for strong
civilian leadership in the Department of the Navy.
I would like to give you an example here and ask for you to
bring us your ideas in terms of management policies that might
fix it. About a year and a half ago, I read in the Wall Street
Journal that Blackwater, which now has a new name, I think it
is Xe, was building a facility and had something like a tens-
of-million-dollar project in San Diego to train active duty
sailors how to tactically deal with a presence on their ship.
The first thing that struck me about that was that why, 6
years then after September 11, were we asking civilian
contractors to teach our military people how to perform
military functions? It would be like when I was in Quantico as
a marine having Blackwater coming and teaching me how to
patrol.
So I started asking questions about this. The city of San
Diego was opposing this facility. That is how it ended up in
the Wall Street Journal. But I started asking questions about
how did this project get authorized? Had it ever come before
this committee? Was it specifically before the Appropriations
Committee? How do these things happen?
The end result of it was that there was a block of money
that had moved forward from the Appropriations Committee,
Operation and Maintenance money, from which the Department of
the Navy decided that to service the ``needs of the fleet,''
they would make this contract with Blackwater. In other words,
it wasn't an authorized program. It simply emanated from a
locality in the Navy.
As I asked further questions, it turned out that from the
information that I was given, a Senior Executive in the Navy
one level up from the program authorizer could make this
decision on up to an amount of $78.5 million without even the
approval of the Secretary of the Navy.
Now I think, as someone who has a lot of experience in
business and management, you would probably find that as
disconcerting as I did?
Ambassador Mabus. Yes, sir.
Senator Webb. Here is what I would ask. I would like to
send you this packet and just get you to put a management check
on it, if you would. Maybe we can discuss it or maybe I can
just get your reaction in terms of management policies for
these sorts of things that are happening inside the Department
of the Navy?
Ambassador Mabus. I will be very happy to do that.
Senator Webb. Thank you very much.
Mr. Work, you are a lucky man because my time just ran out.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reed. Senator Nelson.
Senator Bill Nelson. Ms. King, you have worked for Senator
Reed, and you know the process up here. I think the words of
Senator Webb are well spoken about making sure that DOD is
getting back to us. They haven't in the past.
Ms. King. I understand.
Senator Bill Nelson. It is another way of rope-a-doping. We
are so busy around here that we are not all the time checking
every day to see that DOD is responding. So, thank you. You are
uniquely qualified for this.
Because Mayport has been brought up as an issue here, I am
compelled to recall for the record the long history of
commentary and testimony that has been made to this committee.
This past January 14, the Navy issued its record of decision to
have a homeport for a nuclear aircraft carrier at Mayport. It,
by the way, was replacing another aircraft carrier, the John F.
Kennedy, a conventional carrier, that had been homeported
there, and back in the 1980s, there were two aircraft carriers.
The Atlantic fleet has historically been spread at least
over two ports. In the Pacific, we know there are three
homeports of which the six carriers stationed in the Pacific
are spread.
In its record of decision just a couple of months ago, the
record of decision said, ``The most significant strategic
advantage offered by the development of an additional east
coast nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (CVN) homeport is a
hedge against a catastrophic event that may impact Naval
Station Norfolk, the only existing CVN homeport for the
Atlantic fleet CVNs of which there are five that are homeported
of the now six CVNs, the most recent having just been
commissioned, the George H.W. Bush.''
Furthermore, the Navy stated in that record of decision,
``Neither the Navy nor the Nation nor its citizens can wait for
a catastrophic event to occur before recognizing the potential
impacts of such an event. This lesson was learned all too well
in the aftermaths of the recent catastrophic events, such as
Hurricane Katrina. The Navy recognized its responsibility to
develop a hedge against such an event.''
Thus, according to the Navy, and I continue to read from
the record of decision, ``The decision to create the capacity
to homeport a CVN at Naval Station Mayport represents the best
military judgment of the Navy's leadership regarding strategic
considerations.''
They determined that, ``The cost of developing a CVN
homeport at Naval Station Mayport is more than offset by the
added security for CVN assets and enhanced operational
effectiveness provided by the ability to operate out of two
homeports.''
Those are not my words. That is the Navy's words in their
decision to have a homeport for a nuclear carrier.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Navy's record of decision be
entered into this committee record.
Chairman Levin [presiding]. It will be at this point.
[The information referred to follows:]
Senator Bill Nelson. Now, needless to say, the Secretary of
the Navy and the CNO, Admiral Roughead, clearly understood also
the lessons of Pearl Harbor. Admiral Kimmel, a four-star
admiral, the head of the Pacific fleet, allowed those
battleships to be all collected up, and it was just
serendipitous that our carriers had left port when the Japanese
struck.
Admiral Kimmel was relieved of his command. He was forced
to retire, and he was stripped of two of his four stars. His
family, over the last half-century, have tried to have that
case reviewed and stars reinstated, and the Navy has refused in
large part because of the lesson that we must always remember.
So the Navy's decision to make Naval Station Mayport a
homeport to a nuclear aircraft carrier is consistent with
senior DOD and Navy leadership, including the following
instances that have been well chronicled in this record of this
committee.
In the additional views, we have cited, for example, the
former CNO Admiral Vern Clark told the Armed Services Committee
in February 2005 that, in his view, ``Overcentralization of the
carrier port structure is not a good strategic move. The Navy
should have two carrier-capable homeports on each coast.''
Admiral Clark went on to say, ``It is my belief that it
would be a serious strategic mistake to have all of those key
assets of our Navy tied up in one port.''
In March 2006, Deputy Secretary of Defense and the former
Secretary of the Navy Gordon England testified to this
committee that the Navy needed to disperse its Atlantic Coast
carriers, saying, ``My judgment is that dispersion is still the
situation. A nuclear carrier should be in Florida to
replace''--to replace--``the USS John F. Kennedy to get some
dispersion.''
Secretary England explained that, ``The concern was there
always will be weapons of mass destruction. Even though
carriers were at sea, the maintenance facilities, et cetera,
are still there, and the crews. So having some dispersion would
be of value to the Department of the Navy.''
At the same hearing, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff Admiral Edmund Giambastiani shared his own judgment
that we should disperse our carriers. He illustrated his sense
of risk to the Nation's east coast carriers when he recalled
his own visit to Norfolk one Christmas where, ``We had five
aircraft carriers, all sitting one next to each other, and that
is not something that we should routinely do.''
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record a
photograph as recent as 1997 of five aircraft carriers all
docked, side by side, at the Naval Station Norfolk. I would
also like to enter into the record a chart prepared by the
Department of the Navy of the number of times that two, three,
four, five and, when you include across the river in the dry
dock, six aircraft carriers have been located at Norfolk and
the number of days in that particular calendar year going back
for a couple of decades.
Chairman Levin. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
This updated chart reflects the addition of carriers located at
Hampton Roads area shipyards. This data does not include new
construction carriers prior to commissioning.
Senator Bill Nelson. Then, on July 31, 2007, before this
committee, when asked whether he agreed that it is in our
national interest to ensure that we maintain two nuclear
carrier ports on the east coast of the United States and in the
principle of strategic dispersal, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen stated, ``I am, Senator,
and I am on the record more than once for this, very supportive
of strategic dispersal of our carriers.''
On December 18, 2008, Secretary Gates wrote to Senator Webb
and to Senator Warner, two former Secretaries of the Navy, as
Senator Webb has pointed out, but also the two Senators from
Virginia. Secretary Gates wrote of the Navy's decision, wrote
to those two Senators, ``Based foremost on strategic
considerations, the CNO recommended and after thorough
consideration of the Environmental Impact Statement, estimated
cost of implementation, and strategic laydown and dispersal,
Secretary Winter concluded that homeporting a CVN at Naval
Station Mayport best supports the Navy's mission and is
critical to our naval security interest.''
That is from a letter from Secretary Gates. He continued,
``There is significant national security value in establishing
an additional east coast CVN support base.'' Secretary of
Defense Gates wrote, ``Having a single CVN homeport has not
been considered acceptable on the west coast and should not be
considered acceptable on the east coast.''
Mr. Chairman, I ask that that letter be entered in the
record.
Chairman Levin. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Senator Bill Nelson. Well, then, as Senator Webb has
stated, on 10 April 2009, DOD announced their intent to review
the Navy's homeporting decision in the QDR. Now both of you, I
think, have stated for the record that you intend to play a
major participatory role in the QDR. Is that correct?
Ambassador Mabus. If confirmed, that is correct, Senator.
Mr. Work. Yes, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. What weight would you share with the
committee that you would give to the professional military
judgments of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the CNO,
Admirals Mullen and Roughead?
Ambassador Mabus. Senator, I think that at this stage of my
process and at the fact that this decision has been put in the
QDR, that I should say that I understand the issue. I
understand its importance. I understand the expressions of the
decisions on both sides of the issue and that I look forward to
delving into the details of this issue so that a fair and
equitable decision can be made coming out of the QDR.
Senator Bill Nelson. All right. I understand how you are
constrained at this point. I appreciate that. It is a delicate
situation. You are a great public servant, and you are going to
be a great Secretary of the Navy.
One other fact has come to my attention that when you
consider what we expect to be the DOD request on the funding
for the long-lead items, which is the dredging of the channel--
it has been filling up--back down to the depth that will
accommodate a nuclear aircraft carrier, and it had been dredged
to a similar depth when the John F. Kennedy was coming and
going up through 2007.
We expect there to be the request as well on the
improvements to the pier, which is also a long-lead item and of
which Senator Webb said he is not going to oppose those funding
requests. However, it has come to my attention that the Navy
engineers must have military construction funding this year if
there is to be no delay in implementing the Navy's decision.
Secretary Lynn has assured us that the QDR review would not
cause a delay to the Navy. Since the QDR would be decided in
the coming months, that would seem to be the case, and that is
what he has committed to us.
Now the concern is that there may not be the request in the
funding for the design funding, and that is a long-lead item,
too. So I would ask you, as the new Secretary of the Navy, if
you would go and speak to your superiors that within that
funding there should be the provisions for the design funding
so that there is, in fact, what has been committed without
delay, instead of it being pushed off again?
Ambassador Mabus. Yes, sir. I will investigate that
particular issue.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Now I was not planning on a second round, but I think
Senator Webb has his hand up.
Senator Webb. Yes, briefly, Mr. Chairman, since my
colleague took well over his 8 minutes and in lieu of a second
round, I would just like to reiterate a few points that I made
on this before, that it is properly before the OSD to be looked
at in terms of strategic viability.
I would like also, since my friend from Florida has put all
these documents into the committee hearing, we did a 21-page
assessment of the Navy's proposal. It was written largely by
Gordon Peterson on my staff, a 30-year naval officer. I would
ask that be submitted and included in the record as well.
Chairman Levin. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Senator Webb. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I would ask, in
addition, I already requested that the chart be entered as well
as the two photographs in the record, along with the record of
decision, and the Secretary of Defense's letter to Senator
Webb, December 18, 2008. That identical letter was sent to
Senator Warner, the then-senior Senator of Virginia.
I also have additional views that I had submitted back in
2007 to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2007.
[Additional views from Senator Bill Nelson follow:]
Senator Webb. Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could----
Senator McCain. Mr. Chairman, could I ask the indulgence of
my friend? I can see we are in a discussion that will probably
go on for a long time and will probably be the subject of a
markup. I would remind my colleagues we do have other nominees
that have been waiting patiently. I hope we could move on here
pretty quick.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. I am, unless there is additional need for
questions, going to excuse this panel.
Senator Reed. Senator Udall?
Chairman Levin. No, I checked with Senator Udall. Thank
you, Senator Reed, for pointing that out. I did check with
Senator Udall, and he indicated he did not need to ask
questions of this panel. We appreciate that.
We will now excuse the panel. However, Mr. Remy, following
a request here, if you could provide promptly for the record a
detailed description of your duties--and, again, this is for
the record--at Fannie Mae and whether you were aware of any of
the activities which contributed to the mortgage crisis that
has emerged. If you could do that promptly, we would appreciate
it.
Mr. Remy. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
[Statement and updated biography from Mr. Remy for the
record follows:]
Chairman Levin. Now, without objection, we will excuse this
panel with thanks to you and your families.
We won't break here. We will just ask for people to move
quickly out and in. [Pause.]
Okay, everybody. Thank you for the quick turnaround time
here. We are going to first ask Senator Webb if he would make
his introduction, and then I will be calling on the other
nominees.
Senator Webb.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM WEBB, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
VIRGINIA
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to say it is a great privilege and a pleasure
for me to introduce General Gregson to this panel and to
express my support for his confirmation.
I have known General Gregson since we were both 18 years
old, which, when you get to be our age, is a long time. I would
like to put an anecdote out here just to explain my view of why
I respect his service so much.
In February 1968, during the Tet Offensive, we had service
selection at the Naval Academy. This was the first time that
there was----
Chairman Levin. Senator, I hate to interrupt you, but we
want to be able to hear this. Could we ask the folks in the
back of the room to please be very quiet?
Could the folks in the back of the room please be quiet
while they are exiting? Thank you.
Senator Webb?
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to start again on this, in February 1968, during the
Tet Offensive, we had our service selection at the Naval
Academy. I was one of six battalion Marine Corps coordinators
trying to figure out which of the midshipmen would volunteer to
go into the Marine Corps. We had a 10 percent quota. Watching
the Tet Offensive on television, we were probably the only
class in modern Naval Academy history that did not make its
Marine Corps quota.
In my battalion, I had 22 midshipmen who said they were
going to go into the Marine Corps, and on service selection
night, half of them, for whatever reasons, made another
decision. It was a very bad time for our country. It was a very
bad time for the Marine Corps, which lost more than 100,000
killed or wounded in Vietnam.
Of the six Marine Corps coordinators, five of them were
infantry officers. They received nine Purple Hearts, and one
was killed in action.
The interesting thing about that evening for me, which I
will never forget, is that Chip Gregson for 4 years at the
Naval Academy kept a destroyer model on his desk. We all
thought he was going to be a surface warfare guy. When he
looked at what was happening during Tet in 1968, he came down
and signed up for the Marine Corps. He moved toward the sound
of the guns.
He served in Vietnam with the 1st Reconnaissance Battalion,
was wounded, and received a Bronze Star for heroism. He went on
to a very distinguished career in the Marine Corps as an
intellectual and as a combat leader. He has commanded at every
level. He has spent years in Asia, in Japan, and at Okinawa. At
the same time, he was a fellow over in the Brookings
Institution and worked in the Pentagon in policy positions.
I can't think of a better person to take over the enormous
responsibilities that he is about to assume. I normally do not
introduce people on the committees on which I sit, but in this
particular case, I am very pleased to recommend General Gregson
to this committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Webb.
That is an extraordinary introduction, and I know how much
we appreciate it and how much General Gregson appreciates it.
The other members of the panel are the following: Dr.
Michael Nacht. Am I pronouncing your name correctly?
Dr. Nacht. Yes, Senator.
Chairman Levin. Currently a professor of public policy at
the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of
California, Berkeley. Dr. Nacht served as a member of the U.S.
Department of Defense Threat Reduction Advisory Committee for
which he chaired panels on counterterrorism and
counterproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
He is also a consultant for Sandia National Labs and
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. From 1994 to 1997, Dr.
Nacht was Assistant Director for Strategic and Eurasian Affairs
at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Last, but far from
least, I believe you have a son who resides in Ann Arbor, my
home State.
Dr. Nacht. Correct.
Chairman Levin. That can only help you. [Laughter.]
[Senator Feinstein's statement in support of Dr. Nacht
follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Diane Feinstein
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Senator McCain for the opportunity to
introduce and support a distinguished public servant, Dr. Michael
Nacht, during the committee's consideration of his nomination to be
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs.
Dr. Nacht has a Bachelor's of Science degree in Aeronautics and
Astronautics from New York University. He also holds four advanced
degrees, including a Master's of Science in Operations Research from
New York University, a Master's in Statistics from Case Western Reserve
University, a Master's in Political Science from the New School for
Social Research, and a Doctorate in Political Science from Columbia
University.
He began his impressive career as a NASA missile aerodynamicist at
the John Glenn Center in Cleveland, OH, working on the early lunar
probe launch vehicles.
Later, he served as an Associate Professor of Public Policy,
Associate Director of the Center for Science and International Affairs,
and Acting Director of the U.S.-Japan Program at Harvard University and
then as a professor and Dean at the University of Maryland School of
Public Affairs.
During his time at the University of Maryland, Dr. Nacht took leave
to serve as Assistant Director for Strategic and Eurasian Affairs of
the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, where he led the Agency's
work on nuclear arms and missile defense negotiations with Russia and
the opening of a nuclear arms dialogue with China.
During that time, Dr. Nacht participated in five summit meetings
for President Clinton: four with Russian President Yeltsin and one with
Chinese President Jiang Zemin and he received the Agency's
Distinguished Honor Award--its highest form of recognition.
From 2001-2004, Dr. Nacht chaired panels of the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency's Threat Reduction Advisory Committee on countering
weapons of mass destruction and terrorism.
Dr. Nacht is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the
International Institute for Strategic Studies. He also is the author or
co-author of 5 books and more than 100 articles on U.S. national
security policy, including nuclear weapons issues, missile defense, the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and homeland security.
Currently, Dr. Nacht is a Professor at the University of
California, Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy and was the Dean
of the School from 1998 to 2008. As a graduate of U.C. Berkeley's rival
school, Stanford University, Dr. Nacht knows that I have especially
high standards for those associated with my alma mater's rival across
the San Francisco Bay.
Mr. Chairman, I can think of few people with a better set of skills
and experiences to serve as Assistant Secretary for Global Strategic
Affairs.
With negotiations underway on a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
this year, his expertise in the area of nuclear arms reductions should
be especially welcome and beneficial as the administration works to
make the threat of nuclear weapons a thing of the past.
I am pleased to offer my wholehearted support for his nomination,
and I look forward to working with Dr. Nacht on nuclear policy, cyber
security, and countering weapons of mass destruction--all of which are
long-held interests of mine.
Should he be confirmed, I believe Dr. Nacht will serve with
distinction, and the United States will be safer as a result.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Lieutenant General Wallace Gregson, U.S.
Marine Corps retired, has been a foreign policy and military
affairs consultant for WCG & Associates International since
2006. He has been beautifully introduced by Senator Webb, and I
don't think I could possibly add anything to that introduction.
So I am not going to try.
Jo-Ellen Darcy is the senior environmental advisor to the
Senate Finance Committee. She was given a wonderful
introduction by Senator Baucus.
I will put my additional comments about her in the record,
except to say that she worked on water issues for our Governor
Jim Blanchard of Michigan both in Lansing and Washington and
also has a master's of science degree in resource development
from Michigan State University. The rest I will put in the
record, but nothing better can be said than what I just added.
Dr. Ines Triay, did I pronounce your name correctly?
Dr. Triay. Mr. Chairman, it is pronounced ``Tree-iy.''
Chairman Levin. Triay, and Dr. Triay, you spent most of
your career in service to the Department of Energy (DOE) from
your days as a scientist at Los Alamos Laboratory, and
continuing as a career Federal employee, you have held a
variety of senior scientific and management positions. You are
presently Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy with
responsibility for the DOE's Environmental Management Program.
Your experience in that position, your deep commitment to
the cleanup program will help ensure that the program is very
well managed and technically sound. We are delighted that you
have been nominated as well.
[Senator Udall's statement in support of Dr. Triay
follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Tom Udall
Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, thank you for the
opportunity to make this statement in support of Dr. Ines Triay,
President Obama's nominee for Assistant Secretary of the Department of
Energy. I had the pleasure of introducing Dr. Triay at her confirmation
hearing at the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Dr. Ines Triay is an extremely qualified scientist with a Ph.D. in
physical chemistry from the University of Miami. She spent much of her
successful career in New Mexico, first at Los Alamos National Lab, and
next as the head of the Carlsbad Field Office, before serving in the
Department's leadership in Washington, DC.
She is a strong role model and her career is a shining example for
aspiring young scientists, particularly women and Hispanics.
She has devoted her career to the safe cleanup of the environmental
legacy of the Nation's Cold War nuclear weapon production. This is the
largest and complex environmental cleanup program in history, with more
than 100 sites in more than 30 states.
I have witnessed Dr. Triay's work in New Mexico and attest to its
quality.
Dr. Triay is able to handle both the difficult scientific issues
and the critical public health issues involved in these clean-ups.
During her tenure at DOE, Dr. Triay has tackled some of the Nation's
most difficult clean-up challenges, including completing cleanup in
Rocky Flats, Colorado.
She also played an instrumental role in ensuring that transuranic
waste disposal operations at the Department's Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant in New Mexico are safe and secure.
Mr. Chairman, there is no scientist better qualified to be
Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management at DOE. I
hope you will join me in supporting Dr. Triay for this position.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Carl Levin
We will now hear from our second panel of witnesses.
Dr. Michael Nacht is currently Professor of Public Policy and
former Aaron Wildavsky Dean at the Goldman School of Public Policy at
the University of California--Berkeley. Dr. Nacht served as a member of
the U.S. Department of Defense Threat Reduction Advisory Committee, for
which he chaired panels on counterterrorism and counterproliferation of
weapons of mass destruction. He has also consulted for Sandia National
Laboratories and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. From 1994-
1997, Dr. Nacht was assistant director for Strategic and Eurasian
Affairs at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Dr. Nacht, I
believe you have a son who resides in Ann Arbor, is that correct?
Lieutenant General Wallace C. Gregson, USMC (ret.), has been a
foreign policy and military affairs consultant for WCG & Associates
International since 2006. Previously he served as Chief Operating
Officer for the United States Olympic Committee. This service followed
a 37-year career in the Marine Corps, where his final assignment was as
Commanding General of the Marine Corps Forces Pacific and Marine Corps
Forces Central Command, where he led and managed over 70,000 marines
and sailors in the Middle East, Afghanistan, East Africa, Asia and the
United States.
Dr. Nacht and General Gregson come to the DOD policy arena with a
wealth of experience that will be very helpful as the President and
Secretary Gates seek to shape the agenda for the new administration.
Dr. Nacht and General Gregson, we look forward to having your steady
hands in place in helping to guide this process.
Ms. Jo-Ellen Darcy is the Senior Environmental Advisor to the
Senate Finance Committee, responsible for environment, conservation and
energy issues. Previously, she was Senior Policy Advisor to the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee, concentrating on fish and
wildlife issues, the Army Corps of Engineers, nominations, and a
variety of conservation and water issues. She worked on water resources
issues for Governor Jim Blanchard of Michigan in both Lansing and
Washington, DC. She has another connection to Michigan, a Master of
Science degree in resource development from Michigan State University.
Ms. Darcy, your wealth of experience here in Congress should help you
lead the Army Civil Works organization effectively.
Dr. Ines Triay has spent most of her career in service to the
Department of Energy, from her days as a scientist at Los Alamos
Laboratory and continuing as a career Federal employee, she has held a
variety of senior scientific and management positions. She is presently
the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy with responsibility
for DOE's Environmental Management Program. Her experience in that
position and her deep commitment to the cleanup program should help to
ensure that it is well managed and technically sound.
Chairman Levin. Now I am going to ask you standard
questions that you can all answer together.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
[All four witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which
would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation
process?
[All four witnesses answered in the negative.]
Will you ensure your staff complies with deadlines
established for requested communications, including questions
for the record in hearings?
[All four witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in
response to congressional requests?
[All four witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Will those witnesses be protected from reprisal for their
testimony or briefings?
[All four witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and testify upon
request before this committee?
[All four witnesses answered 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?
[All four witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Okay. I think we are going to call first on Dr. Nacht.
STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL NACHT, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR GLOBAL STRATEGIC AFFAIRS
Dr. Nacht. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, members of the
committee, it is an honor to come before you as President
Obama's nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global
Strategic Affairs.
I wish to thank President Obama, Secretary Gates, and Under
Secretary Flournoy for their support of my nomination.
Let me say a few words about my family. For their
unswerving love and support, I want to foremost acknowledge my
wife, Marjorie Jo, my partner of 45 years; my son Alexander and
his wife, Maria, of New York; my son David and daughter-in-law,
Alicia, who, as the chairman has acknowledged, are residents of
Ann Arbor, Michigan; and our loving grandchildren Joshua,
Benjamin, Julian, and a fourth on the way. I am delighted that
my son Alexander could be with us today.
I also wish to cite the contributions to our Nation of my
wife's family in national security. Her dad, Walter Seltzer,
now deceased, won the Silver Star with Oak Leaf Cluster, the
Bronze Star, and the Purple Heart at the Battle of the Bulge in
World War II.
Her cousin, Major Stephen Nurenberg, U.S. Army, is
currently in Iraq with the Joint Task Force while stationed at
Fort Eustis, VA. Another cousin, Michael Nurenberg, a member of
the Virginia National Guard, was previously in the 3rd Ranger
Battalion in Afghanistan.
Senators, I have twice served full time in Government,
first, as a NASA missile aerodynamicist in the early days of
the space program, and, more recently, as a nuclear arms and
missile defense negotiator in the Clinton administration, for
which I received unanimous U.S. Senate confirmation.
After September 11, as the chairman has noted, I had the
privilege to be asked by General Larry Welch, former U.S. Air
Force Chief of Staff, to chair two panels of the Threat
Reduction Advisory Committee of the Defense Threat Reduction
Agency on counterterrorism and counterproliferation of weapons
of mass destruction.
If confirmed, I would be honored to return to public
service to contribute to our Nation's security. I would make
every effort to meet the challenges posed by the array of
issues in global strategic affairs.
I pledge to work closely with this committee and other
committees of Congress on each of these challenges, and I would
like to thank the members of the committee for your
consideration of my nomination.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Dr. Nacht.
General Gregson?
STATEMENT OF WALLACE C. GREGSON, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ASIAN AND PACIFIC SECURITY AFFAIRS
General Gregson. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, members of
the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you this morning.
I would like also to thank Senator Webb for his most
gracious introduction.
I am honored and grateful that the Secretary of Defense
recommended me, and the President has chosen to nominate me,
for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific
Security Affairs.
My wife, Cindy, whose patience and understanding have made
this possible, is here today. Our oldest son is working in
Boston and unable to attend. Our youngest son is serving with
the marines in Iraq and, similarly, unable to attend.
We have both urgent challenges and important opportunities
in the Asian and Pacific region. If confirmed, I am eager to
lend my efforts to meeting our national security goals.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, General Gregson.
Ms. Darcy?
STATEMENT OF JO-ELLEN DARCY, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and
members of the committee. Thank you for holding this hearing
today so promptly after the announcement of our nominations.
It is my honor and privilege to be here today as President
Obama's nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works. I am here today because of my experience with the Corps
and its mission, and I am also here because of the love and
support of my family and my friends.
I would like to introduce my family. My mom, Jean, couldn't
be here today or my brother Richard, and I know that my father
is looking down from on high. But I would like to introduce my
three sisters, Bonnie Darcy Waldman, Pam Farentino, and Dr.
Margie Darcy. My cousin Sarah Lord is here, as well as my long-
time friend Jean Antonucci.
I have several friends and colleagues here also today, and
I would like to thank them for their support and their guidance
over the years.
My experience as a Senate staffer for the last 16 years,
and my time working for the Governor of Michigan on Great Lakes
issues, has given me the opportunity to work with the Corps of
Engineers on realizing project goals and on developing the
policies that guide the Corps' mission.
In addition to firsthand knowledge of the complexity and
importance of the Corps' responsibilities, my experience has
given me great respect for the outstanding men and women of the
Corps, who serve the Corps and serve this Country. The Corps
has, throughout its history, marshaled expertise and ingenuity
to serve the changing needs of a growing Nation.
If confirmed, I look forward to building on that tradition
of rising to new challenges to meet the Nation's needs in the
21st century.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to answering any questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Ms. Darcy.
Dr. Triay?
STATEMENT OF DR. INES R. TRIAY, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF ENERGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Dr. Triay. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, members of the
committee, it is a great honor to appear before you today as
President Obama's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management at the DOE.
I thank President Obama and Secretary Chu for their
confidence. I also thank the committee for considering my
nomination.
I would like to introduce my husband, Dr. John Hall, who
has been my friend, my partner, and my inspiration for over 20
years, and his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Harvey Hall, who are also
here with me today.
In 1961, when my parents fled Cuba's Communist regime and
went into exile with a 3-year-old daughter and nothing but
their dreams for a better life and their love for freedom, it
would have been impossible to believe that their daughter would
ever be nominated by the President of the United States to
serve this great country.
My parents and I are proud to be naturalized citizens of
the United States and are humbled by the honor of my being here
today. The pride that we feel has only served to deepen the
great love that we have for this country and the admiration and
respect that we have for the American people.
That a girl born in Cuba was welcomed in Puerto Rico;
encouraged to study math and science; received a Ph.D. in
chemistry at the University of Miami in Florida; was recruited
by Los Alamos National Laboratory and mentored by giants in the
field of nuclear science; was asked to direct the beginning of
the operational phase of the waste isolation pilot plant, the
only nuclear waste repository of its kind in the world; was
promoted to the top career position in the DOE's Environmental
Management Program, the most complex nuclear cleanup in the
world; and is now being nominated to direct that cleanup is
something that only happens in America.
Mr. Chairman, if I am confirmed to this position, I will
work closely with you and with all of Congress to address the
many local, State, regional, and national issues that we face
within the Environmental Management Program. I commit to
informing and consulting with Congress, the tribal nations, the
State, our regulators, our stakeholders, and individual
concerned citizens.
As I address you today, I want to affirm my commitment to
safety, the safety of our workers, the safety of the public,
and the safety of our environment. Safe operations and cleanup
is our ever-present and ultimate goal.
I come before you today with a unique understanding of the
complexity and magnitude of the task that we face. I have
firsthand experience in every aspect of environmental
management and have dedicated my life to the successful cleanup
of the environmental legacy of the Cold War.
While we have made significant progress in the
Environmental Management Program, I recognize the enormity of
the remaining effort and the technical challenges that we face.
I am eager to use science and technology, robust project
management, and our intergovernmental partnerships to reduce
the cost and schedule of the remaining program.
As the committee is aware, the Environmental Management
Program has come under considerable criticism for the execution
of its projects. Under my leadership as acting Assistant
Secretary, aggressive efforts are underway to transform the
Environmental Management Program into a best-in-class project
management organization.
I commit to you that if I am confirmed, I will work
tirelessly to make this effort successful and to continue to
improve the Environmental Management Program. I have a long
history of demanding excellence from my team. Nothing less than
performance that results in delivering our projects on time and
within cost will be acceptable from the environmental
management Federal team and our contractors.
Should I be confirmed, I will use every tool to ensure the
successful performance of the environmental management mission.
Relentless focus on performance, utilization of science and
technology, staff professionalism and competency, transparency,
and accountability--these will be the cornerstones of my tenure
if I am confirmed.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would be honored
to serve this great country that I so deeply love. As a Latina,
I embrace the responsibility of excelling and, if confirmed, I
will do everything in my power to meet your highest
expectations.
I would be pleased to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Triay follows:]
Prepared Statement by Dr. Ines R. Triay
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, members of the
committee.
It is a great honor to appear before you today as President Obama's
nominee to be the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management at
the United States Department of Energy. I thank Secretary Chu and
President Obama for their support and confidence in recommending and
nominating me. I also thank the committee for considering my
nomination. I would like to introduce my husband of 24 years, Dr. John
Hall, and his parents Mr. and Mrs. Harvey Hall, who are with me here
today.
In 1961, when my parents fled Cuba's Communist regime and went into
exile with a 3-year-old daughter and nothing but their dreams for a
better life and their love for freedom, it would have been impossible
to believe that their daughter would ever be nominated by the President
of the United States to serve this great country. My parents and I are
proud to be naturalized citizens of the United States of America and
are humbled by the honor of my being here today. The pride that we feel
has only served to deepen the great love that we have for this country
and the admiration and respect that we have for the American people.
That a girl born in Cuba was welcomed in Puerto Rico; encouraged to
study math and science; received a Ph.D. in Chemistry at the University
of Miami in Florida; was recruited by Los Alamos National Laboratory in
New Mexico and mentored by giants in the field of nuclear science; was
asked to direct the beginning of the operational phase of the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, NM, the only nuclear waste
repository of its kind in the world; was promoted to the top career
position in the Department of Energy's Environmental Management
program, the most complex nuclear cleanup in the world; and is now
being recommended by a Nobel laureate, Secretary Chu, and nominated by
President Obama to direct that cleanup is something that only happens
in the United States of America.
Mr. Chairman, if I am confirmed to this position, I will work
closely with you and with all of Congress to address the many local,
State, regional and national issues that we face within the
Environmental Management program.
As I address you today, I want to affirm my commitment to safety--
the safety of our workers, the safety of the public, the safety of our
site communities and our stakeholders and the safety of our
environment. Safe operations and cleanup is our ever present and
ultimate goal.
I come before you today with a unique understanding of the
complexity and magnitude of the task that we face in the Environmental
Management program. I have first-hand experience in every aspect of
environmental management and I have dedicated my life to the successful
cleanup of the environmental legacy of the Cold War.
While we have made significant progress in the Environmental
Management program, I recognize the enormity of the remaining effort
and the technical challenges that we face. I am eager to use science
and technology, robust project management, and our intergovernmental
partnerships to reduce the cost and schedule of the remaining program.
As the committee is aware, the Environmental Management program has
come under considerable criticism over the years in the execution of
its projects. We must strengthen our project management capability and
improve the skill set of our project management teams. Under my
leadership as Acting Assistant Secretary, aggressive efforts are
underway to transform the Environmental Management program into a
``best-in-class'' project management organization. We are implementing
processes and procedures for quality assurance and for identifying and
managing project risks. I commit to you that if I am confirmed, I will
work tirelessly to make these efforts successful and to continue to
improve the Environmental Management program.
I would like to thank Congress for including $6 billion in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the Environmental Management
program. This funding will save and create jobs quickly for shovel-
ready work that is essential to our strategic objective to reduce the
footprint of the legacy cleanup complex. Footprint reduction can be
accomplished by focusing cleanup activities on decontamination and
demolition of excess contaminated facilities, soil and groundwater
remediation, and solid waste disposition, all of which have proven
technologies and an established regulatory framework. In addition to
creating jobs, the Recovery Act funding will accelerate protection of
human health and the environment at these sites. I recognize that
disciplined management and oversight of these funds will be critical to
our success. I pledge to work with other offices in the Energy
Department and Congress to ensure that we meet this challenge.
I would like to end my testimony by reaffirming my commitment to
the safety of our staff and contractors, to the safety of the
communities and stakeholders at our sites and to the protection of our
environment. I commit to informing and consulting with Congress, the
tribal nations, the States, our regulators, our stakeholders and
individual concerned citizens.
I have a long history of demanding excellence from my team. Nothing
less than performance that results in delivering our projects on time
and within cost will be acceptable from the Environmental Management
Federal team and our contractors. Should I be confirmed, I will use
every available tool to ensure the successful performance of the
Environmental Management mission, relentless focus on performance,
utilization of science and technology, hard work, staff professionalism
and competency, transparency, and accountability. These would be the
cornerstones of my tenure if I am confirmed.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would be honored to serve
this country that I so deeply love. As a Latina executive and
scientist, I embrace the responsibility of excelling, and, if
confirmed, I will do everything in my power to meet your highest
expectations. It is an honor to testify before you today. I would be
pleased to answer your questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Doctor.
Let us try 8 minutes for questions and see if we can finish
in time for the vote at noon.
Dr. Nacht, first, one of the most significant policies for
which you are going to be responsible is the nuclear posture
review, and you are going to be leading that review for the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, as I understand it.
Balancing near-term deterrence requirements while seeking
to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons is, to put it
mildly, a challenge. I am wondering how you see that process
working on a practical basis?
Dr. Nacht. Thank you, Senator.
Yes, the nuclear posture review policy process has begun. I
don't know all the details, but it is a rather elaborate
process that involves all the key stakeholders, including U.S.
Strategic Command, the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) and DOE, Department of State, and others.
I will co-chair and lead key aspects of this review,
reporting to Under Secretary Flournoy. I think it is on a
pretty fast track, but yet I intend to be very comprehensive.
It is the first nuclear posture review since the Bush
administration's activities in 2002, and we know that, I
believe, there was no declassified version of that report
produced, and we are going to try very hard to produce a
declassified as well as a classified report. So I will play a
significant role in that process.
Chairman Levin. General, on the question of U.S. assistance
to Pakistan, I have a couple of questions. This assistance can
only be effective if Pakistan's leadership at all levels comes
to believe that violent extremists in Pakistan pose the
greatest threat to Pakistan's survival, not India.
Otherwise, the United States is simply going to be
misjudged. If we just pour money into there without the
government of Pakistan understanding or agreeing that its
principal threat is the threat of extremists, we would be
perceived as trying to buy their support for our goals rather
than supporting Pakistan in their efforts to confront the
existential threat to Pakistan represented by those extremists.
There has been a proposal now by the administration to
provide military and development assistance to Pakistan as part
of its new strategy. There is a request for $400 million to
establish a Pakistan counterinsurgency contingency fund to
train and equip the Pakistan Frontier Corps and to provide
counterinsurgency training to the Pakistan army. The Kerry-
Lugar bill (S. 962) would provide $1.5 billion a year for 5
years to build democratic and economic institutions in
Pakistan.
Would you agree, General, that the government of Pakistan
needs to make the case publicly that the single-greatest threat
to their security is posed by the militant extremists that
spread out from the border area and that the Pakistan army
should redirect its main focus to countering that threat?
General Gregson. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly agree that
Pakistan is in significant difficulty. They need to recognize
that the extremism is an existential threat, and the resources
that we provide to Pakistan need to be directed toward
alleviating that specific threat.
Chairman Levin. General, in your opinion, to what extent is
an improvement in Pakistan-India relations a prerequisite for
successfully stabilizing the security situation in Pakistan
itself?
General Gregson. Pakistan and India have had difficult
relations for the history of Pakistan. We need to work with
Pakistan, India, and with other countries across the region to
decrease any of the tensions that distract from our effort
against the extremists.
Chairman Levin. There is a program in Afghanistan, General,
called the National Solidarity Program. You and I have spoken
about this in my office. Both General Petraeus and Under
Secretary of Defense Flournoy have expressed strong support for
this program.
It works through locally elected village councils. It
empowers the Afghan people to set out their own development
priorities. It also supplies small amounts of money, up to
$60,000 per village, so that the project that they select can
be built or adopted.
I am hoping that, after your confirmation, you will become
familiar with the National Solidarity Program and the community
development councils that they have established in over 21,000
villages and localities in Afghanistan as a way of bringing
some kind of grassroots decisionmaking, as well as grassroots
selected development to Afghanistan. Can you do that?
General Gregson. Yes, sir. I certainly can, and I took the
liberty of researching that program a bit after I left your
office. I think it is a wonderful example of bottom-up
development, and you mentioned that we work on projects that
they select rather than projects that we select for them; I
think that approach has a lot of promise.
Chairman Levin. Then finally, the President has said that
he supports benchmarks for measuring progress in Afghanistan
and for promoting accountability. In Iraq, Congress pressed for
benchmarks, and Prime Minister Maliki and the Iraqi Government
finally did adopt some goals or milestones to measure progress
in security and in political reconciliation.
We didn't invent the benchmarks. These were objectives that
Iraq itself had set for itself with a timetable for achieving
the benchmarks. I am wondering, General, whether you will
support the adoption of benchmarks by the Afghan Government? We
can have our own benchmarks, obviously, to track this. But most
importantly, would you encourage the Afghan Government to set
some benchmarks for their own progress?
General Gregson. I certainly would. Whether we call them
benchmarks, measures of effectiveness, or some other term, I
believe that we need to have a continuous dialogue about
whether we are accomplishing what we need to accomplish. If
not, what do we need to change?
We also need, I think, to be very aware of the fact that
the situation itself can change and that might change what we
are trying to do in the normal countermeasure ways that these
develop. But we need to have a clear understanding not only
within DOD but, in my mind, across the Government on what it is
we are trying to do and, more than that, across the
international coalition.
Chairman Levin. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Darcy, just a question for you about the significant
backlog of the Corps work. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
has about $4 billion surplus in it that is growing every year,
and yet we have all kinds of ports, facilities, waterways,
small harbors, including harbors in Michigan, that are silting
due to the Corps saying that they don't have funds available
for dredging and other operations and maintenance, which is
critically important to commerce in our harbors.
The money collected for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
is intended to maintain harbors and channels. The Corps has
significant operations and maintenance backlogs, and yet in
fiscal year 2008, they spent only $766 million in operations
and maintenance from that trust fund while the tax revenues
collected were more than twice that amount, $1.6 billion.
Will you take a look at that issue, particularly take a
look at the growing backlog that exists in dredging in our
important harbors, not just in the Great Lakes, but obviously
representing a Great Lake State, I am keenly aware of the
importance of that trust fund and the need to keep those
harbors open. Will you commit to taking a strong look and see
if we can address those backlogs?
Ms. Darcy. I will, Senator.
Chairman Levin. Okay. Thank you. My time is up.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would tell all the nominees and their families who are
here, we appreciate their willingness to serve the country.
General Gregson, in follow-up to Senator Levin's
questioning, do you believe that we should set benchmarks for
the progress of Pakistan in their cooperation and assistance in
addressing the threat that is based in Pakistan to Afghanistan?
General Gregson. We need to come to an understanding with
Pakistan.
Senator McCain. Do you think that we ought to have
benchmarks for them?
General Gregson. We certainly should have some measure of
standards, benchmarks, measure of effectiveness. We need to
know where we are going and whether we are getting there.
Senator McCain. Should those benchmarks be included in the
aid package to Pakistan?
General Gregson. We need to somehow make sure that the aid
that we are giving to Pakistan goes to the purpose for----
Senator McCain. I say with respect, General, it is like you
either don't wish to answer or have no answer. My question is
pretty clear. Should those benchmarks be included in any aid
package to Pakistan?
General Gregson. Yes, sir. They should.
Senator McCain. They should in writing. What if the
Pakistanis don't meet those benchmarks, General?
General Gregson. If the Pakistanis don't meet those
benchmarks, then our position and our posture over there and
our effort becomes even more difficult. I think it is
absolutely essential that we work with Pakistan to solve the
problems in Central Asia, and they are all linked together.
Senator McCain. Thank you, General.
Could I ask you about North Korea and ask you what do you
think the state of the situation is vis-a-vis North Korea and
whether we should resume Six-Party Talks? Do you believe that
they are willing to resume Six-Party Talks?
General Gregson. They have indicated most recently that
they are not willing to resume the Six-Party Talks. I think the
Six-Party Talks should be resumed. There are elements within
the Six-Party Talks that help us. The first essential reason is
to stay in close formation with our two allies over there that
are most intimately involved with North Korea: Japan and the
Republic of Korea.
With the solid foundation from there, if we can find
matters of common interest to work with Russia and China, that
is in our favor, and it helps to build confidence in Northeast
Asia that we are trying to work the issue.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
General, I would just like to comment I think it is pretty
obvious that North Korea has taken actions recently that are
exactly in the opposite direction: driving out the inspectors,
saying they are moving forward with development of more nuclear
weapons, and the recent missile launch, which was more
successful than the prior ones.
So, I hope that you will pay some attention to it and close
attention to events there. I think we are in agreement that
China plays a key role in whatever cooperation we might lead to
be expected from them.
Dr. Triay, have you ever been to Hanford, Washington?
Dr. Triay. Yes, Senator. I have.
Senator McCain. You have been? Have you seen the state of
the cleanup there?
Dr. Triay. Yes, Senator. I have. I am very familiar with
the state of the cleanup.
Senator McCain. What is your assessment of the state of the
cleanup? The information that we have is it may be 2062 before
it is cleaned up?
Dr. Triay. Senator, that is correct. But, as I was saying
in my testimony, we will use science and technology. We will
use robust project management in order to bring in the schedule
as well as reduce the lifecycle cost of that cleanup.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
I can't recall the numbers right now for the cost overruns
over the initial estimates, but they are astronomical. It seems
to me that a target date of 2062 is not something that we
should be satisfied with. It took a lot less years than that to
do the pollution, much less.
So I hope you will give that a high priority. It has just
been something I have been concerned about for a long period of
time.
Ms. Darcy, do you believe that the Corps of Engineers
should prioritize projects for authorization?
Ms. Darcy. No, Senator.
Senator McCain. You don't?
Ms. Darcy. No, the current practice of the Corps is to not
prioritize them for authorization. Once those projects----
Senator McCain. Do you agree with that?
Ms. Darcy. I do.
Senator McCain. Business as usual.
Dr. Nacht, do you believe we can achieve a world free of
nuclear weapons?
Dr. Nacht. I think it is an aspiration, and as President
Obama said in Prague, something that may not be achieved in his
lifetime. But it is an aspiration, which will then structure
some of what we will try to do to change attitudes. Perhaps
this will lead to reduction in nuclear arsenals, significant
reduction, and also to dissuasion of others to acquire nuclear
weapons.
Senator McCain. Are you optimistic about recent dialogue
between the United States and Russia?
Dr. Nacht. I haven't been briefed in detail on this, but
from the public accounts, the terms were used as a productive
beginning. I have spent 3 years negotiating with the Russians
in the START and missile defense area, and I know it is a
challenging experience.
But I think, as I understand it, Under Assistant Secretary
Gottemoeller, we are off to a good start.
Senator McCain. Have you had a chance to look at the
proposals that Secretary Gates has made concerning reductions
in some of our missile defense programs or even elimination?
Dr. Nacht. I have read some of them. I don't believe the
department has released a full budget, but I have read some of
the statements.
Senator McCain. Well, I was talking specifically about
missile defense proposals that Secretary Gates has made, which
are pretty specific. Will you look at those and give us a
response in writing as to what you feel about those proposals?
Dr. Nacht. Absolutely.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, members of the committee, thank you
for the opportunity to respond to your questions regarding the fiscal
year 2010 President's budget.
I have no direct knowledge of the fiscal year 2010 President's
budget, but it is my understanding that the Secretary made a number of
adjustments to the ballistic missile program as part of a larger effort
to rebalance defense capabilities to meet a wide range of military
challenges in the most affordable manner.
U.S. missile defense capabilities are designed to defend against
two broad threats: longer-range ballistic missiles from rogue countries
that could threaten the United States in the future and regional or
shorter-range ballistic missiles that threaten our deployed forces and
friends and allies today.
The Secretary has decided to restructure the program to focus on
the rogue state and theater missile threat. He has decided not to
increase the current number of ground-based interceptors based in
Alaska as had been planned. DOD will continue to fund robustly
continued research and development to improve the capability we already
have to defend against long-range rogue missile threats.
The Secretary also increased funding for short-and medium-range
missile defense capabilities, such as Standard Missile-3 and Terminal
High Altitude Area Defense, which protect our forces and those of our
allies and friends in theater. The Secretary made the decision to
rebalance our investments and increase production of these ballistic
missile defense capabilities.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much.
I thank the witnesses for being here and look forward to
their confirmation.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Senator McCaskill?
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My questions are for Ms. Darcy as it relates to water, and
it won't surprise you, Ms. Darcy, that I want to talk about the
Missouri River. As you are aware, the GAO, I am sure, did a
study at the urging of Senator Dorgan earlier this year that
talked about the decline in the amount of goods being
transported along the Missouri River.
Unfortunately, this study did not take into account that
the navigation season had been severely curtailed by the Corps
and nor did it take into account the value of the goods that
are being shipped or the jobs associated with these shipments
and the impact on Missouri and, in fact, the heartland's
utilities as it relates to water being used as cooling on four
major power plants along the river.
I understand why Senator Dorgan wants the Garrison
diversion project, but what he is advocating now is a new
study. Now, what drives me crazy in the Federal Government is
the money we spend on studies.
We completed a study that cost $35 million about the river.
It cost $35 million, and it took 15 years to complete. Now we
are proposing to do another study.
Some things aren't going to change. The north is going to
want more water, and the south is going to fight about it. We
could study it until the cows come home, but it is not going to
change reality: whether or not we are going to make sure that
navigation is still available on the southern portions of the
river.
So we were able to get a letter that Senator Dorgan signed
that said that the Corps should delay this study, even though
the funding was put into the omnibus appropriations bill, over
my objection and other Senators' objection. There was an
agreement reached that Senator Dorgan would ask the Corps,
along with Senator Bond and me, to not begin this study until
after October to give us another chance to reach out to
stakeholders and perhaps have the entire Senate weigh in about
this.
We have learned that preliminary work has begun on this
study, even though a letter was sent to the Corps saying to
delay the study. I need to ask you today why is preliminary
work being done on a study that you have been asked to delay?
Whether or not you are willing to say ``stop it'' until we hear
back from the Senate after we finish the appropriations process
this year?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, because I am not at the Corps yet, my
only response to you, I think, today can be, if confirmed, I
would be happy to look into it. I understand the frustration on
the Missouri River, and I also understand the frustration over
continuous studies.
Senator McCaskill. Well, I appreciate that. I don't mean to
diminish North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana, but the
population of Missouri alone exceeds the population of those
three States. We need that navigation. It is very important to
the economic health of our State.
I just have learned the hard way that sometimes this is arm
wrestling behind doors as it relates to appropriators, and
there are much bigger policy issues here than who has Senators
on the Appropriations Committee and who doesn't.
I just wanted to make sure that, on the record, I got your
assurances that you were going to go into this with your eyes
wide open, and I particularly would like, as quickly as
possible once you are confirmed, some kind of word back to my
office about not beginning to spend any of the money that has
been appropriated on this study until after the date of October
that we asked you to hold off on until you actually begin going
down that road.
Ms. Darcy. If confirmed, I most certainly will look at it
immediately.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
Senator McCain. Could I just ask one more question of Ms.
Darcy? You are aware of the threats to the Colorado River?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, I am, Senator.
Senator McCain. Not only pollution, but lower levels and
all of those aspects of the issue?
Ms. Darcy. I am, Senator.
Senator McCain. How important they are to the west?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
There have been requests for some answers for the record.
Dr. Nacht, if you can get those in? As soon as you get those
in, we can then proceed to consider the nomination. There is
another witness who is going to get us information for the
record from the earlier panel.
We are going to move as quickly as we can on these
nominations. If you could get those answers in today or
tomorrow, it would be helpful. There is usually, I think, a 48-
hour wait before they go to the floor? Do they still wait 2
days?
No limit. Okay. If you could get those answers in promptly,
we will try to take these nominations up very, very quickly.
We very much appreciate, as Senator McCain said, not only
your service, your willingness to serve, but the support of
your families. It is essential. You know it, and we just want
them to be understanding that we are grateful to them as well
as to you.
We will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Hon. Raymond E. Mabus,
Jr., by Chairman Levin 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 with the Department of Defense
(DOD)?
If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to address in
these modifications?
Answer. If confirmed, I will closely examine Goldwater-Nichols and
make recommendations for changes to the Secretary of Defense if I deem
change to be advisable. However, at this time I am not aware of any
needed modifications.
Question. Do you believe that the role of the Service Secretaries
under the Goldwater-Nichols legislation is appropriate and the policies
and processes in existence allow that role to be fulfilled?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you see a need for any change in those roles, with
regard to the resource allocation process or otherwise?
Answer. I am not aware of any need for changes to the roles of the
Service Secretaries at this time.
duties
Question. Section 5013 of title 10, U.S.C., establishes the
responsibilities and authority of the Secretary of the Navy.
What is your understanding of the duties and functions of the
Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. If confirmed as Secretary of the Navy, I will be
responsible for the responsibilities and authorities in Section 5013 of
Title 10 for both the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect
that Secretary Gates would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I believe that Secretary Gates would expect
me to implement the President's national security objectives throughout
the Department of the Navy.
Question. What duties and responsibilities would you plan to assign
to the Under Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. If confirmed, the Under Secretary would be designated as
deputy and principal assistant to me, and per the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) 2009 the Chief Management Officer (CMO) of the
Navy.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Secretary of the
Navy?
Answer. My accumulated professional experience which includes being
the Governor of Mississippi, Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and senior
leadership and management positions in the private sector provides me
with the tools necessary to lead large and complex organizations. I
approach the Secretary of the Navy's duties and responsibilities with
an open mind and a dedication to serve. If confirmed, I will seek to
rapidly assemble a strong team composed of dedicated, experienced, and
talented people.
relationships
Question. Please describe your understanding of the relationship of
the Secretary of the Navy to the following officials:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Secretary of the Navy reports directly to the Secretary
of Defense and ensures that his priorities are implemented in the
Department of the Navy.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Secretary of the Navy works closely with the Deputy
Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Secretary of Defense's
priorities are implemented in the Department of the Navy.
Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. If confirmed, I, the Under Secretary of the Navy, and the
Assistant Secretaries of the Navy will coordinate and work closely with
the Under Secretaries of Defense to ensure the Department of the Navy's
actions complements the priorities set forth by the Secretary of
Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. The Secretary of the Navy coordinates with the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure that he has all the information and
support necessary from the Department of Navy to perform the duties of
principal military advisor to the President, National Security Council,
and Secretary of Defense.
Question. The other Service Secretaries.
Answer. The Secretary of the Navy should maintain close and
positive relationships with the other Service Secretaries to ensure
that a cohesive and fully equipped and trained joint force is prepared
to execute operations in support of our national interests.
Question. The Chief of Naval Operations.
Answer. The Chief of Naval Operations performs his duties under the
authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of the Navy and is
directly responsible to the Secretary according to Title 10.
Question. The Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Answer. The Commandant of the Marine Corps performs his duties
under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of the
Navy and is directly responsible to the Secretary according to title
10.
Question. The combatant commanders
Answer. The Secretary of the Navy supports the combatant
commanders' operational and warfighting requirements.
Question. The Under Secretary of the Navy.
Answer. The Under Secretary of the Navy is the principal assistant
to the Secretary of the Navy. He acts with full authority of the
Secretary in the management of the Department and performs any duties
given him by Secretary of the Navy.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of the Navy
Answer. The Assistant Secretaries perform specific oversight roles
delegated to them by the Secretary of the Navy.
Question. The General Counsel of the Navy.
Answer. The General Counsel is the senior civilian legal advisor to
Secretary of the Navy. The General Counsel also serves as the Secretary
of the Navy's chief ethics official.
Question. The Judge Advocate General of the Navy.
Answer. The Judge Advocate General of the Navy and the Staff Judge
Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps are the Secretary of the
Navy's senior uniformed legal advisors.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the next Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. If confirmed, my challenges will include: providing for the
health and welfare of our sailors, marines, and their families;
supporting Overseas Contingency Operations and maintaining readiness;
maintaining fiscal and budget discipline and establishing and
maintaining long-term shipbuilding and aviation procurement programs
that are achievable affordable, and responsive to the needs of the
Nation.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. I plan to work closely with Congress, the President, the
Secretary of Defense, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant
of the Marine Corps, as well as other people and institutions to
address manpower costs while continuing to support our sailors, marines
and their families; execute affordable and effective shipbuilding and
aviation plans; and address budget issues.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. I am not aware of any serious problems in the performance
of the functions of the Secretary of the Navy.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary of
Defense and the Service Chiefs to develop plans to address any areas
requiring attention.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish?
Answer. The broad priorities of the Department of the Navy will be
aligned with those established by the Secretary of Defense. These
include commitment to and support for maintaining the All-Volunteer
Force; balancing programs to fight the wars we are fighting in Iraq and
Afghanistan; ensuring we are prepared for other operations and
contingencies; and reforming acquisition, procurement, and contracting.
transformation
Question. If confirmed as the Secretary of the Navy, you would play
an important role in the ongoing process of transforming the Navy and
Marine Corps to meet new and emerging threats.
If confirmed, what would your goals be for Navy and Marine Corps
transformation?
Answer. The Navy and Marine Corps continuously assess new and
emerging threats to ensure that their personnel are trained and
equipped to meet and defeat them.
Question. In your opinion, does the Department of the Navy's
projected budget have adequate resources identified to implement your
transformation goals?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to study in depth the
Department's budget requests.
tactical aviation
Question. Several years ago, the Navy and Marine Corps began to
integrate their tactical aviation units.
What is your assessment of this initiative?
Answer. My initial assessment based upon limited information is
that integration of tactical aviation between the Navy and Marine Corps
allows the Department of the Navy to best meet the needs of the Nation.
Question. The Department of the Navy is facing a potential
shortfall of strike fighter aircraft in the next decade even if the
Navy continues to buy F/A-18E/F aircraft and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF) aircraft at the rate projected in last year's budget.
What is your assessment of this situation and what actions should
the Department of the Navy take to address this potential shortfall?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review current and projected
procurement of strike fighter aircraft, a top priority for Naval
Aviation, and determine the actions and strategies necessary to
mitigate or prevent any potential shortfall.
Question. What is your understanding of whether the Navy will
continue to operate the 10 carrier air wings that supported the fleet
of 11 aircraft carriers, or whether the air wing force structure will
be modified to reflect a planned reduction to a permanent level of 10
aircraft carriers?
Answer. I am not aware of plans to reduce air wing force structure,
although this issue, like all force structure issues, will be reviewed
in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). If confirmed, I will work with
the Secretary of Defense to ensure the QDR reflects the best balance of
capabilities and risk for the Nation.
Question. What is your assessment of the current risk to the F-35
JSF Program schedule during its system development and demonstration
phase?
Answer. I am not aware of the status of risk to the JSF program,
although I know the Navy and Marine Corps are fully committed to the
JSF program.
Question. Alternatives for maintaining sufficient strike assets if
there are new schedule difficulties with the JSF program are limited.
It appears that the Department of the Navy's options for extending the
service life of existing F/A-18 aircraft are limited and procurement of
additional F/A-18 aircraft beyond those planned last year may be more
difficult with the Secretary of Defense's recent announcement of a
reduction of nine F/A-18 aircraft from the number originally planned
for the fiscal year 2010 program.
What other potential alternatives do you see for maintaining
sufficient strike assets if there were any additional slippage in the
initial operating capability date for the F-35 JSF?
Answer. If confirmed, I will fully review strike asset
requirements, taking into account all naval systems--airborne, surface
and subsurface, manned and unmanned--capable of delivering striking
power. It is essential that we maintain an effective naval strike
capability to support the Joint Force.
shipbuilding plan
Question. The Navy annually submits a 30-year shipbuilding plan.
The last shipbuilding plan included very optimistic assumptions about
unit costs of ships and excluded any funding for a replacement for the
current fleet of Trident ballistic missile submarines.
Do you agree that the 30-year shipbuilding plan should, in fact,
reflect realistic cost estimates and include all important shipbuilding
efforts for that document to be useful for decisionmakers?
Answer. In order to effectively plan and achieve cost efficiencies
it is important to have realistic cost estimates; this is especially
true for a shipbuilding program.
Question. What level of funding do you think the Navy will need to
execute this plan, and considering competing priorities, do you believe
this level of funding is realistic?
Answer. I have not yet examined in detail the level of funding that
Navy will need to execute the 30-year shipbuilding plan. If confirmed,
I am committed to being a responsible steward of the taxpayers' dollars
while ensuring development of the most efficient and effective ship
building plan.
Question. Cost growth continues to be a prevalent problem in Navy
shipbuilding programs, particularly for the first ships in new classes.
Some experts have taken the position that DOD could improve the
performance of its acquisition plans by adopting commercial practices,
such as: retiring all major risk prior to signing a procurement
contract; fixing the cost and delivery date at contract signing;
competing all basic and functional design prior to starting
construction; and having a disciplined construction process that
delivers ships on cost and on schedule.
To what extent should such commercial shipbuilding best practices,
and any others you may be aware of, be incorporated into Navy
shipbuilding programs?
Answer. There are significant differences between commercial
shipbuilding and Navy shipbuilding. The best practices from each should
be used to determine the most efficient and cost effective way to
procure the ships the Navy requires for the defense of our country.
aircraft carriers
Question. The Navy decommissioned the USS John F. Kennedy in fiscal
year 2006. This decreased the number of aircraft carriers to 11.
Additionally, in the fiscal year 2006 budget request, the Navy slipped
the delivery of CVN-78 (USS Gerald R. Ford) to 2015, creating a 2-year
gap between the scheduled decommissioning of the USS Enterprise and the
availability of a new aircraft carrier. During this period, under the
proposed plan, only 10 aircraft carriers would be operational.
Recently, there have been reports that delivery of the USS Gerald R.
Ford could be further delayed because of technical difficulties with
the electromagnetic aircraft launch system.
What is your view of the plan announced by Secretary Gates to
permanently change the aircraft carrier force structure to 10 from the
current number of 11?
Answer. I understand that Secretary Gates' recommendation is for
the Navy's aircraft carrier force structure to be 10 carriers in 2040.
If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of Defense during the QDR
to examine the aircraft carrier force structure.
Question. Is it Secretary Gates' plan to retire another aircraft
carrier when the USS Gerald R. Ford delivers to keep the carrier force
structure at 10 carriers?
Answer. I am not aware of such a plan.
Question. If not, do you believe that this reduced carrier force
structure for a 2-year gap is supported by adequate analysis?
Answer. I have been told that the Navy has developed a mitigation
plan. If confirmed, I will review that plan to ensure the Navy can
provide sufficient carriers to support the operational needs of the
combatant commanders.
Question. How would the aircraft carrier presence requirements of
combatant commanders be met with only 10 operational aircraft carriers,
particularly if the 10 carrier force structure is made permanent?
Answer. I have not had access to the information necessary to
analyze combatant commander requirements. If confirmed, I will fully
review this matter.
surface combatants
Question. Until fiscal year 2009, the Future Years Defense Program
had plans for buying DDG-1000 destroyers until the Navy was ready to
begin procurement of a new missile defense cruiser, CG(X). During
budget deliberations last year, Navy leadership announced that the Navy
wanted to cancel the DDG-1000 program after building only two ships and
restart the DDG-51 production line. Ultimately, the Secretary of
Defense decided not to cancel the third DDG-1000 that was requested as
part of the fiscal year 2009 budget.
In your judgment, can a credible and capable surface force be
sustained at the level of multi-mission surface combatant construction
the Navy currently plans, and if so, how?
Answer. I have not fully reviewed the Navy's shipbuilding plan;
however, I believe that the QDR may have an impact on the existing
plan. If confirmed, I would seek an appropriate force mix of surface
combatants while considering our requirements in terms of capability
and capacity.
Question. Has the Navy produced adequate analysis of the effects of
the new shipbuilding plan on the surface combatant industrial base?
Answer. I do not have sufficient information on the shipbuilding
plan and its relationship to the industrial base. If confirmed, my
objective will be to work to ensure that the Navy plan supports force
structure needs and maintains a viable industrial base.
Question. In your opinion, how many shipyards capable of building
surface combatants does this Nation need?
Answer. The answer to this question is complex and must consider:
shipyard capabilities, the need for surge capacity, the benefit of
competition in minimizing costs, possible disruptions from natural and
manmade disasters, and the industrial infrastructure that supports the
shipbuilding industry. If confirmed, I will work with the Chief of
Naval Operations, Congress, industry, and others to determine the
appropriate number of shipyards needed to efficiently build our surface
combatants--a key aspect of our Nation's strength.
acquisition issues
Question. What are your views regarding the need to reform the
process by which the Department of the Navy acquires major weapons
systems? If confirmed, what steps would you recommend to improve that
process?
Answer. Acquisition reform is a top priority for President Obama
and Secretary Gates, and if confirmed, one of my highest priorities
would be support them by ensuring the Department of the Navy acquires
weapons systems in the most efficient and cost effective way possible.
Question. Department-wide, nearly half of the DOD's 95 largest
acquisition programs have exceeded the so-called ``Nunn-McCurdy'' cost
growth standards established in section 2433 of title 10, U.S.C. The
cost overruns on these major defense acquisition programs now total
$295 billion over the original program estimates, even though the
Department has cut unit quantities and reduced performance expectations
on many programs in an effort to hold costs down. Many of those
programs are being executed by the Department of the Navy.
What steps, if any and if confirmed, would you take to address the
out-of-control cost growth on the Department of the Navy's major
defense acquisition programs?
Answer. If confirmed, one of my top priorities will be to review
the acquisition process and existing systems to ensure the Department
of the Navy receives items on time and on cost.
Question. What principles will guide your thinking on whether to
recommend terminating a program that has experienced ``critical'' cost
growth under Nunn-McCurdy?
Answer. I agree with Secretary Gates that programs that
underperform or are over cost should be immediately considered for
termination. The Department of the Navy must clearly determine what it
needs, what alternatives if any could satisfy those needs, and what
options and trade-offs provide best value. If confirmed, should a
program experience a Nunn/McCurdy breech, I will work with the
Secretary of Defense and other senior leaders in the Department to
thoroughly review it and determine if continuation or termination is in
the best interest of the Department of the Navy and the taxpayer.
Question. Many experts have acknowledged that the DOD may have gone
too far in reducing its acquisition workforce, resulting in undermining
of its ability to provide needed oversight in the acquisition process.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If so, what steps do you believe the Department of the
Navy should take to address this problem?
Answer. The acquisition workforce has been reduced to the point
that it impedes the Department's ability to provide adequate management
and oversight of the acquisition process. If confirmed, ensuring the
Department of the Navy has adequate personnel to manage and oversee of
the acquisition process will be a priority for me.
Question. Section 852 of the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008 establishes an Acquisition Workforce
Development Fund to provide the resources needed to begin rebuilding
the Department's corps of acquisition professionals.
Do you believe that a properly sized workforce of appropriately
trained acquisition professionals is essential if the Navy is going to
get good value for the expenditure of public resources?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What steps do you expect to take, if confirmed, to ensure
that the Navy makes appropriate use of the funds made available
pursuant to section 852?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department of the Navy is
working closely with the DOD to hire additional acquisition
professionals. If confirmed, I will review the status of the
Department's acquisition workforce, including quantity, competencies,
and alignment to ensure the Department of the Navy efficiently and
effectively executes acquisition programs.
Question. Would you agree that shortened tours as program managers
can lead to difficulties in Acquisition programs? If so, what steps
would you propose to take, if confirmed, to provide for stability in
program management?
Answer. Shortened tours of program managers can lead to lack of
consistency in acquisition programs. If confirmed, I will review the
status of the Department's program manager tour lengths.
Question. Major defense acquisition programs in the Department of
the Navy and the other military departments continue to be subject to
funding and requirements instability.
Do you believe that instability in funding and requirements drives
up program costs and leads to delays in the fielding of major weapon
systems?
What steps, if any, do you believe the Navy should take to address
funding and requirements instability?
Answer. Stable requirements and funding are critical for a
successful acquisition process. If confirmed, I will examine the Navy's
acquisition process and seek to maximize stability in funding and
requirements.
Question. The Comptroller General has found that DOD programs often
move forward with unrealistic program cost and schedule estimates, lack
clearly defined and stable requirements, include immature technologies
that unnecessarily raise program costs and delay development and
production, and fail to solidify design and manufacturing processes at
appropriate junctures in the development process.
Do you agree with the Comptroller General's assessment?
If so, what steps do you believe the Department of the Navy should
take to address these problems?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to review the Comptroller
General's assessment. However, realistic program costs and clearly
defined requirements are essential to ensuring an effective and
efficient acquisition process.
Question. By some estimates, the DOD now spends more money every
year for the acquisition of services than it does for the acquisition
of products, including major weapon systems. Yet, the Department places
far less emphasis on staffing, training, and managing the acquisition
of services than it does on the acquisition of products.
What steps, if any, do you believe the Navy and Marine Corps should
take to improve the staffing, training, and management of its
acquisition of services?
Answer. Improvements in the acquisition process require a focus on
acquisition of services as well as acquisition of systems. It is my
understanding that the Department of the Navy is focusing on these
concerns in the acquisition of services. If I am confirmed, I will work
to ensure that there is proper staffing, training, and management of
the acquisition of services in the Department of the Navy.
Question. Do you agree that the Navy and Marine Corps should
develop processes and systems to provide managers with access to
information needed to conduct comprehensive spending analyses of
services contracts on an ongoing basis?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The last decade has seen a proliferation of new types of
government-wide contracts and multiagency contracts. The DOD is by far
the largest ordering agency under these contracts, accounting for 85
percent of the dollars awarded under one of the largest programs. The
DOD Inspector General and others have identified a long series of
problems with interagency contracts, including lack of acquisition
planning, inadequate competition, excessive use of time and materials
contracts, improper use of expired funds, inappropriate expenditures,
and failure to monitor contractor performance.
What steps, if any, do you believe the Navy and Marine Corps should
take to ensure that its use of interagency contracts complies with
applicable DOD requirements and is in the best interests of the
Department of the Navy?
Answer. If interagency contracts are not appropriately planned,
competed, managed, and monitored, then they are not in the best
interest of the Department of the Navy. Acquisition reform must focus
upon ensuring that interagency contracts are effective and that the
Department's use of interagency contracts complies with applicable
rules and requirements.
Question. In the Budget Blueprint that supports the fiscal year
2010 Presidential budget request, the administration committed to
``set[ting] realistic requirements and stick[ing] to them and
incorporat[ing] `best practices' by not allowing programs to proceed
from one stage of the acquisition cycle to the next until they have
achieved the maturity to clearly lower the risk of cost growth and
schedule slippage.''
If confirmed, what steps would you recommend to help ensure that
the Department makes good on this commitment?
Answer. It is critical to set and meet realistic requirements and
to use best practices throughout the acquisition process. While I do
not have sufficient information to recommend any specific steps at this
time, if confirmed I intend to support the commitment and that major
acquisition programs receive the appropriate level of management
attention.
Question. Recent congressional and DOD initiatives have attempted
to reduce technical and performance risks associated with developing
and producing major defense acquisition programs, including ships, so
as to minimize the need for cost-reimbursable contracts.
Do you think that the Department should move towards more fixed
price-type contracting in developing or procuring major defense
acquisition programs? Why or why not?
Answer. There are benefits to fixed price contracts; however, they
may not be appropriate under all circumstances. The use of fixed price
contracts in the acquisition process for major defense programs should
be given due attention.
Question. Section 811 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008 amended
section 2306b of title 10, U.S.C. to ensure that the DOD enters
multiyear contracts only in cases where stable design and stable
requirements reduce risk, and only in cases where substantial savings
are expected. The revised provision requires that data be provided to
Congress in a timely manner to enable the congressional defense
committees to make informed decisions on such contracts.
What types of programs do you believe are appropriate for the use
of multiyear contracts?
Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that a multiyear
contract should be used for procuring Navy weapons systems that have
unsatisfactory program histories, e.g., displaying poor cost,
scheduling, or performance outcomes?
Answer. Multiyear contracts are most appropriate when the design
and requirements are stable and they provide the best value for the
taxpayer and the Department of the Navy. Any weapons system which has
an unsatisfactory program history should be closely examined and
deficiencies corrected prior to continuing a multiyear contract.
Question. If confirmed, will you ensure that the Navy and the
Marine Corps fully comply with the requirements of section 2306b of
title 10, U.S.C., as amended by section 811 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year
2008 (Public Law 110-181) with respect to programs that are forwarded
for authorization under a multiyear procurement contract?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The statement of managers accompanying section 811 of the
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008 addresses the requirements for buying major
defense systems under multiyear contracts as follows: ``The conferees
agree that `substantial savings' under section 2306b(a)(1) of title 10,
U.S.C., means savings that exceed 10 percent of the total costs of
carrying out the program through annual contracts, except that
multiyear contracts for major systems providing savings estimated at
less than 10 percent should only be considered if the Department
presents an exceptionally strong case that the proposal meets the other
requirements of section 2306b(a), as amended. The conferees agree with
a Government Accountability Office finding that any major system that
is at the end of its production line is unlikely to meet these
standards and therefore would be a poor candidate for a multiyear
procurement contract.
If confirmed, under what circumstances, if any, do you anticipate
that you would support a multiyear contract with expected savings of
less than 10 percent?
Answer. I am not prepared to answer this question until I have
thoroughly reviewed the NDAA 2008 and Section 811. If confirmed, I will
work with DOD and Navy acquisition professionals to determine when to
use multiyear contracts.
Question. If confirmed, under what circumstances, if any, would you
support a multiyear contract for a major system at the end of its
production line?
Answer. Any decision to support a multiyear contract would be done
on a case-by-case basis consistent with section 811, and occur only
after detailed analysis and discussion with DOD and Navy acquisition
professionals.
Question. What is your understanding of the new requirements
regarding the timing of any DOD request for legislative authorization
of a multiyear procurement contract for a particular program?
Answer. If confirmed, these requirements would be incorporated as
part of the overall analysis of the acquisition process. The Department
of the Navy will comply with these timing requirements.
Question. What steps will you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
the Navy complies with 10 U.S.C., section 2366a, which requires that
the Milestone Decision Authority for a Major Defense Authorization
Program (MDAP) certify that critical technologies have reached an
appropriate level of maturity before Milestone B approval?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of the Navy
will fully comply with the law.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics has issued a memorandum directing that the
largest DOD acquisition programs undergo competitive prototyping to
ensure technological maturity, reduce technical risk, validate designs,
cost estimates, evaluate manufacturing processes, and refine
requirements.
Do you support that requirement?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What steps will you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
the Navy complies with this new requirement?
Answer. If confirmed I will support this requirement in programs
where competitive prototyping will further the aims of the memorandum.
business management issues
Question. The Navy's business systems, like those of the other
military departments, remain incapable of providing timely, reliable
financial data to support management decisions. In particular, the
Government Accountability Office has reported that the Navy has not yet
followed DOD's lead in establishing new governance structures to
address business transformation; has not yet developed comprehensive
enterprise architecture and transition plan that plug into DOD's
federated architecture in a manner that meets statutory requirements;
and instead continues to rely upon old, stove piped structures to
implement piecemeal reforms. Section 902 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year
2008 endeavored to address this problem by designating the Under
Secretary of the Navy as the Navy's CMO. Section 908 of the NDAA for
Fiscal Year 2009 requires the CMO of each of the military departments
to carry out a comprehensive business transformation initiative, with
the support of a new Business Transformation Office.
If confirmed, what steps, if any, would you take to ensure that the
Navy develops the business systems and processes it needs to
appropriately manage funds in the best interest of the taxpayer and the
national defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Department of
the Navy follows the DOD lead in establishing new governance structures
needed for business transformation. This would also include laying the
groundwork for the development of a well-defined, enterprise-wide,
business systems architecture and business transformation plan.
Question. If confirmed, what role do you expect to play, and what
role do you expect your Under Secretary to play, in carrying out these
initiatives?
Answer. I expect the Under Secretary as the designated Department
of the Navy CMO to provide the guidance and oversight to ensure
compliance with DOD direction on business transformation. Additionally,
if confirmed, I will ensure that the CMO is given the authority to
effectively organize the business operations of the department.
mine countermeasures capability
Question. Congress has been particularly interested in the Navy's
ability to respond to the asymmetric threat posed by mines. The Navy
has had mixed results in fielding robust mine countermeasures
capabilities.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that the Navy
maintains its focus on achieving robust mine countermeasures
capabilities for the fleet?
Answer. A capable mine countermeasure program is essential to the
operational effectiveness of the fleet. If confirmed, I am committed to
ensuring that the Navy maintains a robust program.
housing privatization
Question. The DOD has been engaged in the privatization of many of
its support functions. Among the most significant privatization efforts
are military family housing units and utility systems.
What challenges do the Navy and Marine Corps face in implementing
housing privatization?
Answer. I recognize that a public-private venture program has
benefits. However, I do not have the information to analyze the
specific challenges faced by the Navy and Marine Corps in their housing
privatization program. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the
Department of the Navy is implementing the program in the most
effective way possible.
investment in infrastructure
Question. Witnesses appearing before the committee in recent years
have testified that the military services under-invest in their
facilities compared to private industry standards. Decades of under-
investment in our installations have led to increasing backlogs of
facility maintenance needs, created substandard living and working
conditions, and made it harder to take advantage of new technologies
that could increase productivity.
Based on your experience in government and the private sector, do
you believe the Navy and Marine Corps are investing enough in their
infrastructure?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the sufficiency of the
Department of the Navy's investment in infrastructure.
implementation of base closures and realignments
Question. The 2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
process has resulted in the required closure or realignment of numerous
major naval installations. The DOD installation closure process
resulting from BRAC decisions has historically included close
cooperation with the affected local community in order to allow these
communities an active role in the reuse of property.
If confirmed, would you change any of the existing efforts to
assist affected communities with economic development, revitalization,
and re-use planning of property received as a result of the BRAC
process?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the DOD's goals to
expeditiously dispose of property in order to facilitate economic
development within effected communities. I will also work with local
communities to facilitate expeditious conversion of excess property to
civilian use.
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief
Question. In recent years, the Navy has provided extensive support
of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations throughout
the world. Naval and Marine Corps forces responded rapidly to the
December 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean utilizing over 25 ships, the
hospital ship USNS Mercy, and delivering 24 million pounds of relief
supplies. Naval and Marine Corps forces also led recovery and relief
operations in Pakistan following devastating earthquakes. These forces
and ships of all types also responded to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
across the southern coast of the United States.
What is your view of the importance of the Navy and Marine Corps
mission to provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief
throughout the world?
Answer. These are core capabilities of the Navy and Marine Corps as
stated in the Maritime Strategy, and as such, are of high importance.
Question. Do you believe the mission is sustainable within a
constrained defense budget?
Answer. As a core capability of the Navy and Marine Corps, it
should be sustained within a constrained budget through planning and
oversight.
Question. If confirmed, how would you approach the funding and
execution of this mission in light of current budget and naval mission
priorities?
Answer. Funding will be thoroughly reviewed and analyzed in
developing the Department's recommended budget while execution will be
subject to planning and oversight.
department of the navy science and technology
Question. Do you believe that the current balance between short-
and long-term research is appropriate to meet current and future
Department of the Navy needs?
Answer. A balanced approach to short-term and long-term research is
critical to meet current and future Department of the Navy needs. If
confirmed, I will evaluate the research program and work to ensure that
an appropriate balance is in place.
Question. If confirmed, what direction would you provide regarding
the importance of innovative defense science in meeting Navy and Marine
Corps missions?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support innovative defense science
which might include engaging the Science and Technology Corporate Board
as well as take other actions to ensure this vital area is addressed.
Question. If confirmed, what guidance would you give to ensure
research priorities that will meet the needs of the Navy and Marine
Corps in 2020?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support a balanced program of science
and technology investment in basic and applied research and advanced
development across the spectrum of naval needs. I will seek a program
that focuses on science and technology areas that provide the biggest
payoff for the future, fosters innovative thinking, efficient and
effective business processes, and improves our ability to transition
findings to acquisition programs.
defense integrated manpower human resources system
Question. Defense Integrated Manpower Human Resources System
(DIMHRS) is a single integrated human resources pay and personnel
system for all the Armed Services and the Defense Finance and
Accounting System, and is intended to replace many of the systems
currently used to perform personnel management and pay functions.
DIMHRS, which has been under development for several years, has come
under criticism for cost growth, delays in implementation, and not
meeting the expectations of each Service.
What are your views of the need for completion of implementation of
DIMHRS and what specific benefits, if any, would the Department of the
Navy derive from this system?
Answer. I understand that DIMHRS is an initiative to develop and
deploy an integrated human resources pay and personnel management
system for the entire DOD. Although I do not have the information
concerning the specific challenges encountered in developing the DIMHRS
system, if confirmed I will work with appropriate authorities to ensure
the Department of the Navy has an effective pay and personnel system.
Question. What is your understanding of the Navy and Marine Corps
positions with respect to the utility of DIMHRS and its suitability for
sailors and marines?
Answer. I understand the position of the Navy and Marine Corps is
that DIMHRS is not, at this time, ready for use.
delivery of legal services
Question. What is your understanding of the respective roles of the
General Counsel and Judge Advocate General of the Navy in providing the
Secretary of the Navy with legal advice?
Answer. The General Counsel and the Judge Advocate General each
bring independent and complementary perspectives to the Department's
legal requirements. The General Counsel provides specialized expertise
in ethics, acquisition and civilian personnel matters. The Judge
Advocate General provides the uniformed and operational perspective
that is essential to good order and discipline of a globally deployed
force. Together, these two leaders comprise an integrated legal cadre
that ensures the proper operation of the services and the Department as
a whole.
Question. What are your views about the responsibility of staff
judge advocates within the Navy and Marine Corps to provide independent
legal advice to military commanders in the fleet and throughout the
naval establishment?
Answer. Navy and Marine Corps staff judge advocates are selected
and trained to provide timely, relevant, and independent advice to
commanders afloat and ashore. Flexible and worldwide deployable, the
judge advocate communities of the Navy and Marine Corps are structured
to ensure sufficient numbers of deployable and well-trained military
lawyers are ready to respond to emergent requirements.
Question. What are your views about the responsibility of the Judge
Advocate General of the Navy and the Staff Judge Advocate to the
Commandant of the Marine Corps to provide independent legal advice to
the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps,
respectively?
Answer. The uniformed military attorneys of the Navy and Marine
Corps are critical components of the Department's legal team. The Judge
Advocate General and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the
Marine Corps perform functions in their respective organizations that
are essential to the proper operation of their service and the
Department as a whole.
navy judge advocate general's corps
Question. The Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) recently completed a
study of manpower requirements for the Navy in which it concluded that
the Navy's Judge Advocate General's Corps was significantly under
strength for its mission, including combat service support of Marine
Corps' units and Task Force 134 in Iraq.
What is your understanding of the CNA study's findings with respect
to manpower in the Navy JAG Corps?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review the findings of
the CNA study. However, if confirmed, I will consider judge advocate
end strength as part of my overall review of manpower requirements
Question. What is your understanding of the sufficiency of the
number of active-duty judge advocates in the Marine Corps to provide
legal support for all the Marine Corps' missions?
Answer. I do not have the information to offer an opinion on the
sufficiency of current manpower. If confirmed, I will consider this as
part of the overall review of manpower requirements.
Question. If confirmed, will you review the judge advocate manning
within the Navy and Marine Corps and determine whether current active-
duty strengths are adequate?
Answer. Yes.
support for wounded, ill, and injured sailors and marines
Question. Wounded servicemembers from Operations Enduring Freedom
and Iraqi Freedom deserve the highest priority from the Navy and Marine
Corps 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.
How do the Navy and Marine Corps provide follow-on assistance to
wounded personnel who have separated from active service? How effective
are those programs?
Answer. The Navy has established the ``Safe Harbor'' Program and
the Marine Corps has established the ``USMC Wounded Warrior Regiment.''
They extend support to the Wounded Warrior from separation or
retirement from the service through reintegration into a community. If
confirmed, I will continue to assess the effectiveness of these
programs, and to develop and refine best practices to make sure these
programs are successful.
Question. If confirmed, are there additional strategies and
resources that you would pursue to increase the Navy's and Marine
Corps' support for wounded personnel, and to monitor their progress in
returning to duty or to civilian life?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure sailors and marines and
their families are provided with the best medical care and support they
need throughout their recovery, rehabilitation, reintegration as a
result of their selfless service and sacrifice.
Question. What measures would you take, if confirmed, to facilitate
the seamless transition of wounded, ill, and injured sailors and
marines from the DOD to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)?
Answer. Fostering a continuity of care between DOD and VA systems
is essential to facilitate the most efficient and effective transition.
Continued collaboration with the DOD and Veterans' Affairs will further
strengthen the transition of health care for wounded, ill, and injured
sailors and marines.
Question. Would you propose any changes to the Navy's disability
evaluation system?
Answer. The Physical Evaluation Board manages the Navy's disability
evaluation system. If confirmed, I will review and assess the
evaluation and separation process to ensure it is fair.
national security personnel system
Question. Section 1106 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008 restored
the collective bargaining rights of civilian employees included in the
National Security Personnel System (NSPS) established by the DOD
pursuant to section 9902 of title 5, U.S.C. Under section 1106, the
Department retains the authority to establish a new performance
management system (including pay for performance) and streamlined
practices for hiring and promotion of civilian employees.
What is your view of the NSPS, as currently constituted?
Answer. I do not have sufficient information at this time on the
NSPS. If confirmed, I will coordinate with the Secretary of Defense to
ensure the Navy's human resource management system provides necessary
flexibility in assigning work with effective performance management
processes aligned to the mission while preserving employee benefits,
rights, and protections.
Question. If confirmed, how will you evaluate its success or
failure to meet its goals?
Answer. If confirmed, information and data will be collected in
various ways, including reaching out to key stakeholders, to give a
concrete basis for review of NSPS.
Question. Do you support the pay-for-performance approach adopted
for civilian employees in the NSPS?
Answer. I do not have sufficient information at this time on the
NSPS. If confirmed, I will review how the NSPS supports the pay-for-
performance approach in the Department of the Navy and make
recommendations to the Secretary of Defense accordingly.
Question. Do you believe that the Department needs streamlined
authority for hiring and promotion of civilian employees to meet its
human capital needs?
Answer. At this time I do not have the information necessary to
make this judgment.
Question. In your view, is it viable in the long run for the DOD to
maintain two separate systems (NSPS and the General Schedule) for its
civilian employees?
Answer. I do not have enough information at this time to evaluate
the viability of maintaining both the NSPS and General Schedule systems
for civilian employees. If confirmed, I will include this issue in my
review of civilian pay systems.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the NSPS
authorizing legislation?
Answer. I am informed the DOD is conducting a review of NSPS.
Prudency dictates waiting for the results of that review and the
related recommendations before making any judgments or assessments at
this time.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the NSPS
regulations?
Answer. I am informed the DOD is conducting a review of NSPS. It is
best to reserve judgment related to recommendations until the review of
NSPS is completed.
navy and marine corps recruiting and retention
Question. The retention of quality sailors and marines, officer and
enlisted, Active-Duty and Reserve, is vital to the Department of the
Navy.
How would you evaluate the status of the Navy and Marine Corps in
successfully recruiting and retaining high caliber personnel?
Answer. The Navy and Marine Corps continue to recruit and retain
high caliber personnel for Active and Reserve Service. Both Services
have exceeded their goals for active duty enlisted accessions and new
contracts in fiscal year 2008 and are already at the goal established
for 2009.
Question. What initiatives would you take, if confirmed, to further
improve the attractiveness of Navy and Marine Corps, Active-Duty and
Reserve Service?
Answer. It is my understanding that recruiting and retention have
been successful in recent years. If confirmed, I will work with the
Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to
further improve the Naval Services attractiveness to recruits and their
families.
senior military and civilian accountability
Question. While representative of a small number of individuals in
DOD, reports of abuses of rank and authority by senior military and
civilian leaders and failures to perform up to accepted standards are
frequently received. Whistleblowers and victims of abuses often report
that they felt that no one would pay attention to or believe their
complaints. Accusations of unduly lenient treatment of senior officers
and senior officials against whom accusations have been substantiated
are also frequently heard.
What are your views regarding the appropriate standard of
accountability for senior civilian and military leaders of the
Department?
Answer. The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps traditions and history
demand the exemplary conduct of its senior civilian and military
leaders. The high standards of conduct that were taught to and expected
of me as a junior naval officer are precisely the standards I will
require of all senior civilian and military leaders in the Department
of the Navy if I am confirmed. The Secretary of the Navy and senior
military and civilian leaders must set the example for their
subordinates. If our Nation's Navy and Marine Corps are to be respected
among all nations, then we must maintain the highest standards of
honor, integrity, and absolute adherence to the rule of law. Therefore,
we must ensure prompt and thorough investigation of complaints, as well
as swift and equitable treatment of those few people who fail to
demonstrate exemplary conduct.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
senior leaders of the Navy and Marine Corps are held accountable for
their actions and performance?
Answer. The honor and privilege to lead and command in the naval
service carries with it accountability for their actions and
performance. If confirmed, I will continue to foster and enforce the
Department of the Navy's earnest commitment to the highest ethical
standards of principled leadership and honorable service.
navy support to ground forces
Question. The Navy has been challenged to find new ways of
supporting the Army and Marine Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan by taking
on nontraditional support functions.
In your view, what are the kinds of nontraditional support the Navy
feasibly can provide, and what additional missions, if any, should the
Navy be assigned in the global war on terrorism?
Given that these are nontraditional roles for Navy personnel, what
additional training and equipment have been provided, or, in your view,
need to be provided?
Answer. The Navy's sailor is known and respected for courage,
resourcefulness, and versatility. At this time I do not have sufficient
information on the types of nontraditional support the Navy can
provide. However, I will examine current and anticipated nontraditional
support and missions and will work to ensure that the necessary
training and equipment is provided for our sailors to be successful
executing them.
Question. What procedures are in place for the Navy to assess the
potentially adverse operational effect on organizations from which
individual augmentees are drawn? If you do not believe these procedures
are adequate, what should be done to strengthen them?
Answer. At this time I do not have the information as to what
Individual Augmentation procedures are in place. However, if confirmed,
I will make it a priority to examine the entire Individual Augmentation
process and the impact it has on the readiness of our operational
forces.
prevention and response to sexual assaults
Question. What is your evaluation of the progress to date made by
the Navy and Marine Corps in preventing and responding adequately to
incidents of sexual assault?
Answer. This is a high priority for me and is an essential aspect
of maintaining Navy and Marine Corps values. If confirmed, I will use
all means available to ensure that incidents of sexual assault are
prevented or responded to rapidly and effectively.
Question. What problems do you foresee, if any, in implementing
current policies with respect to confidential, restricted reporting of
sexual assaults by sailors and marines?
Answer. Confidentiality and restricted reporting of sexual assaults
is critical. I will work to ensure effective policies are implemented
and enforced.
Question. If confirmed, what actions do you plan to take to ensure
that senior civilian leaders of the Department of the Navy have ongoing
visibility into incidents of sexual assault and the effectiveness of
policies aimed at preventing and responding appropriately to such
incidents?
Answer. I will make sure this issue is stressed and that there will
be a regular and comprehensive evaluation of policies to ensure
effectiveness.
preventing sexual harassment and violence
Question. The Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence
at the Military Service Academies reported that ``Historically, sexual
harassment and sexual assault have been inadequately addressed at both
Academies [United States Military Academy and United States Naval
Academy]. Harassment is the more prevalent and corrosive problem,
creating an environment in which sexual assault is more likely to
occur. Although progress has been made, hostile attitudes and
inappropriate actions toward women, and the toleration of these by some
cadets and midshipmen, continue to hinder the establishment of a safe
and professional environment in which to prepare military officers.
Much of the solution to preventing this behavior rests with cadets and
midshipmen themselves.''
If confirmed, what actions would you take to encourage not only
midshipmen but also all sailors and marines to step up to their
responsibility to create a culture where sexual harassment and sexual
assault are not tolerated?
Answer. If confirmed, I will use all available tools to ensure
every midshipman, sailor, marine, and civilian employee understands
that sexual harassment and sexual assault won't be tolerated in the
Department of the Navy and that swift and appropriate action will be
taken against those who do not value such a culture.
Question. If confirmed, what other actions would you take to
address the problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the Navy
and Marine Corps?
Answer. Please see answer to previous question.
human capital
Question. The Navy has a large civilian workforce that is integral
to the support of the Navy's worldwide mission.
What is your vision for an effective human capital strategy for the
Navy's civilian workforce?
Answer. The Navy's civilian workforce is made up of over 180,000
employees worldwide, engaged in a myriad of mission areas and career
fields. The Navy's vision must be broad enough to encompass this very
wide range of people, missions, locations, and requirements, as well as
provide the framework for developing policies and systems to ensure
both capabilities and competencies are in place to meet the changing
demands of our global force. If confirmed, I will work to ensure the
Department of the Navy has an effective human capital strategy.
Question. Section 1122 of the NDAA for 2006, as amended by section
1102 of the John Warner NDAA for 2007 and section 851 of the NDAA for
2008, requires the Secretary of Defense to develop and annually update
a strategic human capital plan that specifically identifies gaps in the
Department's civilian workforce and strategies for addressing those
gaps. The DOD has not yet produced a strategic human capital plan that
meets the requirements of these provisions.
Do you believe that the Navy has appropriate planning processes in
place to identify and address gaps in the capabilities of its civilian
workforce?
Answer. At this time I do not have sufficient information about
what processes exist. However, if confirmed, I will work with the Chief
of Naval Operations and Commandant of the Marine Corps to implement
good planning processes that ensure any gaps are identified and
addressed.
Question. What do you view as the greatest challenges in recruiting
and retaining a highly skilled civilian workforce?
Answer. There are many challenges in recruiting and retaining a
highly skilled workforce, to including compensation, working
conditions, fair evaluation systems, and career paths.
personnel and health benefit costs
Question. The cost of the Defense Health Program, like the cost of
medical care nationwide, is escalating rapidly. Similarly, the cost of
personnel as a key component of the Services' budgets has risen
significantly in recent years.
If confirmed, how would you approach the issue of rising health
care and personnel costs?
Answer. Based on my experience with fiscal management in state
government and the private sector, I am aware that rising costs
associated with health care and other personnel costs pose a
significant threat to the fiscal strength of organizations nationwide.
Streamlining and effective cost accounting alone cannot adequately
ameliorate the effects of increasing medical costs. If confirmed, I
will work with the Secretary of Defense to explore changes to the way
the department meets these challenges.
quality of life programs
Question. If confirmed, what priorities would you establish to
ensure that military quality of life programs are sustained and
improved for Navy and Marine Corps members and their families?
Answer. Quality of life programs for Navy and Marine Corps
personnel of all ranks and their families are a key component to
ensuring readiness, job satisfaction, and retention. If confirmed, I
will work with the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the
Marine Corps to maintain focus and commitment to programs that support
the quality of life needs of all naval personnel and their families.
Question. What challenges do you foresee in sustaining quality of
life programs, and are there new initiatives that you would undertake,
if confirmed, to ensure the availability of high quality services,
including child care, education, and recreational opportunities, for
sailors and marines and their families?
Answer. The current and anticipated economic and fiscal challenges
could pose a threat to Navy and Marine quality of life programs. If
confirmed, I will work to provide effective and innovative quality of
life programs that our sailors, marines, and their families rely on,
and are critical to maintaining combat readiness.
ballistic missile defense
Question. Do you view ballistic missile defense--for both deployed
forces and the U.S. homeland--as a core mission for the Navy?
Answer. Yes.
readiness levels
Question. What is your assessment of the current readiness of the
Department of the Navy to execute its assigned missions?
Answer. While naval forces are conducting combat and combat support
missions in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, the naval
forces also stand ready to answer the Nation's call across the spectrum
of operations in support of the National Defense Strategy. Despite a
high operational tempo due to Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation
Enduring Freedom, and other combatant commander requirements, our
forces remain resilient, motivated, and are performing superbly around
the globe. If confirmed, I will work to continue the Navy and Marine
Corps proud tradition of readiness and ensure that our sailors and
marines are fully trained, equipped, and resourced for their assigned
missions.
Question. What do you view as the major readiness challenges that
will have to be addressed by the Navy and Marine Corps over the next 3
years, and, if confirmed, how would you approach these issues?
Answer. One of the most significant readiness challenges facing the
Navy and Marine Corps is balancing current overseas contingency
operations with other anticipated readiness requirements. Navy and
Marine Corps procurement, acquisition, maintenance, and
recapitalization are also readiness challenges.
If confirmed, I will approach these issues by working with the
Chief of Naval Operations and Commandant of the Marine Corps to review
the Department's current challenges; craft a clear and concise vision
and plan to address them; develop a means to track compliance and real
savings for future use; work closely with my counterparts in the other
Services, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Congress, and the defense
industry; and reaffirm the strong relationships within the Navy and
Marine Corps team.
united nations convention on the law of the sea
Question. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) is currently pending in the Senate.
What are your views on U.S. accession to UNCLOS?
Answer. I do not have sufficient information at this time to
adequately address accession to UNCLOS.
Question. From a national security standpoint, what do you see as
the advantages and disadvantages to being a party to UNCLOS?
Answer. At this time, I do not have sufficient information to form
an opinion on the advantages or disadvantages to being a party to
UNCLOS.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Secretary of the 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.
Question. 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?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
navy labs
1. Senator Reed. Governor Mabus, I am concerned about the continued
deterioration of the Navy's laboratory facilities. Research and
development are essential to the long-term survival and efficiency of
the fleet. Are Navy laboratories a high priority for you?
Mr. Mabus. Yes they are. Navy laboratories are a critical source of
technological competitive advantage for the Navy. In 2008, Navy
established a Principal Civilian Deputy (PCD), a Senior Executive
reporting to ASN (RDA), to address the needs. and capabilities of all
the Navy Warfare Centers and Naval Research Lab and to improve the
quality of the S&E workforce. This position engaged the senior civilian
leadership of the Warfare Centers and Naval Research Lab through the
Navy Lab and Centers Competency Group to strengthen the S&E workforce.
In 2009, PCD ASNRDA has established a Science Technology Engineering &
Mathematics Executive to establish a revitalization plan. The National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2009, section 219,
Mechanisms to Provide Funds for Defense Laboratories for Research and
Development of Technologies for Military Missions, allows the DON to
reinvest in science and technology.
2. Senator Reed. Governor Mabus, how can the military construction
(MILCON) allocation be changed to alleviate some of the more serious
examples?
Mr. Mabus. Currently there are two initiatives to mitigate this
issue:
Defense Laboratory Revitalization Program (LRP)
Continuation of the Laboratory Revitalization Program (LRP, Section
2805 of Title 10, United States Code) has been an important initiative
to help enhance the quality of our labs. This initiative provides
temporary authority to support revitalization of DOD laboratories
through unspecified minor MILCON projects and is a critical tool. LRP
has allowed Navy Laboratories to carry out RDT&E Minor MILCON valued at
up to $2.0 million to quickly meet emergent requirements. Warfare
Centers have awarded projects in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and plan to
use this authority through fiscal year 2012.
Global Shore Infrastructure Plans (GSIPs) and Regional Integration Plan
(RIPS)
Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC) is in the process of
finalizing the second phase of GSIP development which identifies
infrastructure capability gaps for Navy Enterprises and Providers. RIPS
identify solutions to infrastructure capability gaps identified in
GSIPs. NAVFAC Atlantic is expected to award a contract for the
development of the Office of Naval Research functional plan (to be
included in the CNIC GSIP) by the end of third quarter FY09. RIP
solutions to GSIP infrastructure capability gaps are planned to be
identified in time to support RDT&E projects in the 2012 budget
request. Other RDT&E functional plans (SPAWAR, NAVAIR and NAVSEA
Warfare Centers) to be included in the Fleet Readiness Enterprise GSIP
are planned to be awarded for development in early next fiscal year
pending funding availability.
3. Senator Reed. Governor Mabus, are there other funding mechanisms
that might be used to correct this deficiency?
Mr. Mabus. Yes, currently Navy is executing several congressional
directives:
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008, Section 802, Lead Systems Integrator.
This legislation has given impetus to reconstitute where necessary
and to sustain and enhance systems engineering skills within the
Warfare Centers.
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008, Section 852, Department of Defense (DOD)
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund.
This legislation provides funds for the recruitment, training, and
retention of acquisition personnel of DOD to ensure that the DOD
acquisition workforce has the capacity, in both personnel and skills,
needed to properly perform its mission, provide appropriate oversight
of contractor performance, and ensure that the Department receives the
best value for the expenditure of public resources.
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2009, Section 219, Mechanisms to Provide Funds for
Defense Laboratories for Research and Development of
Technologies for Military Missions
This legislation establishes mechanisms under which the director of
a defense laboratory may use an amount of funds equal to not more than
3 percent of all funds available to the defense laboratory for the
following purposes: (a) to fund innovative basic and applied research
that is conducted at the defense laboratory and supports military
missions; (b) To fund development programs that supports the transition
of technologies developed by the defense laboratory into operational
use; (c) To fund workforce development activities that improve the
capacity of the defense laboratory to recruit and retain personnel with
needed scientific and engineering expertise.
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2009, Section 833, Acquisition Workforce Expedited
Hiring Authority
This legislation designates any category of acquisition positions
within the DOD as shortage category positions. It utilizes the
authorities in such sections to recruit and appoint highly qualified
persons directly to positions so designated.
4. Senator Reed. Governor Mabus, would you consider relaxing some
of the centralized control over facilities and equipment funding and
provide the laboratory technical directors with more autonomy in the
utilization of support services at their local institutions, as is
common practice in world-class research facilities?
Mr. Mabus. Navy laboratories operate under working capital fund
financial policies promulgated by the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller). Designed to satisfy recurring DOD requirements
using a buyer-seller approach, the working capital fund already employs
many best business practices found in the private sector.
Navy laboratories, like other working capital fund activities,
procure facilities (other than MILCON projects), equipment, and
services either through the Capital Investment Program or through
operating funds, based on expense/investment criteria. Authority
provided via the Laboratory Revitalization Program, (10 U.S.C. Section
2805), provides DOD labs more flexibility than other working capital
fund business areas groups by raising the ceiling for unspecified minor
construction from $750,000 to $2 million.
I believe existing policies provide technical directors at Navy
labs and other working capital fund facilities with sufficient
authority to successfully manage both financial and operational results
in a manner comparable to the private sector. However, I support
continued dialogue on proposals that would enhance existing policy and
improve financial and operational results at Navy Working Capital Fund
activities.
lab director discretionary funding
5. Senator Reed. Governor Mabus, the Navy has been most prompt to
implement recent legislation designed to enhance the mission
performance of Navy laboratories and warfare centers, which permits the
direct hire of senior scientists and engineers at the Navy defense
laboratories. There has also been recent legislation, section 219 of
the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2009, which permits the Secretary of each
Service to allocate a small percentage of funds expended at the
laboratory for the discretionary use by the laboratory director to
invest in research which he believes is worthy of support. Do you
intend to likewise act expeditiously on implementing section 219?
Mr. Mabus. Yes. The Navy is working with the Office of Secretary of
Defense to implement section 219 initiatives at the Naval Research
Laboratory and Naval Warfare Centers. These initiatives will contribute
to the development and sustainment of the world class skills and
innovation of the science and engineering workforce at the Naval
Research Laboratory and the Warfare Centers. I support these
initiatives.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Evan Bayh
printed circuit board technology
6. Senator Bayh. Governor Mabus, the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2007
directed the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the House and Senate a report on the implementation of the
recommendations of the National Research Council Committee on
Manufacturing Trends in Printed Circuit Board (PrCB) Technology. This
report recommended that the Navy be designated the Executive Agent (EA)
for PrCB.
In turn, section 256 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2009 mandated that
the Secretary of Defense designate an EA for PrCB technology. In a
letter to me dated April 8, 2009, former Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics John Young indicated that the
final designation of the Secretary of the Navy as the DOD EA would be
complete within 90 days.
If confirmed, how do you plan to fund and resource the EA office
for PrCB technology?
Mr. Mabus. Initially, it will be important to determine the
requirements. The cost necessary to establish the processes associated
with the DON'S assigned Executive Agent responsibilities will then be
identified following the determination of these requirements. The costs
will be included within recommended funding strategies necessary to
meet requirements associated with development and execution of the
Printed Circuit Board and interconnect technology roadmap.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
transition to the next generation enterprise network
7. Senator Udall. Governor Mabus, the Navy Marine Corps Intranet
(NMCI) is a program that is an important part of our Nation's security.
There is some concern that the transition to the Next Generation
Enterprise Network (NGEN) should be accomplished in a manner that
``does no harm'' to our sailors and marines. It is my understanding
that the Department has only recently given guidance on how it intends
to proceed even though the NMCI contract is due to expire in 2010. Yet
it is important to ensure this command and control network continues to
perform as required during the transition to provide all of the Navy's
information technology (IT) interests beyond 2010. Do you agree or
disagree?
Mr. Mabus. I agree.
Continuity of services during the transition to NGEN is a critical
priority of the Department of the Navy (DON).
Today, the DON contracts with EDS, an HP Company, to provide NMCI
services. The 10-year, $9.3 billion NMCI contract (originally awarded
in October 2000) has resulted in the largest intranet in the world,
with over 700,000 users. Given the complexity and magnitude of the
upcoming contracting and transition activities, the Department has
developed a comprehensive integrated master schedule to guide critical
events. The transition strategy is designed to ensure services provided
under the NMCI contract continue without interruption while working
toward a competitive contractual environment for NGEN.
Currently, EDS owns and/or controls the infrastructure, operating
processes, operating procedures and the technical data associated with
NMCI. In replacing the NMCI contract, we will require the use of the
NMCI infrastructure and access to EDS's processes and technical data.
Therefore, the Department intends to enter into a sole source contract
with the incumbent to provide the continuity of service. The Department
will obtain the right to use the current NMCI infrastructure and obtain
Government Purpose Rights license to the technical data in order to
fully understand the technical data and processes which will ensure an
open and competitive environment in the future. On February 18, 2009,
this approach was approved by the Under Secretary of Defense,
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD AT&L). He authorized the DON
to begin negotiations on the Continuity of Services Contract with the
incumbent. The strategic approach was briefed to industry on March 31,
2009, providing industry an opportunity to understand the Department's
approach and provide constructive feedback on the way toward a
competitive environment.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
fiscal year 2010 presidential budget request
8. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, on April 6, 2009, Secretary
Gates announced how the fiscal year 2010 defense budget request will
reshape the priorities of the defense establishment. In so doing, he
announced his decision to cut dramatically or cancel various major
weapons systems. Are there any aspects of Secretary Gates' plan with
which you have any difficulty? Please explain.
Mr. Mabus. We fully support Secretary Gates' plan. In this
challenging fiscal and budgetary environment, we must look hard at
every requirement, every development plan, and every capability. We
must also demand performance from the acquisition community and
industry. The decisions by Secretary Gates on Navy programs were
consistent with these requirements, and very prudent.
In that regard, it is obvious that acquisition processes need
reform in some very fundamental ways. Regaining control of acquisition
processes is one of the most complex challenges that we will face. We
are especially drawn to efforts directed at establishing cost control
over out-of-control programs and making better use of independent cost
estimates. The recommendations of Secretary Gates are clear statements
that past behavior cannot continue.
9. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, what is your view of the aspect
of the plan that permanently changes the aircraft carrier force
structure to 10 from the current number of 11?
Mr. Mabus. The Navy remains committed to a force structure of 11
carriers for the next several decades, a commitment that Secretary
Gates April budget announcement supports. However, the Navy requests a
temporary waiver to operate 10 carriers during the period between
inactivation of USS Enterprise (CVN 65) and the commissioning of USS
Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). During this 33 months period, the Navy
assesses it can meet operational commitments by adjusting operational
and maintenance schedules.
10. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, what is your view of the aspect
of the plan that commits, to the exclusion of procuring other tactical
fighter platforms, to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program in light
of the development and technology risk still associated with that
program?
Mr. Mabus. The Department of the Navy believes that JSF development
and technology risk are manageable. The JSF Program Office is providing
program-wide schedule and technology risk analysis in conjunction with
periodic Defense Acquisition Board reviews. The timing of these reviews
will ensure the analysis is available to support key acquisition
milestone decisions and budget discussions.
During the transition to the JSF, the Department of the Navy is
exploring a range of options to meet its continuing strike fighter
requirements. These include supporting legacy aircraft; SLEPing some
number of F/A-18 A-Ds; and procuring more F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets.
In this regard, the Navy is procuring F/A-18E/F Super Hornets in
fiscal year 2010 via a single year procurement in PB10. The Department
will continue to assess its TACAIR force structure and inventory
requirements through this summer's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
11. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, in the budget blueprint that
supports the fiscal year 2010 presidential budget request, the
administration committed to ``set[ting] realistic requirements and
stick[ing] to them and incorporat[ing] `best practices' by not allowing
programs to proceed from one stage of the acquisition cycle to the next
until they have achieved the maturity to clearly lower the risk of cost
growth and schedule slippage.'' If confirmed, what steps, if any, would
you recommend to help ensure that the Department makes good on this
commitment?
Mr. Mabus. We fully support the increased emphasis on upfront
planning as specified in the 2008 changes made to DOD 5000.2 in the
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008. The defense-acquisition process needs
improvement in the areas of systems engineering, developmental test and
evaluation, technological maturity, and cost estimation, and that
changes are needed to strengthen a culture of acquisition excellence in
the DOD. We support the administration's commitment to making trade-
offs among cost, schedule, and performance to significantly reduce cost
growth in major defense acquisition programs. We will also ensure that
requirements are defined and understood and that technologies are
mature prior to entering system development, thus reducing risks to
both cost and schedule.
acquisition reform policy
12. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, what are your views regarding
the need to reform the process by which the Navy acquires major weapons
systems?
Mr. Mabus. We support the ``Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act
of 2009.'' We fully agree with an emphasis on sound cost estimation,
systems engineering, and performance assessment upfront to establish a
culture of acquisition excellence. These are all guiding principles
that underpin our vision as an enterprise committed to getting timely,
effective, and affordable solutions to our warfighters. A number of
acquisition process changes have recently been initiated that will take
some time to evaluate. However, we believe the emphasis on due
diligence during both the requirements and technology development
stages of any program should improve acquisition performance. We also
intend to stress and enforce discipline of all established processes.
13. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, if confirmed, what steps, if
any, would you recommend to improve the acquisition process?
Mr. Mabus. We are aware of the Department of Navy's two-pass/six-
gate acquisition process and will personally review its effectiveness
in supporting program execution and oversight. We need to put more
emphasis in the acquisition process on solid cost estimation, risk
tolerant schedules, and understanding where the technical risks are. We
also will insist on realistic plans for mitigating those risks.
Moreover, we both recognize and accept that when new technical problems
are identified we cannot hold cost and schedule constant. We believe
the emphasis on due diligence during both the requirements and
technology development stages of any program should improve acquisition
performance. We also intend to stress and enforce discipline of all
established processes.
In addition, the health of the defense and commercial industrial
base are critical to our national security. We will support
collaborative efforts between the government and industry in advancing
the state-of-the-art in science and technology in both basic and
applied research. We will also support technology development in all
areas that have potential military utility for the warfighter, to
deliver high performance weapons on target, more effectively,
efficiently, and at reasonable cost to the taxpayer.
14. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, department-wide, nearly half of
the DOD's 95 largest acquisition programs have exceeded the Nunn-
McCurdy cost growth standards established in Section 2433 of Title 10,
U.S. Code. The cost overruns on these major defense acquisition
programs now total $295 billion over the original program estimates,
even though the Department has cut unit quantities and reduced
performance expectations on many programs in an effort to hold costs
down. Many of those programs are being executed by the Navy. What
steps, if any and if confirmed, would you take to address the out-of-
control cost growth on the Navy's major defense acquisition programs?
Mr. Mabus. We believe increased collaboration between industry and
Government early in the program formulation stage will ensure there is
a realistic balance. We must establish realistic baselines before
entering into system development which can only be accomplished with a
thorough understanding of warfighting requirements and the maturing of
technologies early in the process. Overestimating performance leads us
to proceeding with immature technologies while underestimating cost
leads us to compressing development efforts. Together these dynamics
lead us to taking on more risk, which often leads to cost increases and
schedule delays.
We will continue the process initiated last year to rebuild the
Department of the Navy Cost Estimating Enterprise which was based upon
an analysis of gaps within the existing structure. This effort
culminated with the release of an instruction which reestablished the
Naval Center for Cost Analysis, enabled greater insight into the costs
of Major Defense Acquisition programs, and focused efforts on
rebuilding the Naval System Commands Cost Analysis centers. We will
continue this effort to ensure the Department meets increased demands
across all cost estimating functions including Earned Value Management,
Operating and Support analysis, and greater investment cost rigor in
the early life of the Department's acquisition programs. The DON Cost
Estimating community is continuing to take steps to rebuild and
rebalance the core cost estimating capabilities within the government
to better establish realistic cost analysis.
15. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, what principles will guide your
thinking on whether to recommend terminating a program that has
experienced critical cost growth under Nunn-McCurdy?
Mr. Mabus. The principles that will guide our decisions will be the
Nunn-McCurdy certifications as modified by the Weapons Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 on whether:
The root cause of the program's Nunn-McCurdy breach is
properly identified, understood, and correctable;
The program is essential to national security;
No alternative will provide equal or greater capability at
less cost;
New program or unit cost estimates are reasonable; and
Management structure for program is adequate to manage and
control unit costs.
We will use these certifications to evaluate a program for any
significant breach of its baseline and not just if it's a unit cost
issue.
16. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, recent congressional and DOD
initiatives have attempted to reduce technical and performance risks
associated with developing and producing major defense acquisition
programs, including ships, so as to minimize the need for cost-
reimbursable contracts. Do you think that the Department should move
towards more fixed price-type contracting in developing or procuring
major defense acquisition programs? Why or why not?
Mr. Mabus. Yes. We are committed to a thorough analysis that
ensures the right contract type at the right time that balances risk
and ensures best value to the government. We fully support the DOD
policy to examine the increased use of fixed-price type contracts in
the procurement of major defense acquisition programs.
s.454, the levin-mccain acquisition reform bill
17. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, recently, Chairman Levin and I
sponsored acquisition reform legislation, titled: ``Weapon Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009.'' The legislation recognized that vital
to reforming how we buy the biggest and most expensive weapons systems
is to start them off right--by emphasizing sound systems engineering so
that we can obtain reliable technological readiness assessments and
independent cost estimates up front. The more we understand technology
risk early and manage that risk, the less likely that such risk will
present themselves later in the acquisition process and blow out costs.
What is your assessment of that bill, and did we get anything wrong?
Mr. Mabus. We strongly support the spirit and intent of the
``Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009.'' We agree that the
defense-acquisition process needs improvement in the areas of systems
engineering, developmental test and evaluation, technological maturity,
and cost estimation, and that changes are needed to strengthen a
culture of acquisition excellence in the DOD. The Department of the
Navy is committed to making trade-offs among cost, schedule, and
performance to significantly reduce cost growth in major defense
acquisition programs. The Department of the Navy (DON) is working
closely with DOD to develop a common approach to implementing the
requirements. DON is already involved with acquisition process
improvements, such as implementing the two-pass/six-gate governance in
2008, and is committed and working diligently to implement required
improvements that will require a longer term implementation cycle.
tactical aviation
18. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, the Navy is facing a potential
shortfall of strike fighter aircraft in the next decade even if the
Navy continues to buy F/A-18E/F aircraft and F-35 JSF aircraft at the
rate projected in last year's budget. What is your assessment of this
situation and what actions should the Navy take to address this
potential shortfall?
Mr. Mabus. The Navy and Marine Corps share a common inventory of
623 legacy F/A-18 A-D aircraft. Navy and Marine Corps integrate F/A-18
A-C strike fighter squadrons into carrier air wings and Marine air
groups under the charter of TACAIR Integration (TAI). There are four
considerations to mitigate negative strike fighter inventory trends:
1. Maintain wholeness of the JSF program. Department strike
fighter inventory projections are based on the following
assumptions: the F-35B will reach Initial Operational
Capability (IOC) in 2012 and F-35C will reach IOC in 2015; and
that JSF will deliver at planned quantities/cost. Any program
slips, major costs increases, or decreases to planned
procurement quantities may exacerbate the DON strike fighter
shortfall.
2. Extending the service life of F/A-18A-D Hornets. Over half
of the Department of the Navy's Hornets are beyond 6,000 flight
hours, towards a currently approved 8,600 flight hour service
life. Extending the service life of as many as 300 of these
aircraft is an essential element to maintaining available DON
strike fighter inventory through transition to JSF. Analysis is
ongoing within the Department to refine cost estimates and the
process for executing this service life extension.
3. Continued sustainment and support of currently fielded
legacy aircraft (AV-8, EA-6B, F/A-18 A-D) through transition to
JSF. These aircraft are the bulk of the Department's current
TACAIR inventory and require continuous support--including
program related engineering and logistics--though the end of
transition to JSF, currently envisioned to be out to 2023.
4. Additional investment in F/A-18E/F Block II Super Hornet
procurement. In PB 2010, F/A-18E/Fs are budgeted for single
year procurement in fiscal year 2010. Future procurements are
being considered in the 2009 QDR.
The Department will re-assess force structure requirements and
inventory investments this summer during the QDR.
19. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, in your view, should the Navy
continue to operate the 10 carrier air wings that support the current
fleet of 11 aircraft carriers, or should the air wing force structure
be modified to reflect a planned reduction to a permanent level of 10
aircraft carriers?
Mr. Mabus. The Navy remains committed to a force structure of 11
carriers and 10 air wings for the next several decades. However,
between the decommissioning of USS Enterprise and the commissioning of
USS Ford, the Navy requests to temporarily decrease its aircraft
carrier fleet from 11 to 10 ships. During this 33 month period, the
Navy will continue to require and utilize each of its 10 carrier air
wings to meet its deployment schedule and to maintain its ability to
respond to emergent operational requirements.
20. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, alternatives for maintaining
sufficient strike assets are limited if there are new schedule
difficulties with the JSF program. It appears that the Navy's options
for extending the service life of existing F/A-18 aircraft are limited
and procurement of additional F/A-18 aircraft beyond those planned last
year may be more difficult with the Secretary of Defense's recent
announcement of a reduction of nine F/A-18 aircraft from the number
originally planned for the fiscal year 2010 program. What other
potential alternatives do you see for maintaining sufficient strike
assets if there were any additional slippage in the initial operating
capability date for the F-35 JSF?
Mr. Mabus. The Department of the Navy is closely monitoring the JSF
program. JSF is currently scheduled for an F-35B IOC of 2012 and an F-
35C IOC of 2015. The Department is refining cost estimates and process
for extending the service life for as many as 300 legacy F/A-18 A-D
aircraft from 8,600 flight hours to 10,000 flight hours through, a
service life extension program--service life extension is completely
within engineering feasibility for this number of aircraft.
Maintaining JSF wholeness, continued support of legacy aircraft,
Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) of F/A-18 A-D and continued
procurement of F/A-18E/F are options being pursued to provide the
strike fighter inventory necessary to support the Department of the
Navy's force structure requirements.
The Navy is procuring F/A-18E/F Super Hornets in fiscal year 2010
via a single year procurement in PB 2010. The Department will continue
to assess its TACAIR force structure and inventory requirements through
this summer's QDR.
21. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, is it a viable solution to
consider purchasing additional F/A-18 Super Hornets, the only new
strike fighter aircraft in production? If not, how will the Navy expect
to solve this shortfall?
Mr. Mabus. Maintaining Joint Strike Fighter wholeness, continued
support of legacy aircraft, SLEP of F/A-18 A-D and continued
procurement of F/A-18E/F are options to provide the strike fighter
inventory necessary to support the Department of the Navy's force
structure requirements.
The Navy is procuring F/A-18E/F Super Hornets in fiscal year 2010
via a single year procurement in PB10. The Department will continue to
assess its TACAIR force structure and inventory requirements through
this summer's QDR.
f-35 joint strike fighter program
22. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, the Services are planning on
purchasing approximately 2,450 JSFs at a cost of over $300 billion, a
sum that reflects a cost growth of nearly 47 percent beyond original
2002 estimates. Recently, the Government Accountability Office issued a
report on the JSF program that was critical of its past cost overruns
and schedule slips, and predicted that development will cost more and
take longer than what has been reported to Congress. In November 2008,
a Pentagon Joint Estimating Team reportedly said the JSF program would
require an additional 2 years of testing and would need another $15
billion to cover new development costs.
If the F-35 program costs continue to significantly increase and
the F-35 development does not go as well as promised--draining
resources from other priority programs that are needed by the Navy--
what actions would you recommend the Department take to remedy strike-
fighter shortfalls and preserve its limited procurement base?
Mr. Mabus. The Department of the Navy believes that JSF development
and technology risk are manageable. The JSF Team closely monitors all
risks and provides program-wide schedule and technology risk analysis
in conjunction with periodic Defense Acquisition Board reviews. The
timing of these reviews will ensure the analysis is available to
support key acquisition milestone decisions and budget discussions.
The Navy and Marine Corps share a common inventory of 623 legacy F/
A-18 A-D aircraft. Navy and Marine Corps integrate F/A-18 A-C strike
fighter squadrons into carrier air wings and Marine air groups under
the charter of TACAIR Integration (TAI). There are four considerations
to mitigate negative strike fighter inventory trends:
1. Maintain wholeness of the JSF program. Department strike
fighter inventory projections consider that F-35B will IOC in
2012 and F-35C will IOC in 2015, and that JSF will deliver at
planned quantities, as a foundation. The Department needs JSF
to deliver planned quantities at a delivery rate that supports
these planned initial operational capability dates. Any further
slips or decreases to planned procurement quantities further
exacerbates future DON strike fighter inventory issues.
2. Extending the service life of F/A-18 A-D Hornets. Over half
of the DON Hornets are beyond 6,000 flight hours, towards a
currently approved 8,600 flight hour service life. Extending
the service life of as many as 300 of these aircraft is an
essential element to maintaining available DON strike fighter
inventory through transition to JSF. Analysis is ongoing within
the Department to refine cost estimates and the process for
executing this service life extension.
3. Continued sustainment and support of currently fielded
legacy aircraft (AV-8, EA-6B, F/A-18 A-D) through transition to
JSF. These aircraft are the bulk of the Department's current
TACAIR inventory and require continuous support--including
program related engineering and logistics--though the end of
transition to JSF, currently envisioned to be out to 2023.
4. Additional investment in F/A-18E/F Block II Super Hornet
procurement. In PB 10, F/A-18E/F are budgeted for single year
procurement in fiscal year 2010.
The Department of the Navy will continue to guide JSF development
and update assessments of costs and scheduled deliveries to the fleet.
We will monitor F/A-18 A-D flight hours flown and update cost estimates
for needed life extensions and sustainment. Procurement of additional
F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets will continue to be a viable alternative in
the near term. All these factors will be taken into account when the
Department determines how best to satisfy the strike fighter force
structure needs established in the QDR.
shipbuilding plan
23. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, the most recent Navy 30-year
shipbuilding plan included arguably over-optimistic assumptions about
the unit costs of ships and excluded any funding for a replacement for
the current fleet of Trident ballistic missile submarines. Do you agree
that the 30-year shipbuilding plan should reflect realistic cost
estimates and include all important shipbuilding efforts for that
document to be useful for decisionmakers?
Mr. Mabus. The 30-year shipbuilding plan, as submitted to Congress,
reflects the best estimates for the ships included in the plan. The
near-term section of the future plan reflects cost estimates that are
predicted, in most cases, on existing production lines for ships either
currently being procured or very near the completion of contract
negotiations for their procurement. The period covered by about 10-20
years in the future, largely includes what we expect to be the economic
conditions that the shipbuilding industry will face and this too is
based on our best understanding of the labor rates and material cost
escalation that this industry will incur. The period beyond about 20
years, out to the end of the report, is a planning range and the costs
included in this part of the report reflect those costs that the Navy
believes to be affordable for the ship types that will be procured in
the period. Since there are essentially no designs to use as a basis
for the cost models, we believe that projecting an affordable cost for
these ships is the appropriate metric to use. This introduces
discipline in the expectations for what these ships should be able to
do since it is unlikely that there would be infinite resources
available for their procurement.
A majority of the ships in the 30-year shipbuilding plan have not
yet been designed and therefore cost must be based on the best estimate
of what the new ship will be including new technology, and appropriate
hull size and propulsion system. As more accurate cost estimates are
determined in future ship development, the Navy will adjust the average
annual investment objective or revisit individual ship and/or force
warfighting requirements as appropriate. Navy's goal in producing the
shipbuilding plan is always to provide a balanced capability, with
acceptable levels of risk that provides stable industry demand at
reasonable cost.
In addition to the National Security Strategy, the statutory
guidelines required the report to reflect the QDR. The latest QDR is
ongoing in parallel with the National Security Strategy work. Also, the
Nuclear Posture Review, which has direct bearing on the numbers of
strategic ballistic missile submarines, is due for completion incident
with submission of the fiscal year 2011 budget. In addition, a
Ballistic Missile Defense Review is ongoing and is also due for
completion with the fiscal year 2011 budget. These efforts will likely
have a substantive impact on the Navy's force structure requirements.
24. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, in your view, what level of
funding will the Navy need to execute its 30-year shipbuilding plan,
and considering competing priorities, do you believe this level of
funding is realistic?
Mr. Mabus. As the National Security Strategy is due for release
this summer, the Navy considers it prudent to defer its fiscal year
2010 report and submit its next report concurrent with the President's
fiscal year 2011 budget.
In addition to the National Security Strategy, the statutory
guidelines required the report to reflect the QDR. The latest QDR is
ongoing in parallel with the National Security Strategy work. Also, the
Nuclear Posture Review, which has direct bearing on the numbers of
strategic ballistic missile submarines, is due for completion incident
with submission of the fiscal year 2011 budget. In addition, a
Ballistic Missile Defense Review is ongoing and is also due for
completion with the fiscal year 2011 budget. These efforts will likely
have a substantive impact on the Navy's force structure requirements.
The President's budget submission for fiscal year 2010 represents
the best overall balance between procurement for future ship and
aircraft capability with the resources necessary to meet operational
requirements and affordability.
aircraft carriers
25. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, under his recently announced
budget plan, the Secretary of Defense proposed that only 10 aircraft
carriers be operational. But, we may need 11: the slip in the delivery
of the CVN 78 (USS Gerald R. Ford) to 2015 created a 2-year gap between
the scheduled decommissioning of the USS Enterprise and the
availability of a new aircraft carrier. That gap could be longer
because of technical difficulties with that carrier's electromagnetic
aircraft launch system (EMALS). What is your view of the plan that
Secretary Gates announced to permanently change the aircraft carrier
force structure to 10 from the current number of 11?
Mr. Mabus. The Navy is currently committed to an 11 carrier force
structure for the next several decades, and this commitment was
supported by Secretary Gates during his April budget announcement.
However, as you have pointed out, the Navy requires temporary
legislation to operate with 10 carriers during the period between
inactivation of USS Enterprise (CVN 65) in November 2012 and the
delivery of Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) in September 2015. Navy assesses it
can meet operational commitments during this approximately 33-month gap
by adjusting both carrier and air wing maintenance and operational
schedules. The carrier force structure, along with the entire
battleforce, is being considered in the QDR. EMALS development is
currently on track to meet the planned delivery of CVN 78 in September
2015.
26. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, in your view, should DOD retire
another aircraft carrier when the USS Gerald R. Ford is delivered to
keep the carrier force structure at 10 carriers?
Mr. Mabus. The Navy has no current plans to retire an aircraft
carrier upon delivery of USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). The Navy is
currently committed to an 11 carrier force structure for the next
several decades, and this commitment was supported by Secretary Gates
during his April budget announcement. However, as you have pointed out,
the Navy requires temporary legislation to operate with 10 carriers
during the period between inactivation of USS Enterprise (CVN 65) in
November 2012 and the delivery of Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) in September
2015. Navy assesses it can meet operational commitments during this
approximately 33-month gap by adjusting both carrier and air wing
maintenance and operational schedules. The carrier force structure,
along with the entire battleforce, is being considered in the QDR.
27. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, do you believe that the
requirements of the combatant commanders for an aircraft carrier
presence be met with only 10 operational aircraft carriers?
Mr. Mabus. The Navy can sustain current combatant command (COCOM)
demand for carrier presence with 10 operational aircraft carriers for a
relatively short and defined period of time with moderate risks by
leveraging the inherent flexibility of the Fleet Response Plan. Navy
will continue to evaluate projected COCOM demand and use the QDR and
other strategic planning processes to match carrier force structure to
projected demand; this requirement will be based on fiscal and
operational risk.
submarine strategic weapons programs cost reimbursable contracts
28. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, for over 30 years the Navy has
manufactured and sustained its Trident submarine and other related
weapon systems under a cost-reimbursable contract. This is unacceptable
to me. After a 30-year procurement history, costs and design are (or
should be) stable and enough is (or should be) known, about technology
risk associated with those programs so that the Navy should be
contracting here on a fixed-price--not cost-reimbursable--basis.
However, the Navy's Strategic Weapons Programs (SSP), which
manufactures and sustains logistical support for nuclear submarines,
continues to award--inappropriately, in my view--multi-hundred million-
dollar cost-plus contracts for, among other things, the production of
the D-5 Trident Missile System. Why is there this anomaly with the
Navy's submarine programs?
Mr. Mabus. As the Fleet Ballistic Missile Program has matured over
the last four decades, SSP has developed and implemented an acquisition
strategy that maintains a primary focus on safety and reliability,
while managing cost risk at or below budget. Because of the strategic
importance of the system, any deviation from this successful
acquisition strategy could engender unnecessary unintended
consequences, and jeopardize the safety and reliability of the weapon.
At inception, during concept formulation and advanced development, Cost
Plus Fixed Fee contracts were used, placing maximum cost risk on the
Government, due to the overall program uncertainty and rapidly changing
requirements. As the program matured into full scale development, the
contract type moved along a continuum to Cost Plus Incentive Fee with a
conservative share ratio of 90/10 or 80/20. Eventually, as the
requirements stabilized the share ratio was increased to 70/30 for
initial production activities and 50/50 for mature production efforts.
SSP has committed to transition the mature full-rate production
effort for TRIDENT II D5 Subsystems to fixed-price contract beginning
in fiscal year 2011. We anticipate that this will result in
approximately 50 percent of all contracted dollars being fixed price.
SSP is developing the transition plan for mature full rate production
items including the appropriate contractual and acquisition reviews to
support completion by 2011. As always, we will continue to monitor and
manage technical risk throughout this transition and make any
adjustments that are deemed necessary to ensure we maintain the
program's preeminent responsibility for safety and reliability.
29. Senator McCain. Governor Mabus, will you look into this
contracting folly and ensure me that the Navy will begin awarding
contracts on this submarine program and other SSPs under fixed price-
type contracts, where appropriate?
Mr. Mabus. SSP has committed to transition the mature full-rate
production effort for TRIDENT II D5 Subsystems to fixed price contract
beginning in fiscal year 2011. We anticipate that will result in
approximately 50 percent of all contracted dollars being fixed price.
SSP is developing the transition plan for mature full rate production
items including the appropriate contractual and acquisition reviews to
support completion by 2011. As always, we will continue to monitor and
manage technical risk throughout this transition and make any
adjustments that are deemed necessary to ensure we maintain the
program's preeminent responsibility for safety and reliability.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Thune
strategic dispersal of the nuclear carrier fleet
30. Senator Thune. Governor Mabus, the Navy has undergone and
completed a Final Environmental Impact Statement. The Secretary of the
Navy, in consultation with the Chief of Naval Operations, signed a
Record of Decision to develop a second nuclear-carrier homeport on the
East Coast on January 14, 2009, and determined that it is in the best
national security interest of the Nation to homeport a nuclear powered
aircraft carrier at Naval Station Mayport. During your Senate Armed
Services Committee hearing on April 28, 2009, understanding the
sensitivities surrounding this matter, I asked you what you thought of
strategically dispersing our carrier fleet on the east coast and
whether or not you agreed with the Navy's requirement to make Mayport
nuclear ready and continue the long-term practice of strategic
dispersal. At the time, you answered that you understood the issue and
that it was to be made part of the QDR but that you did not have enough
information to provide an answer as to how you felt about the Navy's
requirement. This was the culmination of 2\1/2\ years of effort to
ensure compliance with environmental regulations as well as strategic
needs. What is your view of strategic dispersal?
Mr. Mabus. I have an appreciation of the long history and
importance of strategic dispersal for the Navy. I believe that
strategic dispersal will play an important role in global posture
discussions during the upcoming QDR.
31. Senator Thune. Governor Mabus, do you understand its importance
to the Navy?
Mr. Mabus. I have an appreciation of the long history and
importance of strategic dispersal for the Navy. I believe that
strategic dispersal will play an important role in global posture
discussions during the upcoming QDR.
32. Senator Thune. Governor Mabus, how do you view this Navy
requirement based on the information you have?
Mr. Mabus. I have an appreciation of the long history and
importance of strategic dispersal for the Navy. I believe that
strategic dispersal will play an important role in global posture
discussions during the upcoming QDR.
33. Senator Thune. Governor Mabus, what weight will you attribute
the recommendations of senior uniformed leaders of the Navy?
Mr. Mabus. Our senior uniformed leaders have significant experience
and are well respected. If confirmed, I will vigorously seek their
opinions on all matters associated with the manning, training and
equipping of our Naval Forces.
34. Senator Thune. Governor Mabus, do you believe it is important
to proceed with planning and design of the nuclear maintenance facility
at Naval Station Mayport?
Mr. Mabus. It is my understanding that additional decisions beyond
the recommended dredging and pier maintenance at NS Mayport will be
made during the upcoming QDR. I do not have enough information on the
planning and design of a nuclear maintenance facility at NS Mayport to
answer this question, but if confirmed, I intend to look at this issue
and actively participate in the QDR.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
naval fleet requirements
35. Senator Collins. Governor Mabus, I appreciated the opportunity
to discuss with you the impressive contributions that the State of
Maine has made to our Navy through the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNSY)
in Kittery, Bath Iron Works (BIW) in Bath, and the Brunswick Naval Air
Station in Brunswick, as well as several other defense contractors.
These contributions from PNSY and BIW depend on a sufficient and steady
workload to maintain the skilled workforce critical to preserving the
defense industrial base. You have seen first-hand in Mississippi how
difficult it is for a shipyard to recover when it loses skilled
workers. Could you comment on what actions you will take to ensure a
strong industrial base for building surface combatants, constructing,
overhauling, and modernizing submarines, and otherwise ensuring that
the Navy has a fleet that meets its requirements?
Mr. Mabus. The Department recognizes that low levels of
shipbuilding activity introduce challenges and inefficiencies at
shipyards. The Navy has developed a long term shipbuilding procurement
plan that provides the foundation for future planning within the
shipbuilding industry. The Navy continues to work with Congress to
enact this strategy and where appropriate, have proposed multiyear
procurements which provide further stability and result in cost
savings. Reducing volatility, through multiyear procurements and a
stable shipbuilding procurement profile, enables industry leaders to
make informed decisions regarding current operations, employment,
infrastructure, and future capital investments.
ballistic missile threats
36. Senator Collins. Governor Mabus, ballistic missiles in the
hands of rogue states or non-state actors present a serious security
threat to this country. North Korea's recent missile launch coupled
with Iran's ballistic missile inventory and continued efforts to seek a
nuclear capability reinforce the need to maintain a robust and layered
missile defense capability. Aegis cruisers and destroyers provide a
critical element to that capability from the sea. Secretary Gates has
proposed adding missile defense capabilities to six Aegis ships next
year, and plans to spend an additional $700 million on the SM-3 missile
and other missile defense systems. What do you see as the future role
of front-line surface combatants in defending our forces and our
Homeland from potential threats posed by ballistic missiles?
Mr. Mabus. Navy cruisers and destroyers are multi-mission platforms
which perform a variety of missions, including but not limited to:
anti-air, anti-submarine, anti-surface, and Ballistic Missile Defense
(BMD). Aegis BMD contributes to homeland defense through long range
surveillance and tracking and Aegis BMD-capable ships can conduct both
midcourse and terminal engagements of short and medium range ballistic
missiles in support of regional and theater defense. While our current
fleet has no capability against the longer range intermediate and ICBM
threats, the development of future Aegis baselines and Standard Missile
(SM-3) will address these capabilities within the next 10 years.
BMD is a core Navy mission directly contributing to our overarching
missions of deterrence, power projection and sea control. Today, Navy
Aegis BMD capability is currently installed on 18 ships: three guided
missile cruisers and 15 guided missile destroyers. Additionally, we are
in the process of outfitting three more East Coast ships with BMD
capability, increasing our numbers to 21 BMD capable ships. Aegis
Modernization plan, beginning in 2012, will over two decades outfit
Aegis Destroyers and 15 of 22 Aegis Cruisers with BMD capability
providing combatant commanders an in-stride BMD capability with
regularly deploying surface combatants.
Maritime ballistic missile defense will enhance deterrence by
providing an umbrella of protection to forward-deployed forces, friends
and allies, while contributing to the larger architecture planned for
defense of the United States. This is particularly important in light
of the rapidly evolving and proliferating ballistic and advanced cruise
missile threat.
In addition, our partners and allies, principally Japan, have an
increasingly important role in theater and regional defense as they
gain their own capability. Through cooperative programs and
partnerships with our allies, their BMD capable assets will provide an
added ``layer'' of protection against the growing threat of ballistic
missiles.
surface ship structure plans
37. Senator Collins. Governor Mabus, despite economic recessions,
both China and Russia are increasing defense spending in an effort to
modernize and transform their militaries. China has indicated its
intent to construct its first aircraft carrier, and continues to
develop anti-ship missiles and quieter and more capable submarines.
Media reports indicate Russia's nearly 26 percent increase in defense
spending this year will go toward transforming its military into a more
effective fighting force. What are your views on our surface ship
structure plan?
Mr. Mabus. The ongoing QDR, NPR, BMD Review, and Space Review
currently in progress, will determine the shape of the Navy's future.
While the demands placed on the Navy for forces by the combatant
commanders and by our Presence, security cooperation and humanitarian
assistance missions continue to be significant; we have been largely
able to meet these demands with the force we have in commission today.
The 313 force construct is both a total inventory of ships and a
specific mix of ships in that total and is focused on the threats that
were envisioned for the 2020 timeframe.
Since completing the Force Structure Assessment that led to the 313
requirement, myriad changes have been realized in the strategic
security environment around the globe. There has been a burgeoning
proliferation of advanced cruise missiles, submarine technology is
getting ever more difficult to counter and ballistic missile
capabilities are becoming more precise and lethal. All of these
challenges have required us to continually reassess the capability of
the ships we are designing, the capacity of the ships we are procuring
and the effectiveness of the ships we have in our current inventory.
While there are always improvements that could be made in any of these
areas to reduce the overall risk to the force today, as well as in the
future, we believe the ships we are buying and those we continue to
modernize in our existing inventory are up to the task of meeting the
Navy's missions in the foreseeable future. Should the Security Strategy
change or the QDR shift our priorities and responsibilities, any
changes required to our plans will be included in our next budget
submission and long-range shipbuilding plan.
______
[The nomination reference of Hon. Raymond E. Mabus, Jr.,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 20, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Raymond Edwin Mabus, Jr., of Mississippi, to be Secretary of the
Navy, vice Donald C. Winter.
______
[The biographical sketch of Raymond E. Mabus, Jr., which
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Raymond E. Mabus, Jr.
Ray Mabus is a native of Ackerman, MS, and received a Bachelor's
Degree from the University of Mississippi, a Master's Degree from Johns
Hopkins University, and a Law Degree from Harvard Law School. He served
as Governor of Mississippi (1988-1992), Ambassador to the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia (1994-1996), and as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
(CEO) of Foamex (2006-2007), a large manufacturing company. As the
youngest Governor of Mississippi in more than 100 years at the time of
his election, Governor Mabus stressed education and job creation. He
passed B.E.S.T. (Better Education for Success Tomorrow), one of the
most comprehensive education reform programs in America, and was named
one of Fortune Magazine's top 10 education governors.
During his tenure as Ambassador, a crisis with Iraq was
successfully averted and Saudi Arabia officially abandoned the boycott
of United States businesses that trade with Israel. He was chosen CEO
of Foamex to help lead the company out of bankruptcy and less than 9
months after his appointment; Foamex successfully emerged from Chapter
11. Governor Mabus has been awarded the U.S. Department of Defense
Distinguished Public Service Award, the U.S. Army's Distinguished
Civilian Service Award, the Martin Luther King Social Responsibility
Award from the King Center in Atlanta, the National Wildlife Federation
Conservation Achievement Award, the King Abdul Aziz Award from the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the Mississippi Association of Educators'
Friend of Education Award.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate, and certain
senior military officers as determined by the committee, to
complete a form that details the biographical, financial and
other information of the nominee. The form executed by Raymond
E. Mabus, 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.)
Raymond Edwin Mabus, Jr.
2. Position to which nominated:
Secretary of the Navy.
3. Date of nomination:
April 20, 2009.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
October 11, 1948; Starkville, MS.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Lynne Marie Horecky (Maiden Name).
7. Names and ages of children:
Elisabeth Hamilton Mabus, 18; Anne Gates Mabus, 16; Kate Elizabeth
Musgrove, 8 (stepdaughter).
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Ackerman High School, Ackerman, MS, 1962-1966, High School Diploma,
1966.
University of Mississippi, 1966-1969, Bachelor of Arts, 1969.
The Johns Hopkins University, 1969-1970, Master of Arts, 1971.
Harvard Law School, 1972-1976, Juris Doctorate, 1976.
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.
Board Member, Wincup, Inc., Stone Mountain, GA, 01/08-12/08.
Board Member, Hines Horticulture, Chicago, IL, 07/07-01/09.
Board Member, Enersys, Inc., Reading, PA, 08/07-present.
Board Member, (09/00-04/07), Chairman (04/04-04/07), CEO (06/06-04/
07), Foamex International, Media, PA.
Board Member, Strategic Partnerships, Alexandria, VA, 05/03-
present.
President and Board member, Frontline Global Resources, Alexandria,
VA, 04/00-05/03.
Board Member, International Management and Development, Alexandria,
VA, 07/96-04/00
Board Member, Fusion Telecommunications, NewYork, NY, 04/99-present
Board Member, Eggs Overnight, Stone Mountain, GA, 06/08-present
Board Member, Citizens International, Alexandria, VA, 07/00-present
Board Member, Thomas Engine, Boulder, CO, 04/04-08/07
Board Member, Kroll, Inc., New York, NY, 10/96-02/05
Board Member, Friede Goldman, Halter, Jackson, MS, 10/96-05/01
Consultant, Sikorsky, Stratford, CT, 03/00-01/02.
Consultant, Raytheon, Waltham, MA, 10/96-01/00.
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.
Law Clerk for John Godbold, U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit
Court, Montgomery, AL (1976-1977).
Legal Counsel, Cotton Subcommittee, House Committee on Agriculture
(1977-1978).
Legal Counsel to the Governor of Mississippi (1980-1983).
Mississippi State Auditor General (1984-1988).
Governor of Mississippi (1988-1992).
Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1994-1996).
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Board Member, Enersys, Inc.
Board Member, Strategic Partnerships.
Board Member, Fusion Telecommunications.
Board Member, Eggs Overnight.
Managing Member, REM Strategies.
Board Member, Citizens International.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Board Member, RAND Center for Middle East Public Policy.
Board Member and Treasurer, AMIDEAST.
Member, Council on Foreign Relations.
Board Member and Founder, Help and Hope Foundation.
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.
Governor of Mississippi
State Auditor of Mississippi
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Senior Advisor, Obama for America.
Foreign Policy Advisor, John Kerry for President.
(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.
Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Award
Department of the Army Distinguished Civilian Service Award
Martin Luther King, Jr., Social Responsibility Award by the
King Center in Atlanta, GA.
King Abdul Aziz Award, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
International Security Leadership Award of National Security
Council Foundation
Jackson, MS Clarion Ledger, Best Governor of the 20th Century
Reader Poll Award
Fortune Magazine ``Top Ten Education Governors''
National Wildlife Federation's Conservation Achievement Award
Mississippi Association of Educators' ``Friend of Education'' Award
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, ``Medicine in Mississippi''
1992.
Technological Horizons In Education Journal, ``A New Light in
Education: Mississippi 2000'' 1991.
``Light on the Land: Photographs of the World by Ray Mabus'' Blurb
Online Publishers 2008.
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.
Ray Mabus.
This 27th day of April, 2009.
[The nomination of Raymond E. Mabus, Jr., was reported to
the Senate by Chairman Levin on May 14, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 18, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Robert O. Work by Chairman
Levin 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 with the Department of Defense
(DOD)?
Answer. I believe the act has yielded enormous benefits to DOD such
as strengthened joint operational commanders and better military advice
to the President. I do not, at this time, see a need for modifications
to Goldwater-Nichols. However, if confirmed, my subsequent experience
as the Under Secretary of the Navy could potentially suggest further
needed changes. Should that be the case, I would identify recommended
changes to the Secretary of the Navy.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. I am aware of no modifications at this time.
Question. Do you believe that the role of the Service Secretaries
under the Goldwater-Nichols legislation is appropriate and the policies
and processes in existence allow that role to be fulfilled?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you see a need for any change in those roles, with
regard to the resource allocation process or otherwise?
Answer. I do not see a need for any changes to the roles of the
Service Secretaries at this time. However, if confirmed, my subsequent
experience as the Under Secretary of the Navy could potentially suggest
further needed changes. Should that be the case, I would identify
recommended changes to the Secretary of the Navy.
duties
Question. Section 5015 of title 10, U.S.C., states the Under
Secretary of the Navy shall perform such duties and exercise such
powers as the Secretary of the Navy may prescribe.
Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and powers do you expect to
be assigned to you?
Answer. The Under Secretary of the Navy performs such duties and
exercises such powers as the Secretary of the Navy prescribes. If
confirmed, I will review the duties assigned to the Under Secretary in
the current SECNAVINST 5430.7P, and discuss them with the Secretary of
the Navy. I will then determine the manner in which the Secretary
desires me to function. I expect that the Secretary will assign me
duties that are consistent with my background and expertise.
relationships
Question. Please describe your understanding of the relationship of
the Under Secretary of the Navy to the following officials:
The Secretary of the Navy.
Answer. The Under Secretary of the Navy is the deputy and principal
assistant to the Secretary of the Navy, and acts with full authority of
the Secretary of the Navy in managing the Department of the Navy. The
Under Secretary and Secretary of the Navy should have a close, personal
relationship based on trust and mutual respect.
Question. The Chief of Naval Operations.
Answer. The Under Secretary deals directly with the CNO in all
Departmental leadership meetings and when acting in the Secretary's
stead. The Under Secretary of the Navy works most closely with the Vice
Chief of Naval Operations. Both of these relationships are very
important to the day-to-day running of the Department of the Navy
(DON), and should be based on mutual respect, trust, and cooperation.
Question. The Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Answer. The Under Secretary deals directly with the Commandant of
the Marine Corps in all Departmental leadership meetings and when
acting in the Secretary's stead. The Under Secretary of the Navy works
most closely with the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps. Both of
these relationships are very important to the day-to-day running of the
DON, and should be based on mutual respect, trust, and cooperation.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of the Navy.
Answer. Under any circumstances, the relationship between the Under
Secretary and the Assistant Secretaries is a close one. The exact
working relationship will be determined by the management style of the
Secretary of the Navy, and the duties he delegates to the Under
Secretary.
Question. The General Counsel of the Navy.
Answer. If confirmed, the Under Secretary will deal closely with
the GC on staff matters on a variety of issues, such as base
encroachment and marine mammals.
Question. The Vice Chief of Naval Operations.
Answer. The Under Secretary of the Navy works very closely with the
Vice Chief of Naval Operations and the Assistant Commandant of the
Marine Corps. The three ensure the smooth staffing of issues through
the Department and Secretariat, work together to ensure a close working
relationship between the service staffs, and resolve disagreements.
This relationship is very important to the day-to-day running of the
DON, and should be based on respect, trust, and cooperation.
Question. The Judge Advocate General of the Navy.
Answer. If confirmed, I believe I will deal with the Navy JAG
primarily through the General Counsel.
Question. The Chief Management Officer (CMO) and Deputy Chief
Management Officer of the DOD.
Answer. The Under Secretary of the Navy is designated the CMO for
the DON. If confirmed, I will deal directly with the Deputy Secretary
of Defense (DOD CMO) and the DOD DCMO on the full range of matters
dealing with the management of the DOD, and will assist in the
development of a comprehensive Departmental transformation plan and
business systems architecture, and help to identify and implement
potential business process improvements.
Question. The Director of the Navy's Office of Business
Transformation.
Answer. The Director of the Navy's Office of Business
Transformation is currently designated as the DON DCMO. If confirmed, I
would work closely with the DCMO to determine needed changes to
Departmental transformation plan, business systems architecture, and to
identify needed business process improvements.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the next Under Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. The Department of the Navy has operated without an Under
Secretary of the Navy for over 2 years. If confirmed, one major
challenge will be to re-integrate the office of the Under Secretary
into the day-to-day activities of the DON, and to provide value added
support to the Secretary of the Navy in tackling the challenges
discussed below.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, there are an enormous number of challenges
facing the DON. First is to help the Secretary of the Navy plan and
execute a smooth leadership transition from the outgoing administration
to the new one. To that end, I would work closely with the White House,
Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Navy to assemble a top-
quality cadre of civilian leaders with the expertise and experience to
effectively perform the duties of the key positions that must be
filled. The second challenge is to participate in the 2009 Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR) and to ensure that the DON's fiscal year 2011
budget is consistent with the President's, SecDef's, and Secretary of
the Navy's priorities, and outlines a program consistent with expected
future resource allocations. A third challenge will be to perform an
active reform agenda for the management of the DON. If confirmed, I
would devote a considerable portion of my time to improve DON processes
for strategic planning, program and budget development, and acquisition
oversight. Improving the Department's record on cost control and
improving its budget and cost forecasts would also be a top priority.
Finally, and of utmost importance, I would work to try to make the
DON's Safe Harbor and Wounded Warrior Regiment programs the standard
for excellence within the DOD.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Under Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. The Department of the Navy has operated without an Under
Secretary of the Navy for over 2 years. If confirmed, it will take some
time to reassert the duties and responsibilities of the Under
Secretary.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, my first priority would be to set up a well
run office of the Under Secretary and to establish new staffing
procedures. If confirmed, this should be done within the first 30 days
of assuming the position. All other actions, priorities, and
established timelines would be developed after close consultation with
the incoming Secretary of the Navy.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Secretary of the Navy in
his efforts to articulate the challenges the Department must address to
meet the principle objectives Secretary Gates has articulated:
``Reaffirm our commitment to All-Volunteer Force''
``Rebalance programs in order to institutionalize and
enhance our capabilities to fight the wars we are in today and
the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years ahead,
while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks
and contingencies.''
``In order to do all this, we must reform how and what
we buy, meaning a fundamental overhaul of our approach to
procurement, acquisition and contracting.''
If confirmed, I will support the Secretary of the Navy's efforts to
initiate or reinforce existing direction aimed at meeting these
challenges, including:
Sustain a cadre of officers and enlisted personnel,
and supporting civil service that is technically competent and
culturally adept. Maintain a capable and diverse workforce.
Focus appropriate resources in support of the current
fight, readiness, homeland defense, etc.
Develop a portfolio of capabilities to cover all
realistic scenarios to fight and win our Nation's wars which
includes a blend of capabilities in Cooperative Security,
Irregular Warfare and Conventional Warfare.
Establish and maintain a long-term shipbuilding
program that is achievable, affordable, and responsive to the
needs of the Nation.
Reaffirm the ethical basis of the naval institution;
ensure the highest standards of conduct that exemplify the
Department's core values of honor, courage, and commitment.
Firmly embrace my role as CMO to align and improve
business processes to enable the most effective and efficient
delivery of all missions and capabilities.
duties and responsibilities as chief management officer
Question. Section 904 of the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008 designates the Under Secretary of the Navy
as the Navy's CMO. Section 908 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2009
requires the CMO of each of the military departments to carry out a
comprehensive business transformation initiative, with the support of a
new Business Transformation Office.
What is your understanding of the duties and responsibilities of
the Under Secretary in his capacity as CMO of the Department of the
Navy?
Answer. If confirmed, my most important duty as DON CMO will be to
ensure that the DON has a pragmatic and well thought-out comprehensive
business transformation plan with measureable performance goals and
objectives. In addition, I will work to develop a well-defined
enterprise-wide business systems architecture and transition plan. In
this regard, I would work with the DCMO to:
Transform the budget, finance, accounting, and human
resource operations of the DON consistent with the DON business
transformation plan
Eliminate or replace financial management systems that
are inconsistent with the business systems architecture and
transition plans
Monitor the implementation of both the business
transformation plan and business systems architecture.
Question. What background and expertise do you possess that you
believe qualify you to perform these duties and responsibilities?
Answer. The Under/CMO must have a thorough knowledge of the
Department of the Navy; understand and respect the cultures of the Navy
and Marine Corps as well as the DON's civilian civil service force;
understand the way programs and budgets are developed; and be a strong
leader and manager. During my 27 year career in the Marine Corps, I
served in a variety of command and staff positions where I honed my own
leadership and management skills. During the last 5 years of active
service, first as the Director of the Marine Corps Strategic
Initiatives Group and later as Senior Aide and Military Assistant to
the Secretary of the Navy, I developed a thorough understanding of the
Department, its two services and civilian workforce, and the
programming and budgeting process, as well as a working understanding
of the Department's core business processes. After retiring, I studied
the Department carefully, focusing on shipbuilding and acquisition
programs. I therefore believe that my background provides a solid
foundation for the position as CMO. However, I also recognize that the
job of CMO encompasses a very diverse set of responsibilities and
challenges. So I accept that I have much to learn, and will rely
heavily on the knowledge and advice of military personnel and civilian
experts in the Departments of Defense and Navy.
Question. Do you believe that the CMO and the Business
Transformation Office have the resources and authority needed to carry
out the business transformation of the Department of the Navy?
Answer. My understanding is that absent an Under Secretary, the DON
assigned the CMO duties to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Financial Management/Comptroller and established an Office of Business
Transformation headed by a civilian highly qualified expert. If
confirmed, I will assume duties as the CMO and review all of the DON's
efforts associated with the CMO/DCMO since the NDAA for Fiscal Year
2008. I will place a high priority on determining whether or not the
CMO/DCMO efforts have the requisite authorities and required resources
needed to implement the intent of the legislation. If I find the
resources and authorities to be insufficient, I will work to correct
the problem.
Question. What role do you believe the CMO and the Business
Transformation Office should play in the planning, development, and
implementation of specific business systems by the military
departments?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the DCMO/Director, Business
Transformation Office to ensure the development of a well-defined
enterprise-wide business systems architecture and a business
transformation plan that provides accurate performance measures and
goals to improve the core business operations in the DON.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the
statutory provisions establishing the position of CMO and creating the
Business Transformation Office?
Answer. I do not have the data to make any recommended changes to
the associated statutory provisions at this time.
Question. Section 2222 of title 10, U.S.C., requires that the
Secretary of Defense develop a comprehensive business enterprise
architecture and transition plan to guide the development of its
business systems and processes. The Department has chosen to implement
the requirement for an enterprise architecture and transition plan
through a ``federated'' approach in which the Business Transformation
Agency has developed the top level architecture while leaving it to the
military departments to fill in most of the detail. The Navy's business
systems, like those of the other military departments, remain incapable
of providing timely, reliable financial data to support management
decisions. In particular, the Government Accountability Office has
reported that the Navy has not yet followed DOD's lead in establishing
new governance structures to address business transformation; has not
yet developed comprehensive enterprise architecture and transition plan
that plug into DOD's federated architecture in a manner that meets
statutory requirements; and instead continues to rely upon old,
stovepiped structures to implement piecemeal reforms.
If confirmed, what steps, if any, would you take to ensure that the
Navy develops the business systems and processes it needs to
appropriately manage funds in the best interest of the taxpayer and the
national defense?
Answer. If confirmed as the Under Secretary, I will take my
responsibilities as the DON's CMO very seriously, and work every day to
give the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Navy, Congress, and
American people the highest return on their investment in their Navy
and Marine Corps. After ascertaining the state of the DON's business
transformation efforts, I will evaluate and consider the GAO findings
and recommendations and work to make the changes necessary to develop
the very best business systems and processes needed to appropriately
manage Departmental funds.
Question. Do you believe that a comprehensive, integrated,
enterprise-wide architecture and transition plan is essential to the
successful transformation of the Navy's business systems?
Answer. Absolutely.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
the Navy's enterprise architecture and transition plan meet the
requirements of section 2222?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the DCMO and the DON
Business Transformation Council to review systems investment plans and
develop appropriate measures of effectiveness based on section 2222.
Question. What are your views on the importance and role of timely
and accurate financial and business information in managing operations
and holding managers accountable?
Answer. Accurate and timely management information, to include
financial information is the fundamental requirement for ensuring both
proper stewardship and the best application of taxpayer dollars. I
understand that the DON Financial Improvement program is already
pursuing this goal as part of the broader DOD initiative. This effort
is a central element of the DON business transformation strategy.
Question. How would you address a situation in which you found that
reliable, useful, and timely financial and business information was not
routinely available for these purposes?
Answer. If confirmed, I would demand that those responsible for
providing this information provide it. If they lacked the systems
needed to generate the information, I would work to get them the
systems needed to produce the data. If they still proved incapable of
providing timely and useful information, I would replace them, and seek
someone able to generate the information.
Question. What role do you envision playing, if confirmed, in
managing or providing oversight over the improvement of the financial
and business information available to Navy managers?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Department's
Assistant Secretary of the Navy Financial Manager/Comptroller to
execute those measures required to improve the quality of financial
information used for decisionmaking.
end strength
Question. What are your views on the appropriate size and mix of
the active-Duty Navy and Marine Corps, and their Reserve components?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the two Services to generate
affordable manpower requirements, and to help them achieve the optimal
balance of Active and Reserve end strength, experience, skills, and
seniority, for both officers and enlisted.
Question. How does Navy support to the ground forces in the form of
individual augmentee missions affect Navy end strength requirements?
Answer. As I understand it, the Navy has worked very hard to
develop a coherent and affordable plan for individual augmentees. If
confirmed, I intend to review this initiative and how it affects Navy
end strength requirements and readiness, for both shore and sea
billets.
transformation
Question. If confirmed as the [Under] Secretary of the Navy, you
would play an important role in the ongoing process of transforming the
Navy and Marine Corps to meet new and emerging threats.
If confirmed, what would your goals be for Navy and Marine Corps
transformation?
Answer. If confirmed, I will enter the Department with no preformed
goals for Navy and Marine Corps transformation. I will work within the
framework of the 2009 QDR to understand the President's, Secretary of
Defense's and Secretary of the Navy's future goals for the two
Services. I will offer my best judgment and recommendations on the
development of these goals. Once the Department's goals are
established, I would do my level best to achieve them.
Question. In your opinion, does the Department of the Navy's
projected budget have adequate resources identified to implement your
transformation goals?
Answer. I have not been briefed in detail on the fiscal year 2010
budget, so I cannot make a judgment as to their adequacy. A key aim for
the QDR is to balance departmental goals and resources. If confirmed, I
will take part in the QDR process to achieve this balance.
low density/high demand forces
Question. If confirmed, how would you address the Department of the
Navy's challenge in manning low density/high demand units, ratings, and
occupational specialties?
Answer. If confirmed, one of the first questions I will ask is what
platforms, units, ratings, and occupational specialties are considered
low density/high demand. I will then review the plans to develop or
grow the platforms, units, ratings, and occupational specialties so as
to limit the deployment demand on equipment and personnel, such as
offering targeted bonuses and special incentive pays to the appropriate
ratings and specialties. I will ensure that the Services have means by
which to monitor dwell time to ensure that units and individuals have
adequate time to rest and be with their families, and the
implementation of mitigation strategies for high demand/low density
units and personnel.
national security personnel system
Question. Section 1106 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008 restored
the collective bargaining rights of civilian employees included in the
National Security Personnel System (NSPS) established by the DOD
pursuant to section 9902 of title 5, U.S.C. Under section 1106, the
Department retains the authority to establish a new performance
management system (including pay for performance) and streamlined
practices for hiring and promotion of civilian employees.
What is your view of the NSPS, as currently constituted?
Answer. At this time I am not knowledgeable of all of the details
of the NSPS. I am aware that the Department of the Navy has put forth a
significant amount of effort to implement NSPS and ensure the civilian
workforce is adequately trained and informed.
Question. If confirmed, how will you evaluate its success or
failure to meet its goals?
Answer. If confirmed, I will determine NSPS goals; identify
existing plans to achieve them; and judge their adequacy. I will direct
adjustments to plans, as necessary, and will monitor the Department's
subsequent implementation of revised plans.
Question. Do you support the pay-for-performance approach adopted
for civilian employees in the NSPS?
Answer. At this time I am not aware of the specifics of the NSPS
pay-for-performance program. However, in order to recruit, motivate,
and retain quality civilian personnel, it is essential to ensure that
they are appropriately compensated for their performance.
Question. Do you believe that the Department needs streamlined
authority for hiring and promotion of civilian employees to meet its
human capital needs?
Answer. Expedited hiring authority is an exceptional tool in the
recruiting process. If confirmed, I would consider expedited hiring
authority for critical positions.
Question. In your view, is it viable in the long run for the DOD to
maintain two separate systems (NSPS and the General Schedule) for its
civilian employees?
Answer. At this time, I am not aware of how NSPS works with the GS
system. If confirmed, I will review the differences between the two
systems and work for the greatest degree of standardization possible.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the NSPS
authorizing legislation?
Answer. I have no specific legislative changes to propose at this
time.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the NSPS
regulations?
Answer. I have no specific regulatory changes to propose at this
time.
navy and marine corps recruiting and retention
Question. The retention of quality sailors and marines, officer and
enlisted, Active-Duty and Reserve, is vital to the Department of the
Navy.
How would you evaluate the status of the Navy and Marine Corps in
successfully recruiting and retaining high caliber personnel?
Answer. Recruiting and retention in both the Navy and Marine Corps
appear to be strong. As I understand it, the Navy and Marine Corps are
currently meeting or exceeding enlisted and officer recruiting goals
across both the active and Reserve components, while exceeding DOD
quality standards in all recruit categories. In addition, there has
been increased retention and lower attrition across the force.
How would you evaluate the recruiting and retention of uniformed
and civilian health care professionals?
Answer. I have not been briefed on this issue. If confirmed, I will
look into it.
Question. What initiatives would you take, if confirmed, to further
improve Navy and Marine Corps recruiting and retention, in both the
active and Reserve components, including health care professionals?
Answer. I have not been briefed on the initiatives in place, or
their effectiveness. However, if confirmed, I would explore and argue
for ``best in class'' programs and policies to attract and retain high
quality people. This might include targeted bonuses and special
incentive pays for critical skills in the medical field.
defense integrated manpower human resources system
Question. The Defense Integrated Manpower Human Resources System
(DIMHRS) is a single integrated human resources pay and personnel
system for all the armed services and the Defense Finance and
Accounting System, and is intended to replace many of the systems
currently used to perform personnel management and pay functions.
DIMHRS, which has been under development for several years, has come
under criticism for cost growth, delays in implementation, and not
meeting the expectations of each Service.
What are your views of the need for completion of implementation of
DIMHRS and what specific benefits, if any, would the Department of the
Navy derive from this system?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to learn about the DIMHRS
system in depth. If confirmed, I will evaluate the system and work with
the Secretary of the Navy and DOD leadership to ensure that our
personnel system is compatible with DOD approved systems and is fully
supportive of our sailors and marines.
delivery of legal services
Question. What is your understanding of the respective roles of the
General Counsel and Judge Advocate General of the Navy in providing the
Secretary of the Navy with legal advice?
Answer. Both the Judge Advocate General and the Staff Judge
Advocate to the Commandant perform functions in their respective
organizations that are essential to the proper operation of their
Service and the Department as a whole. The Judge Advocate General and
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant work closely with the Navy
General Counsel. Their unique expertise and independent judgment and
advice complement that of the General Counsel and offer the necessary
blend of legal advice to the civilian and military leadership.
Question. What are your views about the responsibility of the Judge
Advocate General of the Navy and the Staff Judge Advocate to the
Commandant to provide independent legal advice to the Chief of Naval
Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, respectively?
Answer. It is critical that the CNO and the CMC receive independent
legal advice from the senior uniformed judge advocates.
Question. What are your views about the responsibility of staff
judge advocates within the Navy and Marine Corps to provide independent
legal advice to military commanders in the fleet and throughout the
naval establishment?
Answer. Uniformed staff judge advocates, assigned worldwide and
through the chain of command are essential to the proper functioning of
the operational and shore-based Navy and Marine Corps. Navy and Marine
Corps commanders depend extensively on their staff judge advocates for
their unique expertise that combines legal acumen with the well-
schooled understanding of military operations and requirements.
navy judge advocate general corps
Question. The Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) recently completed a
study of manpower requirements for the Navy in which it concluded that
the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps was significantly under
strength for its mission, including combat service support of Marine
Corps' units and Task Force 134 in Iraq.
What is your understanding of the CNA study's findings with respect
to manpower in the Navy JAG Corps?
Answer. I am not familiar with the CNA study. If confirmed, I will
review this report and consider its recommendations.
Question. What is your understanding of the sufficiency of the
number of active-duty judge advocates in the Marine Corps to provide
legal support for all the Marine Corps' missions?
Answer. At this time, I am not aware of the overall manpower needs
of the legal community within the Navy or Marine Corps. If confirmed, I
will evaluate this issue.
Question. If confirmed, will you review the judge advocate manning
within the Navy and Marine Corps and determine whether current active-
duty strengths are adequate?
Answer. Yes.
prevention and response to sexual assaults
Question. What is your evaluation of the progress to date made by
the Navy and Marine Corps in preventing and responding adequately to
incidents of sexual assault?
Answer. I am aware that the Navy and Marine Corps have undertaken
several important measures to address the prevention and response to
sexual assaults. I have not had an opportunity to fully review these
programs. However, as a former Marine commander, I know these programs
are critically important. If confirmed, they will receive my sustained
attention.
Question. What problems do you foresee, if any, in implementing
current policies with respect to confidential, restricted reporting of
sexual assaults by sailors and marines?
Answer. At this time, I am not aware of any problems in
implementing current sexual assault reporting programs. If confirmed, I
will evaluate policy implementation as part of a Departmental review of
sexual assault prevention and response programs.
Question. If confirmed, what actions do you plan to take to ensure
that senior civilian leaders of the Department of the Navy have ongoing
visibility into incidents of sexual assault and the effectiveness of
policies aimed at preventing and responding appropriately to such
incidents?
Answer. If confirmed, I will evaluate the current reporting and
response policies and systems accessible to senior civilian leaders in
the Department to determine whether any modifications would be
appropriate.
preventing sexual harassment and violence
Question. The Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence
at the Military Service Academies reported that ``Historically, sexual
harassment and sexual assault have been inadequately addressed at both
Academies [United States Military Academy and United States Naval
Academy]. Harassment is the more prevalent and corrosive problem,
creating an environment in which sexual assault is more likely to
occur. Although progress has been made, hostile attitudes and
inappropriate actions toward women, and the toleration of these by some
cadets and midshipmen, continue to hinder the establishment of a safe
and professional environment in which to prepare military officers.
Much of the solution to preventing this behavior rests with cadets and
midshipmen themselves.''
If confirmed, what actions would you take to encourage not only
midshipmen but also all sailors and marines to step up to their
responsibility to create a culture where sexual harassment and sexual
assault are not tolerated?
Answer. Sexual harassment and assault cannot be tolerated. If
confirmed, I will evaluate the current culture along with reporting and
response policies to determine whether or not modifications would be
appropriate.
personnel and health benefit costs
Question. The cost of the Defense Health Program, like the cost of
medical care nation-wide, is escalating rapidly. Similarly, the cost of
personnel as a key component of the Services' budgets has risen
significantly in recent years.
If confirmed, how would you approach the issue of rising health
care and personnel costs?
Answer. Costs associated with personnel are by far the largest part
of the Department's budget. A key priority is to operate as efficiently
and effectively as possible with respect to utilization of personnel.
The military and civilian force structure must be right sized for the
mission but not any larger than necessary. As stewards of the
taxpayer's money, the Department needs to utilize the fiscal resources
it dedicates for personnel in the optimum manner. A key part of this
thought process is to ensure that the Department apportions that part
of the budget devoted to personnel on those benefits that deliver the
best value to naval personnel. Medical is just one piece of the overall
benefit package.
If confirmed, I will seek new options and approaches to address the
rising cost of health care and other personnel costs and work with the
Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Navy, and Congress to address
this critical matter, while ensuring that our sailors and marines have
access to the quality health care they deserve.
quality of life programs
Question. If confirmed, what priorities would you establish to
ensure that military quality of life programs are sustained and
improved for Navy and Marine Corps members and their families?
What challenges do you foresee in sustaining quality of life
programs, and are there new initiatives that you would undertake, if
confirmed, to ensure the availability of high quality services,
including child care, education, and recreational opportunities, for
sailors and marines and their families?
Answer. Navy and Marine Corps personnel of all ranks deserve high
quality family programs. Family health is as important a component of
personnel readiness as the personal health of sailors and marines.
Quality of life programs enable the Department of the Navy to compete
in the job market to attract and recruit bright, talented young people.
Those same high quality programs are essential to provide the level of
personal and job satisfaction that allows the Department to retain our
best and brightest Sailors and Marines. If confirmed, I will work with
the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Secretary of the
Navy, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs,
and Navy and Marine Corps leaders to ensure we are focused on the
quality of life programs that meet the needs of all naval personnel.
family support
Question. What do you consider to be the most important family
readiness issues in the Navy and Marine Corps, and, if confirmed, what
role would you play to ensure that family readiness needs are addressed
and adequately resourced?
Answer. As a former dependent of an active duty marine, and later a
husband and father in an active duty military family, I have a keen
appreciation for the importance of family readiness programs and
issues. I consider all family readiness issues to be important. If
confirmed, I will take a close personal interest in Navy and Marine
Corps family readiness programs, and will strive to meet all family
readiness needs throughout the Navy-Marine Corps team.
Question. If confirmed, how would you address these family
readiness needs in light of global rebasing, BRAC, deployments, and the
recent growth in the active-duty end strength of the Marine Corps?
Answer. I do not have the detailed information needed to answer
this question. If confirmed, I intend to closely follow all rebasing,
BRAC, and manpower and family readiness issues, and take the actions
necessary to provide Navy and Marine families with the best support
possible.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure support to Reserve
component families related to mobilization, deployment and family
readiness, as well as active duty families who do not reside near a
military installation?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work with the Secretary of the
Navy to maintain focus and commitment to the quality of life needs of
all Navy personnel, regardless of where they live.
suicide prevention
Question. Effective measures to prevent suicides remain a high
priority. The suicide rates in both the Navy and Marine Corps have
increased over the past 2 years.
What initiatives would you take, if confirmed, to improve the Navy
and Marine Corps Suicide Prevention Programs? If confirmed, how would
you seek to reduce stigma associated with seeking personal counseling
and eliminate policies and procedures that may inadvertently prevent
sailors and marines from seeking professional help for emotional or
mental health problems?
Answer. Over a 27-year career in the Marine Corps, I had to
personally deal with two suicides. Both were devastating for the family
of the servicemember who committed the act, as well as the
servicemember's parent unit. I am therefore deeply concerned about the
incidents of suicide in the Department. If confirmed, I intend to
leverage all tools available to improve the quality and access to
suicide prevention programs, to reduce the stigma associated with
seeking mental health treatment, and to consider new programs to help
families and units deal with the trauma of these devastating acts.
support for wounded, ill, and injured sailors and marines
Question. Wounded servicemembers from Operations Enduring Freedom
and Iraqi Freedom deserve the highest priority from the Navy and Marine
Corps 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.
How do the Navy and Marine Corps provide follow-on assistance to
wounded personnel who have separated from active service? How effective
are those programs?
Answer. I understand that the Navy has established the Safe Harbor
Program and the Marine Corps the Wounded Warrior Regiment. Both extend
support to the wounded heroes within the Navy and Marine Corps. Both
programs continue to offer support should a servicemember be separated
or retire due to medical issues, up through and including reintegration
to a community. An annual survey is used to determine the effectiveness
of these programs. These surveys help to develop best practices and
process improvements to optimize the success of these programs.
Question. If confirmed, are there additional strategies and
resources that you would pursue to increase the Navy's and Marine
Corps' support for wounded personnel, and to monitor their progress in
returning to duty or to civilian life?
Answer. If confirmed, I will determine if additional strategies and
resources are needed to ensure that wounded sailors and marines and
their families are provided with optimum medical care and nonmedical
care and support throughout their recovery, rehabilitation,
reintegration, and beyond. These men and women deserve no less.
Question. What measures would you take, if confirmed, to facilitate
the seamless transition of wounded, ill, and injured sailors and
marines from the DOD to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)?
Answer. I am not fully familiar with all of the programs that
exists, or how they are performing. However, if confirmed, I will work
to foster a seamless transition for continuity of service between the
DOD and VA systems of care.
Question. Would you propose any changes to the Navy's disability
evaluation system?
Answer. The Physical Evaluation Board manages the Department of the
Navy's disability evaluation system. If confirmed, I intend to review
the evaluation and separation process to ensure it is fair, thorough
and regimented for all servicemembers.
senior military and civilian accountability
Question. While representative of a small number of individuals in
DOD, reports of abuses of rank and authority by senior military and
civilian leaders and failures to perform up to accepted standards are
frequently received. Whistleblowers and victims of such abuses often
report that they felt that no one would pay attention to or believe
their complaints. Accusations of unduly lenient treatment of senior
officers and senior officials against whom accusations have been
substantiated are also frequently heard.
What are your views regarding the appropriate standard of
accountability for senior civilian and military leaders of the
Department?
Answer. Individuals should be held accountable for abuses of their
position and authority, regardless of their position in the
Department's hierarchy. Senior leaders must be held accountable through
the use of prompt and thorough investigation of complaints, as well as
prompt and appropriate treatment for offenders. If confirmed, I will
work with the Secretary of the Navy to enforce the highest ethical and
professional standards with the Department of the Navy.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
senior leaders of the Navy and Marine Corps are held accountable for
their actions and performance?
Answer. Individuals should be held accountable for abuses of their
rank and authority, regardless of their position in their Service's
hierarchy. Senior leaders must be held accountable through the use of
prompt and thorough investigation of complaints, as well as prompt and
appropriate treatment for offenders. If confirmed, I will work with the
Secretary of the Navy to enforce the highest ethical and professional
standards within the leadership ranks of the Navy and Marine Corps.
navy support to ground forces
Question. The Navy has been challenged to find new ways of
supporting the Army and Marine Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan by taking
on nontraditional support functions.
In your view, what are the kinds of nontraditional support the Navy
feasibly can provide, and what additional missions, if any, should the
Navy be assigned in the global war on terrorism? Given that these are
nontraditional roles for Navy personnel, what additional training and
equipment have been provided, or, in your view, need to be provided?
Answer. The U.S. Navy is fully committed to the fight against al
Qaeda and its extremist allies. Right now, the Navy has over 14,000
officers and sailors on the ground in the Central Command's Area of
Responsibility--more than they have afloat in the region. Some are
performing their traditional jobs, like Seabees and Explosive Ordnance
Disposal Technicians. Others are performing nonstandard roles, such as
commanding Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan. It is
vitally important that the Department do everything in its power to
ensure that those servicemembers who are performing nontraditional
roles receive the training needed to accomplish their assigned tasks.
If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary of the Navy to
ensure that this training is taking place.
Question. What procedures are in place for the Navy to assess the
potentially adverse operational effect on organizations from which
individual augmentees are drawn? If you do not believe these procedures
are adequate, what should be done to strengthen them?
Answer. As I understand it, the Navy has had to reduce readiness
both at sea and ashore to provide the numbers of Individual Augmentees
now requested by the Central Command. If confirmed, one of my top
priorities will be to understand fully the entire Individual
Augmentation process, and to work with the Secretary to minimize its
impact on fleet-wide readiness, while ensuring that the Navy continues
to support current operations wherever it is needed.
tactical aviation
Question. Several years ago, the Navy and Marine Corps began to
integrate their tactical aviation units.
What is your assessment of this initiative?
Answer. Execution of Tactical Air (TACAIR) Integration has been
challenged by the impact of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom requirements and the surge requirements of the Navy's
Fleet Response Plan that has resulted in what some consider to be a
present shortfall in Navy carrier air wing force structure. However, it
is my understanding that for the immediate future, Navy and Marine
Corps will continue to meet all of their TACAIR operational
commitments, enhanced by tightly integrated carrier air wings and
Marine air-ground task forces. If confirmed, I intend to review this
initiative and its ability to optimize the use of our Nation's naval
tactical aviation assets.
Question. The Department of the Navy is facing a potential
shortfall of strike fighter aircraft in the next decade even if the
Navy continues to buy F/A-18E/F aircraft and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
aircraft at the rate projected in last year's budget.
What is your assessment of this situation and what actions should
the Department of the Navy take to address this potential shortfall?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to review any detailed
analysis associated with it. Accordingly, I am unable to provide a
meaningful assessment of the situation at this time. If confirmed, I
intend to review the overall strike fighter issue in detail as part of
the 2009 QDR, and the strategies now in place to mitigate any
shortfall. I intend to work with the Secretary of the Navy, the
Secretary of Defense and Congress to achieve the best resolution for
the Department.
Question. What is your understanding of whether the Navy will
continue to operate the 10 carrier air wings that supported the fleet
of 11 aircraft carriers, or whether the air wing force structure will
be modified to reflect a planned reduction to a permanent level of 10
aircraft carriers?
Answer. Under current law, the Navy must maintain a force of 11
active carriers. The Secretary of Defense's recent fiscal year 2010
budget roll-out indicated that the carrier force would fall to 10
carriers in 2040, the result of moving to a build rate of 1 carrier
every 5 years. As I understand it, the Navy is seeking a legislative
waiver to allow it to temporarily reduce the carrier force to 10
carriers for a period of not less than 33 months, the period of time
between the planned retirement of the USS Enterprise, CVN-65, and the
planned commission of the USS Gerald R. Ford, CVN-68. I am not aware of
plans to reduce air wing force structure although I would expect this
issue, like all force structure issues, would be reviewed by the QDR.
If confirmed, I intend to follow this review carefully.
Question. What is your assessment of the current risk to the F-35
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program schedule during its system
development and demonstration phase?
Answer. Although I know the Navy and Marine Corps are both fully
committed to the Joint Strike Fighter program, I have yet to have the
opportunity to be briefed on the current status of the JSF program. I
am therefore unable to offer any program risk assessment.
Question. Alternatives for maintaining sufficient strike assets if
there are new schedule difficulties with the JSF program are limited.
It appears that the Department of the Navy's options for extending the
service life of existing F/A-18 aircraft are limited and procurement of
additional F/A-18 aircraft beyond those planned last year may be more
difficult with the Secretary of Defense's recent announcement of a
reduction of nine F/A-18 aircraft from the number originally planned
for the fiscal year 2010 program.
What other potential alternatives do you see for maintaining
sufficient strike assets if there were any additional slippage in the
initial operating capability date for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to fully review the Department's
tactical aviation requirements and plans. I will work to identify all
reasonable and affordable alternatives, if necessary, for maintaining
Department-wide tactical aviation and strike capability during the
transition to the Joint Strike Fighter program.
shipbuilding plan
Question. The Navy annually submits a 30-year shipbuilding plan.
The last shipbuilding plan included very optimistic assumptions about
unit costs of ships and excluded any funding for a replacement for the
current fleet of Trident ballistic missile submarines.
Do you agree that the 30-year shipbuilding plan should, in fact,
reflect realistic cost estimates and include all important shipbuilding
efforts for that document to be useful for decisionmakers? What level
of funding do you think the Navy will need to execute this plan, and
considering competing priorities, do you believe this level of funding
is realistic?
Answer. The Navy's shipbuilding plan will be an important item in
the 2009 QDR. The output of this activity should be a new 30-year
shipbuilding program. If confirmed, I will be able to review the data
supporting the plan, and provide an estimate of the level of resources
needed to execute the plan. As a general principle, I believe that any
Navy plan submitted to Congress should be based on the best estimates
available at the time, and fully consistent with expected future
resource streams. This is especially true for the Navy's 30-year
shipbuilding program, which has a disproportionate impact on DON
acquisition plans and industrial base calculations.
Question. To what extent should such commercial shipbuilding best
practices, and any others you may be aware of, be incorporated into
Navy shipbuilding programs?
Answer. Building warships is significantly more complex than
building commercial ships under any circumstances. The differences
compound when building warships at low rates of production. However,
there are some basic tenets that hold true in all construction
processes: smart development of requirements; completing design to the
greatest extent possible before construction; building in sequence; and
minimizing design changes once construction begins. If confirmed, I
will work with OSD, Secretary of the Navy, ASN for Research,
Development, and Acquisition, the naval shipbuilding enterprise and
industry to identify and implement those best practices and innovations
with the greatest potential for producing savings.
aircraft carriers
Question. The Navy decommissioned the USS John F. Kennedy in fiscal
year 2006. This decreased the number of aircraft carriers to 11.
Additionally, in the fiscal year 2006 budget request, the Navy slipped
the delivery of CVN-78 (USS Gerald R. Ford) to 2015, creating a 2-year
gap between the scheduled decommissioning of the USS Enterprise and the
availability of a new aircraft carrier. During this period, under the
proposed plan, only 10 aircraft carriers would be operational.
Recently, there have been reports that delivery of the USS Gerald R.
Ford could be further delayed because of technical difficulties with
the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS).
What is your view of the plan announced by Secretary Gates to
permanently change the aircraft carrier force structure to 10 from the
current number of 11?
Answer. I support the Secretary's announced plan to move carriers
to 5 year price points. As he stated, this would cause the Navy's
aircraft carrier force structure to drop from 11 to 10 after 2040
barring any change to future aircraft carrier production rates. I
understand that future aircraft carrier force structure may be reviewed
during the QDR. If confirmed, I will work closely with OSD, the
Secretary of the Navy, and the Navy to understand the reasons behind
Secretary Gates' recent decision, and any further changes that are
being contemplated.
Question. Is it Secretary Gates' plan to retire another aircraft
carrier when the USS Gerald R. Ford delivers to keep the carrier force
structure at 10 carriers?
Answer. I am not aware of any such plan. I expect this will be a
consideration for the 2009 QDR. I would expect any recommendation to
reduce the carrier force permanently to 10 carriers would be discussed
fully with Congress.
Question. If not, do you believe that this reduced carrier force
structure for a 2-year gap is supported by adequate analysis?
Answer. My understanding is that the Navy has taken a close look at
this gap and developed an appropriate mitigation plan. If confirmed, I
will work closely with the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that
sufficient carrier assets exist to support operational needs.
Question. How would the aircraft carrier presence requirements of
combatant commanders be met with only 10 operational aircraft carriers,
particularly if the 10 carrier force structure is made permanent?
Answer. I have not yet been briefed on specific combatant commander
requirements for aircraft carrier availability, or how these
requirements might be met with a temporary 10-carrier force. If
confirmed, I will review this matter.
surface combatants
Question. Until fiscal year 2009, the Future Years Defense Program
had plans for buying DDG-1000 destroyers until the Navy was ready to
begin procurement of a new missile defense cruiser, CG(X). During
budget deliberations last year, Navy leadership announced that the Navy
wanted to cancel the DDG-1000 program after building only two ships and
re-start the DDG-51 production line. Ultimately, the Secretary of
Defense decided not to cancel the third DDG-1000 that was requested as
part of the fiscal year 2009 budget.
In your judgment, can a credible and capable surface force be
sustained at the level of multi-mission surface combatant construction
the Navy currently plans, and if so, how?
Answer. Large, multi-mission surface combatants form the heart of
the Navy's battle force. Fully 88 of 313 ships in the Navy's current
313-ship battle force are guided missile cruisers and destroyers.
Whatever plans the Navy develops for its future fleet will revolve
around its ability to build and maintain an affordable surface
combatant construction program. I therefore support Secretary Gates'
recent fiscal year 2010 budget decisions on large surface combatants.
They appear to be made with the goal of developing a more affordable
long-term building plan for these type ships. This will be another
issue of great importance in the 2009 QDR. If confirmed, I will work
with OSD and the Secretary of the Navy to ensure the development of a
credible and capable surface combatant plan that best meets the needs
of the Nation and efficiently leverages the shipbuilding industrial
base.
Question. Has the Navy produced adequate analysis of the effects of
the new shipbuilding plan on the surface combatant industrial base?
Answer. While I have not had an opportunity to review a detailed
analysis on the current shipbuilding plan initiative. If confirmed, it
would be my goal to ensure that this plan is consistent with both force
structure needs and the objective of maintaining a viable industrial
base.
Question. In your opinion, how many shipyards capable of building
surface combatants does this Nation need?
Answer. This is a difficult question, and one I cannot answer until
gaining access to all of the data and information available to the DOD,
Department of the Navy, Congress, and industry. However, as Katrina
showed, having two yards is a very good hedge against natural or
manmade disasters, and provides an important national surge capacity in
case of a concerted maritime challenge. If confirmed, I will work with
OSD, the Secretary of the Navy, Congress, and industry to determine the
appropriate number of shipyards needed to efficiently build our surface
combatants.
ballistic missile defense
Question. Do you regard ballistic missile defense as a core mission
of the Navy?
Answer. Yes, defense against ballistic missiles of all ranges
should be an important mission for the Navy. If confirmed, I will work
to assure that the unique capabilities of the Navy are leveraged to
best effect in support of our Nation's ballistic missile defense
programs.
Question. Do you support the current division of responsibility in
which the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is responsible for ballistic
missile defense research and development and the services are
responsible for procurement of ballistic missile defense systems?
Answer. I generally understand that the division of responsibility
between the Missile Defense Agency and the services was outlined by
OSD, but lack the detailed knowledge to comment on this subject. If
confirmed, I would examine this question more carefully.
Question. What steps do you believe the Navy needs to take to
ensure that Aegis ships are available to provide radar coverage against
potential missile attacks?
Answer. Virtually all Aegis ships can be modified to allow them to
track and engage ballistic missiles. The Secretary of Defense announced
as part of his fiscal year 2010 budget roll-out that the Navy would
provide six more Aegis ships with these modifications. These would be
in addition to the 18 ships already modified. At this time, I do not
know if the Navy plans to convert more ships into ballistic missile
defense ships. If confirmed, I will work to understand the requirements
for ballistic missile defense ships and to ensure that the Navy
fulfills these requirements.
cruise missile defense
Question. In your view, how serious is the cruise missile threat to
the Navy?
Answer. Very serious. Cruise missiles such as the SS-N-27 Sizzler
are extremely difficult targets for fleet defenses. Moreover, as the
attack on the Israeli corvette Hanit during the 2006 Lebanon War
demonstrates, cruise missiles are proliferating even to non-state
actors. Anti-ship cruise missiles are an enduring threat to naval
forces.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that
the Navy is adequately addressing this threat?
Answer. The Navy's Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter-air
Program (NIFC-CA), which includes such components as the cooperative
engagement capability (CEC), E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, and SM-6 extended
range active missile is designed to counter advanced cruise missile and
air threats. However, I have not had the opportunity to be fully
briefed on these programs, and thus am not in a position to opine on
the specific steps needed to ensure a robust defense. If confirmed, I
will work with the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval
Operations to support the development and fielding of these and other
capabilities needed to meet this important mission.
navy force structure
Question. The Chief of Naval Operations has publicly stated that
the Navy has a requirement for 313 ships.
Do you agree with this requirement?
Answer. Since 1993, the stated requirements for the Navy's total
ship battle force (TSBF) have fluctuated in a narrow band between 305
and 346 ships, with an average requirement of 318-319 ships. The
current requirement for 313 ships came out of the 2006 QDR. The 2009
QDR will produce its number. If confirmed, I hope to take an active
role in helping to determine what this number should be, and to help
the Secretary of the Navy ensure the Navy's force structure
requirements are fully articulated to OSD and Congress.
Question. How would that goal change by implementing Secretary
Gates' plan to reduce aircraft carrier force structure from 11 to 10?
Answer. My understanding of the recommendation specified by
Secretary Gates is that the Navy's aircraft carrier force structure
could drop from 11 to 10 in the 2040 timeframe. As this change would
not take place for 30 years, it would be too early to assess force
structure changes that would result from a reduction in aircraft
carriers. If confirmed, I will support the Secretary of the Navy in his
efforts to determine the required Navy force structure for the future.
science and technology program
Question. Do you believe that the current balance between short-
and long-term research is appropriate to meet current and future
Department of the Navy needs?
Answer. I have not yet been briefed on the current balance between
short-term and long-term research, so cannot comment on it. As a
general principal, however, I believe a robust R&D effort is vital to
the future health of the Navy and Marine Corps team. If confirmed, I
will work with the Secretary of the Navy to maintain a robust
Departmental R&D program, and to evaluate our Navy's Science and
Technology Program to ensure an appropriate funding and balance.
Question. If confirmed, what direction would you provide regarding
the importance of innovative defense science in meeting Navy and Marine
Corps missions?
Answer. I firmly believe that innovative, high payoff research is
an integral part of any science and technology investment portfolio. If
confirmed, I would work with the Secretary of the Navy and the
Department's Science and Technology Corporate Board (Vice Chief of
Naval Operations, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, and ASN
RD&A) to ensure the Department of the Navy has adequately addressed
this critical area. I would also work closely with the Director of
DARPA, the Office of Naval Research, industry, and academia to leverage
their technology investments.
Question. If confirmed, what guidance would you give to ensure
research priorities that will meet the needs of the Navy and Marine
Corps in 2020?
Answer. If confirmed, I will provide guidance to ensure that a
balanced program of science and technology investment is created.
military space
Question. Do you believe that the current DOD management structure
for space programs sufficiently protects Navy space equities?
Answer. I cannot yet answer this question. However, the Navy and
Marine Corps both depend heavily on spaced-based combat support, and I
have a keen interest and background in military space systems and
operations. If confirmed, I will examine this matter closely.
Question. In your view, how actively should the Navy be engaged in
the management of space programs?
Answer. Very actively. Our cadre of naval space experts have long
played a critical role in ensuring space systems are appropriately
prioritized and realized within both the DOD and the Department of the
Navy.
Question. In your view, is the Navy adequately involved in the
requirements process for space programs?
Answer. I believe so. I do know DON space experts are involved in
the Joint Capabilities and Development System (JCIDS) and the National
Security Space acquisition process. However, if confirmed, I will
ensure that the Navy is fully involved in the requirements process.
Question. What is the Navy's appropriate long-term role in space
systems, other than as a user of space information and products?
Answer. Space has long been and will remain critical to naval
warfighting. The DON has been in the forefront of operationalizing
space. For example, the DON currently leads the next generation
narrowband system acquisition, Mobile User Objective System (MUOS). DON
also contributes with joint space S&T/R&D initiatives, Naval
Observatory enabling efforts as the provider of precise time and
positional data to GPS and other space assets, and direct participation
in the National Reconnaissance Office. If confirmed, I will work to
make sure the Navy continues its long tradition in developing
operational space systems and new applications for space-based combat
support.
joint operations
Question. If confirmed, what recommendations, if any, would you
have for improving joint force integration?
Answer. Joint Force Integration is essential for effective
warfighting. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of the Navy
to ensure a continual focus on joint integration as well as the
importance of commonality and interoperability across all services to
include the Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) nec essary to
develop future joint force commanders. I will also work to expand
interservice relationships, such as pursuing newAirSea battle doctrine.
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 indus try 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 Navy is investing enough in
its infrastructure? Please explain.
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to focus on the Navy's
overall infrastructure investments. If confirmed, I will work with the
Secretary of the Navy to ensure appropriate resources are directed to
enhancing existing and future infrastructure projects.
acquisition issues
Question. What are your views regarding the need to reform the
process by which the Department of the Navy acquires major weapons
systems? If confirmed, what steps would you recommend to improve that
process?
Answer. Acquisition reform is a top priority for President Obama
and Secretary Gates. I understand the Department of the Navy has
already taken significant steps to improve the acquisition process for
major weapons systems such as by implementing a new six-gate/two-pass
system. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that this six-gate/two-pass
system provides adequate oversight and flexibility for DON acquisition
efforts, and will work with OSD, the Secretary of the Navy, Congress
and industry to pursue continual improvement in the DON acquisition
enterprise.
Question. Department-wide, nearly half of the DOD's 95 largest
acquisition programs have exceeded the so-called ``Nunn-McCurdy'' cost
growth standards established in section 2433 of title 10, U.S.C. The
cost overruns on these major defense acquisition programs now total
$295 billion over the original program estimates, even though the
Department has cut unit quantities and reduced performance ex
pectations on many programs in an effort to hold costs down. Many of
those pro grams are being executed by the Department of the Navy.
What steps, if any and if confirmed, would you take to address the
out-of-control cost growth on the Department of the Navy's major
defense acquisition programs?
Answer. The aforementioned six-gate/two-pass system, has a system
to control program cost growth. However, I am not aware of the details
of this system, or if it is adequate enough to prevent future cost
growth. If confirmed, one of my top priorities will be to review the
system and to ensure that the Navy receives any negotiated system, item
or service on time and on cost.
Question. What principles will guide your thinking on whether to
recommend terminating a program that has experienced ``critical'' cost
growth under Nunn-McCurdy?
Answer. I agree with Secretary Gates that programs that
consistently under perform or are over cost should be immediately eyed
for termination. In the coming budget environment, programs that
experience critical cost growth under Nunn-McCurdy should be kept only
if there is a clear and compelling need for the program, and there are
no alternatives readily available. If confirmed, should a program
experience a critical Nunn/McCurdy breech, I will work with senior
leaders within the Department to thoroughly review and determine if
termination or continuation is in the best interest of the warfighter
and the taxpayer.
Question. Many experts have acknowledged that the DOD may have gone
too far in reducing its acquisition work force, resulting in
undermining of its ability to provide needed oversight in the
acquisition process. Do you agree with this assessment? If so, what
steps do you believe the Department of the Navy should take to address
this problem?
Answer. I agree that the Navy cut back its design and acquisition
workforce too far, which caused it to lose it ``technical authority.''
As I understand it, the Navy has taken sigmficant steps to increase its
acquisition workforce. If confirmed, I will work with senior Navy
leadership to identify gaps and needs and allocate the appropriate
resources to bridge those gaps. If confirmed, adequate oversight in the
acquisition process will be a top priority for me.
Question. Section 852 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008 establishes
an Acquisition Workforce Development Fund to provide the resources
needed to begin rebuilding the Department's corps of acquisition
professionals.
Do you believe that a properly sized workforce of appropriately
trained acquisition professionals is essential if the Navy is going to
get good value for the expenditure of public resources?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What steps do you expect to take, if confirmed, to ensure
that the Navy makes appropriate use of the funds made available
pursuant to section 852?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with senior Departmental leaders
to identify the most appropriate usages of these funds by reviewing the
needs identified by the warfighter and Navy programs.
Question. Would you agree that shortened tours as program managers
can lead to difficulties in Acquisition programs? If so, what steps
would you propose to take, if confirmed, to provide for stability in
program management?
Answer. Yes. Leadership consistency is a very important part of a
program's success. I understand that the Navy is working to provide
longer tours for Program Managers. If confirmed, I will review these
decisions to ensure we maintain leader-ship consistency and thereby
help ensure success of specific programs.
Question. Major defense acquisition programs in the Department of
the Navy and the other military departments continue to be subject to
funding and requirements instability. Do you believe that instability
in funding and requirements drives up program costs and leads to delays
in the fielding of major weapon systems? What steps, if any, do you
believe the Navy should take to address funding and requirements
stability?
Answer. Instability of any kind can impact a program. I understand
that the Navy has implemented the six-gate/two-pass system to provide
requirements review to avoid instability in a program. If confirmed, I
will work with the senior Navy leaders currently working requirements
and funding issues to ensure maximum stability for Navy programs.
Question. The Comptroller General has found that DOD programs often
move forward with unrealistic program cost and schedule estimates, lack
clearly defined and stable requirements, include immature technologies
that unnecessarily raise program costs and delay development and
production, and fail to solidify design and manufacturing processes at
appropriate junctures in the development process. Do you agree with the
Comptroller General's assessment? If so, what steps do you believe the
Department of the Navy should take to address these problems?
Answer. I understand that unrealistic program costs and schedules,
along with unclear requirements can cause delay and costs increases. I
am aware of the Navy's six-gate/two-pass system that was implemented to
avoid these very issues. If confirmed, my priority will be working
matters regarding the Navy's ability to obtain the negotiated for item
or service at the cost and date needed.
Question. By some estimates, the DOD now spends more money every
year for the acquisition of services than it does for the acquisition
of products, including major weapon systems. Yet, the Department places
far less emphasis on staffing, training, and managing the acquisition
of services than it does on the acquisition of products. What steps, if
any, do you believe the Navy and Marine Corps should take to improve
the staffing, training, and management of its acquisition of services?
Do you agree that the Navy and Marine Corps should develop processes
and systems to provide managers with access to information needed to
conduct comprehensive spending analyses of services contracts on an
ongoing basis?
Answer. The use of service contracts has grown. I understand that
the Navy has taken action to ensure more oversight with regard to
service contracts. If confirmed, I will work with Navy officials to
ensure that there is proper oversight on service contracts and that
appropriate training is provided to those individuals providing the
oversight.
Question. The last decade has seen a proliferation of new types of
government-wide contracts and multiagency contracts. The DOD is by far
the largest ordering agency under these contracts, accounting for 85
percent of the dollars awarded under one of the largest programs. The
DOD Inspector General and others have identified a long series of
problems with interagency contracts, including lack of acquisition
planning, inadequate competition, excessive use of time and materials
contracts, improper use of expired funds, inappropriate expenditures,
and failure to monitor contractor performance. What steps, if any, do
you believe the Navy and Marine Corps should take to ensure that its
use of interagency contracts complies with applicable DOD requirements
and is in the best interest of the Department of the Navy?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the Navy's usage of interagency
contracts and will work to ensure appropriate oversight and compliance
with DOD requirements.
Question. In the Budget Blueprint that supports the fiscal year
2010 presidential budget request, the administration committed to
``set[ting] realistic requirements and stick[ing] to them and
incorporat[ing] `best practices' by not allowing programs to proceed
from one stage of the acquisition cycle to the next until they have
achieved the maturity to clearly lower the risk of cost growth and
schedule slippage.'' If confirmed, what steps would you recommend to
help ensure that the Department makes good on this commitment?
Answer. I am aware of the Navy's six-gate/two-pass process that was
developed to establish set requirements and costs. If confirmed, I will
utilize that process to review programs and ensure defined requirements
and costs to avoid cost growth and delay.
Question. Recent congressional and DOD initiatives have attempted
to reduce technical and performance risks associated with developing
and producing major defense acquisition programs, including ships, so
as to minimize the need for cost-reimbursable contracts. Do you think
that the Department should move towards more fixed price-type
contracting in developing or procuring major defense acquisition
programs? Why or why not?
Answer. I believe that the usage of fixed or cost-type contracts
must be made on a program-by-program decision. If confirmed, I will
work closely with Navy officials to ensure the appropriate contract
type is utilized.
Question. Section 811 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008 amended
section 2306b of title 10, U.S.C., to ensure that the DOD enters
multiyear contracts only in cases where stable design and stable
requirements reduce risk, and only in cases where substantial savings
are expected. The revised provision requires that data be provided to
Congress in a timely manner to enable the congressional defense
committees to make informed decisions on such contracts.
Question. What types of programs do you believe are appropriate for
the use of multiyear contracts?
Answer. In general, I support multiyear contracts when they make
sense, as they help to generate substantial savings. If confirmed, I
will work with Navy's acquisition enterprise to identify those programs
where multiyear contracts provide the best value for the Department and
American taxpayer, and are consistent with other Departmental
priorities.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that a
multiyear contract should be used for procuring Navy weapons systems
that have unsatisfactory program histories, e.g., displaying poor cost,
scheduling, or performance outcomes?
Answer. I do not feel ready to offer a definitive opinion on this
question. If confirmed, I will work with DOD and Navy acquisition
professionals to determine when to use multiyear contracts.
Question. If confirmed, will you ensure that the Navy and the
Marine Corps fully comply with the requirements of section 2306b of
title 10, U.S.C., as amended by section 811 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year
2008 (Public Law 110-181) with respect to programs that are forwarded
for authorization under a multiyear procurement contract?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The statement of managers accompanying section 811 of the
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008 addresses the requirements for buying major
defense systems under multiyear contracts as follows: ``The conferees
agree that `substantial savings' under section 2306b(a)(1) of title 10,
U.S.C., means savings that exceed 10 percent of the total costs of
carrying out the program through annual contracts, except that
multiyear contracts for major systems providing savings estimated at
less than 10 percent should only be considered if the Department
presents an exceptionally strong case that the proposal meets the other
requirements of section 2306b(a), as amended. The conferees agree with
a Government Accountability Office finding that any major system that
is at the end of its production line is unlikely to meet these
standards and therefore would be a poor candidate for a multiyear
procurement contract.
If confirmed, under what circumstances, if any, do you anticipate
that you would support a multiyear contract with expected savings of
less than 10 percent?
Answer. I do not feel ready to offer a definitive opinion on this
question. If confirmed, I will work with DOD and Navy acquisition
professionals to determine when to use multiyear contracts.
Question. If confirmed, under what circumstances, if any, would you
support a multiyear contract for a major system at the end of its
production line?
Answer. Again, if confirmed, I would approach this question on a
case-by-case basis and rely on the advice of DOD and Navy acquisition
professionals to determine when to use multiyear contracts.
Question. What is your understanding of the new requirements
regarding the timing of any DOD request for legislative authorization
of a multiyear procurement contract for a particular program?
Answer. I have not been briefed on these requirements.
Question. What steps will you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
the Navy complies with 10 U.S.C. section 2366a, which requires that the
Milestone Decision Authority for a Major Defense Acquisition Plan
certify that critical technologies have reached an appropriate level of
maturity before Milestone B approval?
Answer. I have not fully reviewed this requirement and am not in
the position to provide an opinion. However, if confirmed, I intend to
work closely with DOD and Navy acquisition professionals to develop a
world-class Navy acquisition enterprise that is fully compliant with
associated laws.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logis- tics has issued a memorandum directing that the
largest DOD acquisition programs undergo competitive prototyping to
ensure technological maturity, reduce technical risk, validate designs,
cost estimates, evaluate manufacturing processes, and refine
requirements.
Do you support that requirement?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What steps will you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
the Navy complies with this new requirement?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with DOD and Navy
acquisition professionals to develop a world-class Navy acquisition
enterprise that is fully compliant with all associated laws and
requirements.
united nations convention on the law of the sea
Question. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) is currently pending in the Senate.
What are your views on U.S. accession to UNCLOS?
Answer. I strongly support accession to the Law of the Sea
Convention. Remaining a nonparty undermines our ability to further U.S.
national security interests.
Question. From a national security standpoint, what do you see as
the advantages and disadvantages to being a party to UNCLOS?
Answer. There are many national security advantages to acceding to
the Law of the Sea Convention. Joining the Law of the Sea Convention
will codify navigational rights, assist in the expansion of the
Proliferation Security Initiative, and expand our enforcement
authorities under international law.
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 des-ignated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Under Secretary of the
Navy?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
Question. 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?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Question Submitted by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
shipbuilding plan
1. Senator Kennedy. Mr. Work, I remain concerned about the Navy's
long-term shipbuilding plan and overall strategic direction. Despite my
repeated requests for information, the Navy has yet to provide Congress
sufficient justification in support of the proposal to truncate the
DDG-1000 program at three ships and, instead, restart the DDG-51
production line.
It's my understanding that the Navy's desire to shift from DDG-
1000s to DDG-51s is based on a belief that DDG-51s can be configured to
provide greater capability in ballistic missile defense, advanced anti-
ship cruise missile defense, and blue-water antisubmarine warfare. When
testifying before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower on
July 31, 2008, Vice Admiral McCullough stated, ``Modifying the DDG-
1000s to support these missions is unaffordable from the Navy's
standpoint.'' Congress still has not seen the analysis to support this
statement.
Accordingly, it's not clear to me that the Navy's path forward
makes the most sense. When considering DDG-1000's capabilities, it is
my understanding that:
SM-2 is included in the baseline, and relatively
modest research and development would allow the ship to also
employ SM-3 and SM-6 missiles in a ballistic missile defense
mission;
The DDG-1000 could be further optimized for the
ballistic missile defense mission through combat systems
modifications, and by perhaps deleting the Advanced Gun System
and replacing it with additional missile tubes;
The current DDG-1000 radar has more potential for
improvement to achieve the capability required to support a
more robust ballistic missile defense mission, as compared to
the radar on the DDG-51;
The DDG-1000 Operational Requirements Document already
articulates a requirement to provide area air defense
capability, and that the advances in capability provided by the
dual band radar are well suited to counter the Hezbollah threat
often cited;
The DDG-1000 has an integrated undersea warfare suite
that is not only capable of blue water and littoral anti-
submarine warfare, but is also capable of in-stride mine
avoidance; and
The DDG-1000 platform has more growth potential for
carrying bigger, more capable radars as well as other new
sensors and weapons.
It would therefore be helpful if the Navy provided a detailed
comparative analysis between the DDG-51 and DDG-1000. I believe this
analysis would entail providing complete cost data on a DDG-51, as
envisioned by the Navy after restart of the production line, and on a
DDG-1000 that has modifications the Navy believes are critical to
perform the ballistic missile defense, area-defense anti-air warfare,
and bluewater antisubmarine warfare missions driving the Navy's desire
to shift between platforms.
Additionally, the Navy has asserted that their plan to restart the
DDG-51 line would be budget neutral but, even if that were the case, it
is not clear to me that the ``budget neutral'' plan is neutral when it
comes to funding the workload necessary to support the surface
combatant industrial base. Therefore, I would like to see how many DDG-
51s the Navy plans to procure, budget quality estimates for that plan,
what effect that plan would have on the surface combatant industrial
base, and any associated termination costs while the Navy waits to
begin building the CG(X) in 2017. In past communications with the Navy,
I have a suggested format for providing some of the information
requested.
Similarly, the path forward to the next generation of surface
combatants, the CG(X), is even cloudier than it was last year. The Navy
has still not provided:
Analysis defining the differences in cost and schedule
arising from the need to accommodate new sensors and weapons to
counter the newly defined future threats, as compared with the
cost and schedule of the previous shipbuilding program;
A technology roadmap for transitioning to the CG(X)
missile defense cruiser that replaces the Navy's previously
preferred alternative of relying on the DDG-1000 program as the
baseline for such a transition; or
Any joint analysis by the Navy and the Missile Defense
Agency setting forth additional requirements for investment in
Aegis ballistic missile defense systems beyond those previously
programmed in budget requests and the associated Future Years
Defense Program.
For any cost comparison of alternative shipbuilding plans, I
believe Congress should be provided cost estimates that assume: (1)
improvements are made to the dual band radar only as necessary to give
the ship capabilities comparable to the radar envisioned for restarted
DDG-51s; and (2) improvements are made that would reflect a growth path
to greater capability while you are waiting on the CG(X) program.
I look forward to your assistance in obtaining this information so
that we may continue this important dialogue on surface combatant
production.
Mr. Work. The current 313-ship battle force target includes 88
``large battle network combatants''--large, multi-mission warships most
commonly referred to as guided missile cruisers and destroyers. This
number is far higher than any other category of ships in the Navy's
battle force. I believe it is imperative that the Navy develop a well
thought out and affordable building and maintenance plan for these
``workhorses of the fleet.''
The questions and arguments posed above are important ones. If
confirmed, I hope to examine them in great detail, using all of the
collected data in the Department of the Navy. Once I do this, I will be
able to give an informed opinion on them to the Secretary of Defense,
Secretary of the Navy, and to you and your staff.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
fiscal year 2010 presidential budget request
2. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, on April 6, 2009, Secretary Gates
announced how the fiscal year 2010 defense budget request will reshape
the priorities of the defense establishment. In so doing, he announced
his decision to cut dramatically or cancel various major weapons
systems. Are there any aspects of Secretary Gates' plan with which you
have any difficulty? Please explain.
Mr. Work. We fully support Secretary Gates' plan. In this
challenging fiscal and budgetary environment, we must look hard at
every requirement, every development plan, and every capability. We
must also demand performance from the acquisition community and
industry. The decisions by Secretary Gates on Navy programs were
consistent with these requirements, and very prudent.
In that regard, it is obvious that acquisition processes need
reform in some very fundamental ways. Regaining control of acquisition
processes is one of the most complex challenges that we will face. We
are especially drawn to efforts directed at establishing cost control
over out-of-control programs and making better use of independent cost
estimates. The recommendations of Secretary Gates are clear statements
that past behavior cannot continue.
3. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, what is your view of the aspect of the
plan that permanently changes the aircraft carrier force structure to
10 from the current number of 11?
Mr. Work. The Navy remains committed to a force structure of 11
carriers for the next several decades, a commitment that Secretary
Gates' April budget announcement supports. However, the Navy requests a
temporary waiver to operate 10 carriers during the period between
inactivation of USS Enterprise (CVN 65) and the commissioning of USS
Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). During this 33 months period, the Navy
assesses it can meet operational commitments by adjusting operational
and maintenance schedules.
4. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, what is your view of the aspect of the
plan that commits, to the exclusion of procuring other tactical fighter
platforms, to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program in light of the
development and technology risk still associated with that program?
Mr. Work. The Department of the Navy (DON) believes that JSF
development and technology risk are manageable. The JSF Program Office
is providing program-wide schedule and technology risk analysis in
conjunction with periodic Defense Acquisition Board reviews. The timing
of these reviews will ensure the analysis is available to support key
acquisition milestone decisions and budget discussions.
During the transition to the JSF, the DON is exploring a range of
options to meet its continuing strike fighter requirements. These
include supporting legacy aircraft; Service Life Extension Program
(SLEP)ing some number of F/A-18 A-Ds; and procuring more F/A-18E/F
Super Hornets. In this regard, the Navy is procuring F/A-18E/F Super
Hornets in fiscal year 2010 via a single year procurement in PB 2010.
The Department will continue to assess its TACAIR force structure and
inventory requirements through this summer's Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR).
5. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, in the budget blueprint that supports
the fiscal year 2010 presidential budget request, the administration
committed to ``set[ting] realistic requirements and stick[ing] to them
and incorporat[ing] `best practices' by not allowing programs to
proceed from one stage of the acquisition cycle to the next until they
have achieved the maturity to clearly lower the risk of cost growth and
schedule slippage.'' If confirmed, what steps, if any, would you
recommend to help ensure that the Department makes good on this
commitment?
Mr. Work. We fully support the increased emphasis on upfront
planning as specified in the 2008 changes made to DOD 5000.2 in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The defense
acquisition process needs improvement in the areas of systems
engineering, developmental test and evaluation, technological maturity,
and cost estimation, and that changes are needed to strengthen a
culture of acquisition excellence in the Department of Defense (DOD).
We support the administration's commitment to making trade-offs among
cost, schedule, and performance to significantly reduce cost growth in
major defense acquisition programs. We will also ensure that
requirements are defined and understood and that technologies are
mature prior to entering system development, thus reducing risks to
both cost and schedule.
acquisition reform policy
6. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, what are your views regarding the need
to reform the process by which the Navy acquires major weapons systems?
Mr. Work. We support the ``Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act
of 2009.'' We fully agree with an emphasis on sound cost estimation,
systems engineering, and performance assessment upfront to establish a
culture of acquisition excellence. These are all guiding principles
that underpin our vision as an enterprise committed to getting timely,
effective, and affordable solutions to our warfighters. A number of
acquisition process changes have recently been initiated that will take
some time to evaluate. However, we believe the emphasis on due
diligence during both the requirements and technology development
stages of any program should improve acquisition performance. We also
intend to stress and enforce discipline of all established processes.
7. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, if confirmed, what steps, if any,
would you recommend to improve the acquisition process?
Mr. Work. We are aware of the Department of Navy's two-pass/six-
gate acquisition process and will personally review its effectiveness
in supporting program execution and oversight. We need to put more
emphasis in the acquisition process on solid cost estimation, risk
tolerant schedules, and understanding where the technical risks are. We
also will insist on realistic plans for mitigating those risks.
Moreover, we both recognize and accept that when new technical problems
are identified we cannot hold cost and schedule constant. We believe
the emphasis on due diligence during both the requirements and
technology development stages of any program should improve acquisition
performance. We also intend to stress and enforce discipline of all
established processes.
In addition, the health of the defense and commercial industrial
base are critical to our national security. We will support
collaborative efforts between the government and industry in advancing
the state-of-the-art in science and technology in both basic and
applied research. We will also support technology development in all
areas that have potential military utility for the warfighter, to
deliver high performance weapons on target, more effectively,
efficiently, and at reasonable cost to the taxpayer.
8. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, department-wide, nearly half of the
DOD's 95 largest acquisition programs have exceeded the Nunn-McCurdy
cost growth standards established in section 2433 of title 10, U.S.C.
The cost overruns on these major defense acquisition programs now total
$295 billion over the original program estimates, even though the
Department has cut unit quantities and reduced performance expectations
on many programs in an effort to hold costs down. Many of those
programs are being executed by the Navy. What steps, if any and if
confirmed, would you take to address the out-of-control cost growth on
the Navy's major defense acquisition programs?
Mr. Work. We believe increased collaboration between industry and
Government early in the program formulation stage will ensure there is
a realistic balance. We must establish realistic baselines before
entering into system development which can only be accomplished with a
thorough understanding of warfighting requirements and the maturing of
technologies early in the process. Overestimating performance leads us
to proceeding with immature technologies while underestimating cost
leads us to compressing development efforts. Together these dynamics
lead us to taking on more risk, which often leads to cost increases and
schedule delays.
We will continue the process initiated last year to rebuild the DON
Cost Estimating Enterprise which was based upon an analysis of gaps
within the existing structure. This effort culminated with the release
of an instruction which reestablished the Naval Center for Cost
Analysis, enabled greater insight into the costs of Major Defense
Acquisition programs, and focused efforts on rebuilding the Naval
System Commands Cost Analysis centers. We will continue this effort to
ensure the Department meets increased demands across all cost
estimating functions including Earned Value Management, Operating and
Support analysis, and greater investment cost rigor in the early life
of the Department's acquisition programs. The DON Cost Estimating
community is continuing to take steps to rebuild and rebalance the core
cost estimating capabilities within the government to better establish
realistic cost analysis.
9. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, what principles will guide your
thinking on whether to recommend terminating a program that has
experienced critical cost growth under Nunn-McCurdy?
Mr. Work. The principles that will guide our decisions will be the
Nunn-McCurdy certifications as modified by the Weapons Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 on whether:
The root cause of the program's Nunn-McCurdy breach is
properly identified, understood, and correctable;
The program is essential to national security;
No alternative will provide equal or greater
capability at less cost;
New program or unit cost estimates are reasonable; and
Management structure for program is adequate to manage
and control unit costs.
We will use these certifications to evaluate a program for any
significant breach of its baseline and not just if it's a unit cost
issue.
10. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, recent congressional and DOD
initiatives have attempted to reduce technical and performance risks
associated with developing and producing major defense acquisition
programs, including ships, so as to minimize the need for cost-
reimbursable contracts. Do you think that the Department should move
towards more fixed price-type contracting in developing or procuring
major defense acquisition programs? Why or why not?
Mr. Work. Yes. We are committed to a thorough analysis that ensures
the right contract type at the right time that balances risk and
ensures best value to the government. We fully support the DOD policy
to examine the increased use of fixed-price type contracts in the
procurement of major defense acquisition programs.
s.454, the levin-mccain acquisition reform bill
11. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, recently, Chairman Levin and I
sponsored acqui sition reform legislation, titled: ``Weapons Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009.'' The legislation recognized that vital
to reforming how we buy the biggest and most expensive weapons systems
is to start them off right--by emphasizing sound systems engineering so
that we can obtain reliable technological readiness assessments and
independent cost estimates upfront. The more we understand technology
risk early and manage that risk, the less likely that such risk will
present themselves later in the acquisition process and blow out costs.
What is your assessment of that bill, and did we get anything wrong?
Mr. Work. We strongly support the spirit and intent of the
``Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009''. We agree that the
defense-acquisition process needs improvement in the areas of systems
engineering, developmental test and evaluation, technological maturity,
and cost estimation, and that changes are needed to strengthen a
culture of acquisition excellence in DOD. The DON is committed to
making trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance to
significantly reduce cost growth in major defense acquisition programs.
The DON is working closely with DOD to develop a common approach to
implementing the requirements. DON is already involved with acquisition
process improvements, such as implementing the two-pass/six-gate
governance in 2008, and is committed and working diligently to
implement required improvements that will require a longer-term
implementation cycle.
tactical aviation
12. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, the Navy is facing a potential
shortfall of strike fighter aircraft in the next decade even if the
Navy continues to buy F/A-18E/F aircraft and F-35 JSF aircraft at the
rate projected in last year's budget. What is your assessment of this
situation and what actions should the Navy take to address this
potential shortfall?
Mr. Work. The Navy and Marine Corps share a common invento of 623
legacy F/A-18 A-D aircraft. Navy and Marine Corps internate F/A-18 A-C
strike fighter squadrons into carrier air wings and Marine air groups
under the charter of TACAIR Integration (TAI). There are four
considerations to mitigate negative strike fighter inventory trends:
1. Maintain wholeness of the JSF program. Department strike
fighter inventory projections are based on the following
assumptions: the F-35B will reach IOC in 2012 and F-35C will
reach IOC in 2015; and that JSF will deliver at planned
quantities/cost. Any program slips, major costs increases, or
decreases to planned procurement quantities may exacerbate the
DON strike fighter shortfall.
2. Extending the service life of F/A-18 A-D Hornets. Over
half of the DON'S Hornets are beyond 6,000 flight hours,
towards a currently approved 8,600 flight hour service life.
Extending the service life of as many as 300 of these aircraft
is an essential element to maintaining available DON strike
fighter inventory through transition to JSF. Analysis is
ongoing within the Department to refine cost estimates and the
process for executing this service life extension.
3. Continued sustainment and support of currently fielded
legacy aircraft (AV-8, EA-GB, F/A-18 A-D) through transition to
JSF. These aircraft are the bulk of the Department's current
TACAIR inventory and require continuous support--including
program related engineering and logistics--though the end of
transition to JSF, currently envisioned to be out to 2023.
4. Additional investment in F/A-18E/F Block II Super Hornet
procurement. In PB 10, F/A-18E/Fs are budgeted for single year
procurement in fiscal year 2010. Future procurements are being
considered in the 2009 QDR.
The Department will re-assess force structure requirements and
inventory invest- ments this summer during the QDR.
13. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, in your view, should the Navy
continue to operate the 10 carrier air wings that support the current
fleet of 11 aircraft carriers, or should the air wing force structure
be modified to reflect a planned reduction to a permanent level of 10
aircraft carriers?
Mr. Work. The Navy remains committed to a force structure of 11
carriers and 10 air wings for the next several decades. However,
between the decommissioning of USS Enterprise and the commissioning of
USS Ford, the Navy requests to temporarily decrease its aircraft
carrier fleet from 11 to 10 ships. During this 33 month period, the
Navy will continue to require and utilize each of its 10 carrier air
wings (CVW) to meet its deployment schedule and to maintain its ability
to respond to emergent operational requirements.
14. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, alternatives for maintaining
sufficient strike assets are limited if there are new schedule
difficulties with the JSF program. It appears that the Navy's options
for extending the service life of existing F/A-18 aircraft are limited
and procurement of additional F/A-18 aircraft beyond those planned last
year may be more difficult with the Secretary of Defense's recent
announcement of a reduction of nine F/A-18 aircraft from the number
originally planned for the fiscal year 2010 program. What other
potential alternatives do you see for maintaining sufficient strike
assets if there were any additional slippage in the initial operating
capability date for the F-35 JSF?
Mr. Work. The DON is closely monitoring the JSF program. JSF is
currently scheduled for an F-35B IOC of 2012 and an F-35C IOC of 2015.
The Department is refining cost estimates and process for extending the
service life for as many as 300 legacy F/A-18 A-D aircraft from 8,600
flight hours to 10,000 flight hours through a service life extension
program--service life extension is completely within engineering
feasibility for this number of aircraft.
Maintaining JSF wholeness, continued support of legacy aircraft,
SLEP of F/A-18 A-D and continued procurement of F/A-18E/F are options
being pursued to provide the strike fighter inventory necessary to
support the DON's force structure requirements.
The Navy is procuring F/A-18E/F Super Hornets in fiscal year 2010
via a single year procurement in PB 10. The Department will continue to
assess its TACAIR force structure and inventory requirements through
this summer's QDR.
15. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, is it a viable solution to consider
purchasing additional F/A-18 Super Hornets, the only new strike fighter
aircraft in production? If not, how will the Navy expect to solve this
shortfall?
Mr. Work. Maintaining JSF wholeness, continued support of legacy
aircraft, SLEP of F/A-18 A-D and continued procurement of F/A-18E/F are
options to provide the strike fighter inventory necessary to support
the DON's force structure requirements. The Navy is procuring F/A-18E/F
Super Hornets in fiscal year 2010 via a single year procurement in PB
10. The Department will continue to assess its TACAIR force structure
and inventory requirements through this summer's QDR.
f-35 joint strike fighter program
16. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, the Services are planning on
purchasing approximately 2,450 JSFs at a cost of over $300 billion, a
sum that reflects a cost growth of nearly 47 percent beyond original
2002 estimates. Recently, the Government Accountability Office issued a
report on the JSF program that was critical of its past cost overruns
and schedule slips, and predicted that development will cost more and
take longer than what has been reported to Congress. In November 2008,
a Pentagon Joint Estimating Team reportedly said the JSF program would
require an additional 2 years of testing and would need another $15
billion to cover new development costs.
If the F-35 program costs continue to significantly increase and
the F-35 development does not go as well as promised--draining
resources from other priority programs that are needed by the Navy--
what actions would you recommend the Department take to remedy strike-
fighter shortfalls and preserve its limited procurement base?
Mr. Work. The DON believes that JSF development and technology risk
are manageable. The JSF Team closely monitors all risks and provides
program-wide schedule and technology risk analysis in conjunction with
periodic Defense Acquisition Board reviews. The timing of these reviews
will ensure the analysis is available to support key acquisition
milestone decisions and budget discussions.
The Navy and Marine Corps share a common inventory of 623 legacy F/
A-18 A-D aircraft. Navy and Marine Corps integrate F/A-18 A-C strike
fighter squadrons into carrier air wings and Marine air groups under
the charter of TAI. There are four considerations to mitigate negative
strike fighter inventory trends:
1. Maintain wholeness of the JSF program. Department strike
fighter inventory projections consider that F-35B will IOC in
2012 and F-35C will IOC in 2015, and that JSF will deliver at
planned quantities, as a foundation. The Department needs JSF
to deliver planned quantities at a delivery rate that supports
these planned initial operational capability dates. Any further
slips or decreases to planned procurement quantities further
exacerbates future DON strike fighter inventory issues.
2. Extending the service life of F/A-18 A-D Hornets. Over
half of the DON Hornets are beyond 6,000 flight hours, towards
a currently approved 8,600 flight hour service life. Extending
the service life of as many as 300 of these aircraft is an
essential element to maintaining available DON strike fighter
inventory through transition to JSF. Analysis is ongoing within
the Department to refine cost estimates and the process for
executing this service life extension.
3. Continued sustainment and support of currently fielded
legacy aircraft (AV-8, EA-6B, F/A-18 A-D) through transition to
JSF. These aircraft are the bulk of the Department's current
TACAIR inventory and require continuous support--including
program related engineering and logistics--though the end of
transition to JSF, currently envisioned to be out to 2023.
4. Additional investment in F/A-18E/F Block II Super Hornet
procurement. In PB 10, F/A-18E/F are budgeted for single year
procurement in fiscal year 2010.
The DON will continue to guide JSF development and update
assessments of costs and scheduled deliveries to the fleet. We will
monitor F/A-18 A-D flight hours flown and update cost estimates for
needed life extensions and sustainment. Procurement of additional F/A-
18E/F Super Hornets will continue to be a viable alternative in the
near term. All these factors will be taken into account when the
Department determines how best to satisfy the strike fighter force
structure needs established in the QDR.
shipbuilding plan
17. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, the most recent Navy 30-year
shipbuilding plan included arguably over-optimistic assumptions about
the unit costs of ships and excluded any funding for a replacement for
the current fleet of Trident ballistic missile submarines. Do you agree
that the 30-year shipbuilding plan should reflect realistic cost
estimates and include all important shipbuilding efforts for that
document to be useful for decisionmakers?
Mr. Work. The 30-year shipbuilding plan, as submitted to Congress,
reflects the best estimates for the ships included in the plan. The
near-term section of the future plan reflects cost estimates that are
predicted, in most cases, on existing production lines for ships either
currently being procured or very near the completion of contract
negotiations for their procurement. The period covered by about 10-20
years in the future, largely includes what we expect to be the economic
conditions that the shipbuilding industry will face and this too is
based on our best understanding of the labor rates and material cost
escalation that this industry will incur. The period beyond about 20
years, out to the end of the report, is a planning range and the costs
included in this part of the report reflect those costs that the Navy
believes to be affordable for the ship types that will be procured in
the period. Since there are essentially no designs to use as a basis
for the cost models, we believe that projecting an affordable cost for
these ships is the appropriate metric to use. This introduces
discipline in the expectations for what these ships should be able to
do since it is unlikely that there would be infinite resources
available for their procurement.
A majority of the ships in the 30-year shipbuilding plan have not
yet been designed and therefore cost must be based on the best estimate
of what the new ship will be including new technology, and appropriate
hull size and propulsion system. As more accurate cost estimates are
determined in future ship development, the Navy will adjust the average
annual investment objective or revisit individual ship and/or force
warfighting requirements as appropriate. Navy's goal in producing the
shipbuilding plan is always to provide a balanced capability, with
acceptable levels of risk that provides stable industry demand at
reasonable cost.
In addition to the National Security Strategy, the statutory
guidelines required the report to reflect the QDR. The latest QDR is
ongoing in parallel with the National Security Strategy work. Also, the
Nuclear Posture Review, which has direct bearing on the numbers of
strategic ballistic missile submarines, is due for completion incident
with submission of the fiscal year 2011 budget. In addition, a
Ballistic Missile Defense Review is ongoing and is also due for
completion with the fiscal year 2011 budget. These efforts will likely
have a substantive impact on the Navy's force structure requirements.
18. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, in your view, what level of funding
will the Navy need to execute its 30-year shipbuilding plan, and
considering competing priorities, do you believe this level of funding
is realistic?
Mr. Work. As the National Security Strategy is due for release this
summer, the Navy considers it prudent to defer its fiscal year 2010
report and submit its next report concurrent with the President's
fiscal year 2011 budget.
In addition to the National Security Strategy, the statutory
guidelines required the report to reflect the QDR. The latest QDR is
ongoing in parallel with the National Security Strategy work. Also, the
Nuclear Posture Review, which has direct bearing on the numbers of
strategic ballistic missile submarines, is due for completion incident
with submission of the fiscal year 2011 budget. In addition, a
Ballistic Missile Defense Review is ongoing and is also due for
completion with the fiscal year 2011 budget. These efforts will likely
have a substantive impact on the Navy's force structure requirements.
The President's budget submission for fiscal year 2010 represents
the best overall balance between procurement for future ship and
aircraft capability with the resources necessary to meet operational
requirements and affordability.
aircraft carriers
19. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, under his recently announced budget
plan, the Secretary of Defense proposed that only 10 aircraft carriers
be operational. But, we may need 11: the slip in the delivery of the
CVN-78 (USS Gerald R. Ford) to 2015 created a 2-year gap between the
scheduled decommissioning of the USS Enterprise and the availability of
a new aircraft carrier. That gap could be longer because of technical
difficulties with that carrier's electromagnetic aircraft launch system
(EMALS). What is your view of the plan that Secretary Gates announced
to permanently change the aircraft carrier force structure to 10 from
the current number of 11?
Mr. Work. The Navy is currently committed to an 11-carrier force
structure for the next several decades, and this commitment was
supported by Secretary Gates during his April budget announcement.
However, as you have pointed out, the Navy requires temporary
legislation to operate with 10 carriers during the period between
inactivation of USS Enterprise (CVN 65) in November 2012 and the
delivery of Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) in September 2015. Navy assesses it
can meet operational commitments during this approximately 33-month gap
by adjusting both carrier and air wing maintenance and operational
schedules. The carrier force structure, along with the entire
battleforce, is being considered in the QDR. EMALS development is
currently on track to meet the planned delivery of CVN 78 in September
2015.
20. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, in your view, should DOD retire
another aircraft carrier when the USS Gerald R. Ford is delivered to
keep the carrier force structure at 10 carriers?
Mr. Work. The Navy has no current plans to retire an aircraft
carrier upon delivery of USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). The Navy is
currently committed to an 11 carrier force structure for the next
several decades, and this commitment was supported by Secretary Gates
during his April budget announcement. However, as you have pointed out,
the Navy requires temporary legislation to operate with 10 carriers
during the period between inactivation of USS Enterprise (CVN 65) in
November 2012 and the delivery of Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) in September
2015. Navy assesses it can meet operational commitments during this
approximately 33-month gap by adjusting both carrier and air wing
maintenance and operational schedules. The carrier force structure,
along with the entire battleforce, is being considered in the QDR.
21. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, do you believe that the requirements
of the combatant commanders for an aircraft carrier presence be met
with only 10 operational aircraft carriers?
Mr. Work. The Navy can sustain current COCOM demand for carrier
presence with 10 operational aircraft carriers for a relatively short
and defined period of time with moderate risks by leveraging the
inherent flexibility of the Fleet Response Plan. Navy will continue to
evaluate projected COCOM demand and use the QDR and other strategic
planning rocesses to match carrier force structure to projected demand;
this requirement will be based on fiscal and operational risk.
submarine strategic weapons programs cost reimbursable contracts
22. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, for over 30 years the Navy has
manufactured and sustained its Trident submarine and other related
weapon systems under a cost-reimbursable contract. This is unacceptable
to me. After a 30-year procurement history, costs and design are (or
should be) stable and enough is (or should be) known, about technology
risk associated with those programs so that the Navy should be
contracting here on a fixed-price--not cost-reimbursable--basis.
However, the Navy's Strategic Weapons Programs (SSP), which
manufactures and sustains logistical support for nuclear submarines,
continues to award--inappropriately, in my view--multi-hundred million-
dollar cost-plus contracts for, among other things, the production of
the D-5 Trident Missile System. Why is there this anomaly with the
Navy's submarine programs?
Mr. Work. As the Fleet Ballistic Missile Program has matured over
the last four decades, SSP has developed and implemented an acquisition
strategy that maintains a primary focus on safety and reliability,
while managing cost risk at or below budget. Because of the strategic
importance of the system, any deviation from this successful
acquisition strategy could engender unnecessary unintended
consequences, and jeopardize the safety and reliability of the weapon.
At inception, during concept formulation and advanced development, Cost
Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts were used, placing maximum cost risk on
the Government, due to the overall program uncertainty and rapidly
changing requirements. As the program matured into full scale
development, the contract type moved along a continuum to Cost Plus
Incentive Fee (CPLF) with a conservative share ratio of 90/10 or 80/20.
Eventually, as the requirements stabilized the share ratio was
increased to 70/30 for initial production activities and 50/50 for
mature production efforts.
SSP has committed to transition the mature full-rate production
effort for TRIDENT II D5 Subsystems to fixed-price contract beginning
in fiscal year 2011. We anticipate that this will result in
approximately 50 percent of all contracted dollars being fixed price.
SSP is developing the transition plan for mature full rate production
items including the appropriate contractual and acquisition reviews to
support completion by 2011. As always, we will continue to monitor and
manage technical risk throughout this transition and make any
adjustments that are deemed necessary to ensure we maintain the
program's preeminent responsibility for safety and reliability.
23. Senator McCain. Mr. Work, will you look into this contracting
folly and ensure me that the Navy will begin awarding contracts on this
submarine program and other SSPs under fixed price-type contracts,
where appropriate?
Mr. Work. SSP has committed to transition the mature full-rate
production effort for TRIDENT II D5 Subsystems to fixed price contract
beginning in fiscal year 2011. We anticipate that will result in
approximately 50 percent of all contracted dollars being fixed price.
SSP is developing the transition plan for mature full rate production
items including the appropriate contractual and acquisition reviews to
support completion by 2011. As always, we will continue to monitor and
manage technical risk throughout this transition and make any
adjustments that are deemed necessary to ensure we maintain the
program's preeminent responsibility for safety and reliability.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Thune
strategic dispersal of the nuclear carrier fleet
24. Senator Thune. Mr. Work, the Navy has undergone and completed a
Final Environmental Impact Statement. The Secretary of the Navy, in
consultation with the Chief of Naval Operations, signed a Record of
Decision to develop a second nuclear-carrier homeport on the east coast
on January 14, 2009, and determined that it is in the best national
security interest of the Nation to homeport a nuclear powered aircraft
carrier (CVN) at Naval Station Mayport. During your Senate Armed
Services Committee hearing on April 28, 2009, understanding the
sensitivities surrounding this matter, I asked you what you thought of
strategically dispersing our carrier fleet on the east coast and
whether or not you agreed with the Navy's requirement to make Mayport
nuclear ready and continue the long-term practice of strategic
dispersal. At the time, you answered that you understood the issue and
that it was to be made part of the QDR but that you did not have enough
information to provide an answer as to how you felt about the Navy's
requirement. This was the culmination of 2\1/2\ years of effort to
ensure compliance with environmental regulations as well as strategic
needs. What is your view of strategic dispersal?
Mr. Work. The strategic dispersal of the fleet has long been an
issue of great im- portance to Navy leadership. The laydown of U.S.
conventional forces has also been a matter of great importance to DOD
leadership. Accordingly, as I understand it, the issue of fleet
dispersal is now part of DOD's global posture deliberations in the 2009
QDR. If confirmed, I hope to take part in any global posture
deliberations, and any debates over where our carriers are homeported.
25. Senator Thune. Mr. Work, do you understand its importance to
the Navy?
Mr. Work. The Navy's requirement for strategic dispersal can be
traced back to the turn of the century, when the United States built
and maintained separate Atlantic and Pacific fleets, and built a Panama
Canal to facilitate fleet concentration. Strategic dispersal remained
important throughout the Cold War, and remains important to this day.
The exact laydown of the fleet is derived from both strategic analysis
and judgment.
26. Senator Thune. Mr. Work, how do you view this Navy requirement
based on the information you have?
Mr. Work. The decision to address the carrier homeport decision as
part of the QDR does not diminish the importance of strategic dispersal
in any way. The QDR will likely try to balance the requirement for
strategic dispersal with the National Defense Strategy, joint force
requirements, and cost. If confirmed, I hope to be part of these
deliberations.
27. Senator Thune. Mr. Work, if confirmed, what role do you
envision playing in the QDR process?
Mr. Work. If confirmed, I hope to play an active role in the QDR
process. However, the Under Secretary of the Navy performs those duties
as prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy. As such, I would look to
the Secretary to direct my exact role in the QDR process.
28. Senator Thune. Mr. Work, do you believe it is important to
proceed with planning and design of the nuclear maintenance facility at
Naval Station Mayport based on the information you have?
Mr. Work. It is my understanding that additional decisions beyond
the recommended dredging and pier maintenance at Naval Station Mayport
will be made during the upcoming QDR. I do not have enough information
on the planning and design of a nuclear maintenance facility at Naval
Station Mayport to fully answer this question. However, if confirmed,
and if tasked by the Secretary of the Navy to do so, I will look
closely at this issue.
carrier numbers
29. Senator Thune. Mr. Work, section 5062 of title 10 of the U.S.
Code states: ``The naval combat forces of the Navy shall include not
less than 11 operational aircraft carriers.'' In your document,
``Strategy for the Long Haul,'' you project that the Navy will deploy
10 carriers from 2013 to 2038. As Under Secretary of the Navy, how will
you ensure that the legal requirement of not less than 11 carriers will
be met?
Mr. Work. If confirmed as Under Secretary of the Navy, I will work
to the best of my abilities to enforce any legal requirement
established by Congress.
anti-submarine warfare
30. Senator Thune. Mr. Work, in your February 2009 paper you
discuss increasing the submarine force. In light of last week's
demonstration of Chinese submarines in Qingdao, and the world's overall
increase in submarine construction, what do you see as the future of
anti-submarine warfare?
Mr. Work. Command of the seas depends on achieving and maintaining
undersea superiority. The proliferation of new, extremely quiet diesel-
electric submarines--augmented with air independent propulsion systems
that allow them to patrol for extended periods of time without having
to recharge their batteries--underlines the importance of maintaining
our undersea superiority. Antisubmarine warfare today is a ``team
sport'' that requires highly capable submarines of our own. The future
of antisubmarine warfare will include an increase in production of the
Virginia class SSNs to two per year. However, it will also require that
the Navy have a long-range maritime patrol aircraft, ASW helicopters,
ASW capable surface ships, unmanned systems, and even more advanced
capabilities to combat the growing threat. As a result, the Navy's P-8
Poseidon program, SH-60 Romeos, the LCS with its ASW module, the new
Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) UAV, and a robust ASW research
and development effort are as important to our future antisubmarine
warfare capabilities as our SSNs.
littoral combat ship cost
31. Senator Thune. Mr. Work, the Navy has requested two more
Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) in 2009. We anticipate, based on Secretary
Gates' words, three more to be requested in 2010. The Navy has two
designs for the LCS sea frame; one primed by Lockheed Martin and the
other by General Dynamics. Although originally a down-select to one sea
frame design was envisioned early in the program, recent comments by
Mr. John Young, USD(AT&L), indicates both LCS designs could be procured
in significant quantities. The Navy ultimately plans to procure 55 LCS
sea frames. It is my understanding that the Navy has deferred a
decision to choose one version over another of the LCS for a variety of
reasons. If the Navy were to choose to continue with two variants,
would it make sense to strive for as much commonality as possible in
fitting out those ships?
Mr. Work. As I understand it, the Navy desires to keep both
versions in production for an extended period of testing before
deciding whether or not to move to a single hull. As a general
principle, I endorse the idea of common combat systems with open
architectures as well as common ship systems. If confirmed, I would
work to make sure that smart LCS acquisition strategies are developed,
that commonality opportunities for the LCS ships are fully explored.
32. Senator Thune. Mr. Work, how will the Navy ensure commonality?
Mr. Work. Both component and system commonality opportunities
should be considered and business cases must be developed and evaluated
for each alternative to understand the acquisition and/or life cycle
cost savings and associated investment (if required) for them. A final
decision should be based on which alternative provides the greater
return on investment of taxpayer dollars.
33. Senator Thune. Mr. Work, do you think 55 is the right number
based on the information you have?
Mr. Work. The current requirement for 55 LCSs was developed during
the 2006 QDR. The requirement for 55 ships will be reviewed and
validated or changed during the 2009 QDR. However, Secretary Gates'
decision to accelerate the LCS buy indicates how important this
platform is to the future Navy. If confirmed, I hope to take part in
deliberations over the size of the future LCS fleet and the size of the
overall battle force.
313-ship navy
34. Senator Thune. Mr. Work, earlier this year, the Chief of Naval
Operations, Admiral Roughead, said, ``313 is still the floor when it
comes to the size of the fleet we need to carry out our maritime
strategy. The capacity of our fleet--the number of ships we have--
matters greatly today and I believe will matter even more in the
future.'' Are you committed to the Navy's uniformed leaders' plan of
building at least 313 ships?
Mr. Work. I am committed to providing the best, most balanced, and
most capable Navy possible within the confines of expected future
resource streams. I agree with Admiral Roughead that the fleet must
have both the capability and the capacity to accomplish the missions
the Navy is asked to fulfill. The exact numbers and types of ships
needed will be dependent upon our national strategy and projected Navy
toplines. I anticipate the ongoing QDR will help shape the necessary
makeup of naval forces and may change the overall battle force number.
If confirmed, I intend to take part in the deliberations over the size
of the future fleet.
35. Senator Thune. Mr. Work, do you believe that is the right
number based on the information you have?
Mr. Work. Since the 1992-1993 Bottom-Up Review, the requirement for
a ``two war'' fleet has fluctuated between 305 to 346 ships, with an
average of about 318 ships. The current requirement for 313 ships is
therefore consistent with past reviews. This number might change if the
national strategy changes, or if the DON is given different guidance
from the Secretary of Defense.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator David Vitter
navy ships
36. Senator Vitter. Mr. Work, what are your thoughts on the future
of shipbuilding, specifically the LPD-17?
Mr. Work. The DON must develop an affordable long-term shipbuilding
plan that provides the foundation for the future Navy force structure.
This stable long-term shipbuilding plan would reduce industrial base
volatility and allow the industry to better match investments to meet
Navy capabilities.
The Navy and Marine Corps have thoroughly discussed the number of
LPD-17 ships required. The CNO and CMC believe the requirement is for
11 ships. In the January 2009 Report to Congress on Naval Amphibious
Force Structure, the current CNO and CMC reaffirmed that requirement
and agreed to sustain an amphibious force of about 33 total amphibious
ships (30 operationally available) in the assault echelon, evenly
balanced at 11 aviation capable ships, 11 LPD-17 class ships, and 11
LSD 41 class ships. A summary of the broader amphibious lift agreement:
The amphibious lift requirement is to lift the assault
echelon (AE) of 2.0 Marine Expeditionary Brigades (MEBs).
The 33-ship force accepts risk in the arrival of
combat support and combat service support elements of the MEB
but has been adjudged to be adequate in meeting the needs of
all parties within today's fiscal limitations.
The Navy currently has a total of 31 Assault Echelon
ships in commission.
With respect to the LPD-17 Program, four ships have been delivered,
five additional ships are currently under contract and in various
stages of construction. A Request for Proposal for the design and
construction of the 10th ship of the program was released by the Navy
in May 2009 and funding for advance procurement for the 11th LPD is
included in the fiscal year 2010 budget request
The Navy is making a significant investment in expeditionary lift
capacity and will continue to work with the Marine Corps to meet
requirements within budgetary constraints.
37. Senator Vitter. Mr. Work, do you believe that commonality for
hulls should be utilized more and should be mandated to an extent to
realize cost savings?
Mr. Work. No, I do not believe commonality of hulls should be
automatically mandated. That said, the Navy and industry have stated
for several years that reducing the number of ship hull forms would
help stabilize the shipbuilding program and have the added benefit of
reducing cost. I support the idea of doing so.
In that regard, the Navy's long-range vision reduces the types and
models of ships, maximizes the reuse of ship designs and components,
and implements open architecture for software and hardware systems and
mission systems modularity. The Navy is proposing that variants which
leverage existing production lines be explored. For example, for
LCC(R), in addition to reviewing the land based solutions, there are
two ship variants being addressed in the AoA, LPD-17 and T-AKE. The
potential requirement for a LSD/LPD(X) is also being explored.
______
Question Submitted By Senator Susan Collins
313-ship navy
38. Senator Collins. Mr. Work, you have written extensively on
defense strategy. In your recently released report titled: ``The U.S.
Navy: Charting A Course For To- morrow's Fleet,'' you cited the minimum
two-war standard for the Navy's Total Force Battle Network, which was
supported by substantial analyses and 3 successive QDRs, was 346 ships,
with an average objective fleet target of about 320 ships. The Chief of
Naval Operations has stated that a fleet of 313 ships is a floor, not a
ceiling. Do you believe this figure is sufficient in light of the
requirements the Navy is facing today?
Mr. Work. The DOD is currently conducting a QDR, and three separate
reviews: Nuclear Posture Review; Ballistic Missile Defense Review; and
Space Review. All of these efforts will likely have a substantive
impact on the Navy's force structure requirements.
Until the Navy has completed these ongoing studies and determined
where the Nation's priorities are in these critical areas, it is
difficult to determine what lies ahead for Navy force structure.
Although, absent changes in the missions assigned to the Navy, both in
combat scenarios and in the complex security environment of today, we
are committed to building a force structure that does not place our
sailors, airmen, and marines at risk in the event they are called upon
to complete their assignments--whether or not this is a 313-ship force,
we will ensure they have the tools they need to be successful in
pursuit of their mission and that they are able to do so without undue
risk.
______
[The nomination reference of Robert 0. Work follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 20, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Robert O. Work, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of the Navy,
vice Dionel M. Aviles, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Robert O. Work, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Robert O. Work
Robert Work is currently Vice President. Strategic Studies
at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA).
During a 27-year career in the Marine Corps, Mr. Work held a
wide range of command, leadership, and management positions.
His last assignment was as Military Assistant and Senior Aide
to the Honorable Richard J. Danzig, 71st Secretary of the Navy.
Since retiring in 2001, Mr. Work has focused on defense
strategy and transformation and maritime affairs. He has
written and spoken extensively on U.S. Navy and Marine Corps
strategies and programs: directed and analyzed three war game
series for the Office of Net Assessment, Office of the
Secretary of Defense; contributed to Department of Defense
studies on global basing and emerging military missions; and
provided support for the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. He
has also studied and prepared several reports on future defense
challenges, including the changing nature of undersea warfare,
power projection against regional nuclear powers, and power
projection against future anti-access/area denial networks.
Mr. Work earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology
from the University of Illinois; a Master's of Science in
Systems Management from the University of Southern California;
a Master's of Science in Space System Operations from the Naval
Postgraduate School; and a Master's in International Public
Policy from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International
Studies. He is a member of the International Institute for
Strategic Studies and an Adjunct Professor at George Washington
University, where he teaches defense analysis and roles and
missions of the Armed Forces.
------
[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 O. Work
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 Orton Work (Robert O. Work, Robert Work, Bob Work).
2. Position to which nominated:
Under Secretary of the Navy.
3. Date of nomination:
April 20, 2009.
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, 1953; Charlotte, NC.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Cassandra Baugher Work; formerly Cassandra Faye Baugher.
7. Names and ages of children:
Kendyl Taylor Work, 18.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
University of Illinois, 09/70-08/74, BS (Biology), 08/08/74.
University of Southern California, 01/78-01/80, MS in
Systems Management, 01/31/80.
Naval Postgraduate School, 06/88-09/90, MS in Systems Technology
(Space Operations), 09/27/90.
Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International
Studies (SAIS), 08/92-05/93, Masters in International Public
Policy, 05/26/94.
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.
I was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps on
August 8, 1974. I retired as a Colonel on September 1, 2001 (terminal
leave began in May 2001). The following is a list of my assignments
starting in May 1993. Start and end dates are approximate due to
travel/leave between duty stations:
May 1993-May 1994, Lieutenant Colonel, USMC, Director
of Operations and Exercise Support, Operational Support Office,
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), Washington, DC.
July 1994-May 1996, Lieutenant Colonel, USMC, 11th
Marine Regiment, Camp Pendleton, CA, Operations Officer, 11th
Marine Regiment Commanding Officer, 5th Battalion, 11th Marines
Executive Officer, 11th Marine Regiment.
July 1996-April 1998, Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel,
USMC, Director, Strategic Initiatives Group, Plans, Policies,
and Operations, Headquarters, Marine Corps, Washington, DC.
May 1998-Jan. 1999, Colonel, USMC, Commanding Officer,
Camp Fuji, Japan.
Jan. 1999-May 2001, Colonel, USMC, Senior Aide and
Military Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy, Pentagon,
Washington, DC.
Since retirement in 2001:
June 2001-March 2002, Senior Associate, Toffler
Associates, Reston, VA/Washington DC.
April 2002-Dec. 2006, Senior Fellow, Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington, DC.
Jan. 2007-present, Vice President for Strategic
Studies, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments,
Washington, DC.
Jan. 2007-present, Adjunct Professor, The George
Washington University, 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.
Career officer, U.S. Marine Corps, 1974-2001.
As member of Toffler Associates, provided consulting services to
the Air Force Air Combat Command and the Department of the Navy.
As a member of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments,
provided analytical support to the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, U.S. Joint Forces
Command.
Member, President-elect Obama's DOD Transition Team, Nov.-Dec.
2008.
Member, President-elect Obama's DOD Transition Team:
Team Lead, Navy and Marine Corps Programs
Member of Acquisition, Policy, and QDR Teams
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Vice President for Strategic Studies, Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments, Washington, DC.
Adjunct Professor, The George Washington University, Washington DC.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
See Question 11 above. In addition, I hold the following
memberships:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office held
Organization (if any) Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Institute for None 1974-present
Strategic Studies...............
U.S. Naval Institute............. None 1974-present
Marine Corps Association......... None 1974-present
Military Officer Association of None 1974-present
America.........................
Navy League of the United States. None 1974-present
American Association of Retired None 1974-present
Persons (AARP)..................
Services Employees Int'l Union None 1974-present
(SEIU) Local 500................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Assisted Richard Danzig and the Obama Defense Team during the 2008
Presidential campaign (point papers, critiques, etc.).
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
$1,000, Obama for America, Feb. 16, 2008.
$1,300, Obama for America, July 8, 2008.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Presidential Classroom for Young Americans, 1970.
NROTC Scholarship, University of Illinois, 1970.
Honor Graduate, Marine Corps Officer Candidates School, Quantico,
VA, 1973.
Distinguished Military Graduate, University of Illinois NROTC
program, 1974.
Honor Graduate, The Basic School, U.S. Marine Corps, Quantico, VA,
1975.
Honor Graduate, U.S. Army Field Artillery School, Fort Sill, OK,
1975.
Honor Graduate, Amphibious Warfare School, U.S. Marine Corps,
Quantico, VA, 1981.
Distinguished Speaker Award, U.S. Marine Corps Amphibious Warfare
School, 1981.
1st Marine Brigade Nominee for the annual U.S. Marine Corps
Leftwich Award, which recognizes the best small unit leader in the
Marine Corps, 1983.
Graduate (with Distinction), U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, 1990.
Astronaut Michael K. Smith Award for Outstanding Thesis, U.S. Naval
Postgraduate School, 1990.
Marine Corps Fellow, The John's Hopkins University School of
Advanced International Studies, 1993-1994.
Inducted into the Ancient Order of St. Barbara for Conspicuous
Service to Marine Field Artillery, 1995.
Marine Corps Attendee, MIT Seminar XXI: Foreign Politics,
International Relations, and the National Interest, 1997.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
The Challenge of Maritime Transformation: Is Bigger Better
(Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2002).
Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge, with Andrew
Krepinevich and Barry Watts (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments, 2003).
Naval Transformation and the Littoral Combat Ship (Washington, DC:
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2004).
``Small Combat Ships and the Future of the Navy,'' Issues in
Science and Technology,'' fall 2004.
To Take and Keep the Lead: A Naval Fleet Platform Architecture for
Enduring Maritime Supremacy (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments, 2005).
Thinking About Seabasing: All Ahead, Slow (Washington, DC: Center
for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2006).
`` `Economics' and Established Maritime Powers: Implications of the
New Maritime Strategy,'' William B. Ruger Chair Workshop Report No. 2,
U.S. Naval War College, 2006.
``On Seabasing,'' Reposturing the Force: U.S. Overseas Presence in
the 21st Century (Newport, RI: U.S. Naval War College Newport Paper
February 26, 2006).
Know When to Hold 'Em, Know When to Fold 'Em: A New Transformation
Plan for the Navy's Surface Battle Line (Washington, DC: Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2007).
``Numbers and Capabilities: Building a Navy for the 21st Century,''
in Of Men and Material: the Crisis in Military Resources, Gary J.
Schmidt and Thomas Donnelly, ed, (Washington DC: the AEI Press, 2007).
A New U.S. Global Defense Posture for the Second Transoceanic Era,
with Andrew Krepinevich (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments, 2007).
``The Global Era of National Policy and the Pan-Oceanic National
Fleet,'' William B. Ruger Chair Workshop Report No. 3, U.S. Naval War
College, 2007.
Range, Endurance, Stealth, and Networking: The Case for a Carrier-
Based Unmanned Air Combat System, with Thomas P. Ehrhard, Ph.D
(Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2008).
``A Cooperative Strategic for 21st Century Seapower: an
Assessment,'' CSBA Backgrounder, with Jan van Tol, March 26, 2008.
``The Global Era of National Policy and the Pan-Oceanic National
Fleet,'' Orbis, fall 2008.
The Challenges to U.S. National Security, with Andrew Krepinevich
and Robert Martinage, Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments, 2008).
The U.S. Navy: Charting a Course for Tomorrow's Fleet (Washington,
DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2009.
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.
``DDX,'' Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee
Projection Forces Subcommittee Hearing on DD(X), July 19, 2005.
``The 313-Ship Fleet and Navy's 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan,''
Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Projection Forces
Subcommittee Hearing on the Affordability of the Navy's 313-Ship Navy
and the Executability of the 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan, March 30, 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.
Robert O. Work.
This 27th day of April, 2009.
[The nomination of Robert O. Work was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on May 14, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 18, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Elizabeth Lee King by
Chairman Levin 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. At this time I do not see a need to modify any Goldwater-
Nichols Act provisions.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. 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
alternative.
duties
Question. Section 138 of title 10, U.S.C., and DOD Directive
5142.01, 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 the completion of responses to congressional inquiries.
Question. 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, one primary responsibility would be to be the
principal voice for Congress in the DOD and to ensure that their
concerns, actions, requests, and initiatives are addressed properly and
in a timely fashion. In addition, it would be my responsibility to keep
the Secretary informed of these congressional actions, requests,
concerns, and initiatives.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what other duties do you
expect that Secretary Gates will prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect Secretary Gates 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. Since March 1997, I have been the counsel and senior policy
advisor for defense, foreign affairs and veterans for Senator Jack
Reed, a senior member of the Armed Services Committee and member of the
Appropriations Committee. In that position, I have worked extensively
with the staff members of the two committees on the annual
authorization and appropriations bills. I have also worked with the
committee staff and Leadership staff on several legislative
initiatives, including the Levin-Reed legislation on the U.S. mission
in Iraq, and legislation increasing the end strength of the Army. I
also learned about the relationships between a Member of Congress and
the military installations in their States. Also, as a member of
Senator Reed's staff, I have traveled with him and other Senators to
areas where U.S. troops have been deployed, including Iraq,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Korea, Japan, Colombia, and Bosnia.
From January 1996 to March 1997, I was legislative director for
Congressman Marty Meehan, a member of the House Armed Services
Committee. I was his principal staffer for this committee and learned
the House process and worked with several members of the committee and
committee staff.
I was also a counsel for the 1995 Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission. In that capacity, I visited numerous military
installations and gained indepth knowledge of naval shipbuilding
capacity, depots, and air stations.
I have a law degree from Georgetown University and a BA from the
University of Pennsylvania.
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 the coordination of the DOD
legislative program, participation of departmental witnesses in
congressional hearings, responses to congressional inquiries, DOD
support of congressional travel, and I will be the Secretary's chief
liaison with Congress.
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 the 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 the DOD.
Answer. If confirmed I would exercise no authority or control over
the DOD IG. I would be fully cooperative and supportive of the IG's
mission.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. If confirmed my relationship with the Military Department
Secretaries would be principally through their Chiefs of Legislative
Affairs. I would diligently work to ensure that the military department
secretaries received the best assistance and congressional advice from
my office by fostering an environment of trust and mutual support.
Question. The Chiefs of Legislative Affairs of the Military
Services.
Answer. 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. 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.
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 the committees of
jurisdiction 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.
Question. Congressional liaison offices in the combatant commands
and other entities throughout the DOD.
Answer. If confirmed, I would routinely meet with the legislative
assistants to the combatant commands as well as the other DOD entities
to ensure responsiveness to this committee and Congress.
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 for the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Legislative Affairs is communication. I would work to
ensure that vital information is provided to Congress in a timely and
useful manner. If confirmed I would work to ensure 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 work diligently to ensure that the
legislative affairs function in the Department is properly fulfilling
its mission. I would review the organization and procedures of the
office to ensure they are best able to meet the title 10
responsibilities extended to this position. I would 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.
If confirmed, what steps, if any, would you take to coordinate the
activities of the various congressional liaison offices and ensure that
information provided to Congress is accurate, reliable, and represents
the views of the Department?
Answer. If confirmed, I will capitalize on my position within the
Department to foster an environment that promotes rapid communication.
Furthermore, I will ensure that the Department as a whole has an
inclusive congressional engagement strategy that promotes a unified,
accurate, reliable, and representative voice.
liaison with the appropriations committee
Question. Legislative liaison with the Appropriations Committees is
primarily carried out through the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense, Comptroller, not through the Office of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Legislative Affairs.
Do you believe that this arrangement allows you to 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 the
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.
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 make more timely submissions of
legislative proposals to Congress a priority. 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.
evaluation of legislative proposals and funding requests
Question. Every year, dozens of legislative proposals are referred
to the Armed Services Committee for consideration. In addition, the
committee receives hundreds of requests from Members to fund specific
programs, projects, and activities. The committee relies on the
Department to provide timely evaluations of these legislative proposals
and funding requests so that we can give full consideration to the
Department's views.
If confirmed, will you ensure that the Department makes every
reasonable effort to provide the committee with timely evaluations of
legislative proposals and funding requests?
Answer. Yes.
Question. How do you anticipate that you will work with the
military departments and agencies to ensure that these evaluations are
prepared and submitted in a timely manner?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the military departments and
agencies to ensure that all anticipate the requirement for the timely
turnaround of the evaluations and that they make every effort to
provide sufficient personnel and resources for their prepartation.
timely written statements and responses to questions and information
for the record
Question. Under DOD Directive 5142.01, the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Legislative Affairs is responsible for the coordination and
oversight of submission of responses to congressional inquiries and
reports and for the provision of information at congressional hearings.
The failure on the part of departmental witnesses to submit written
statements when required and 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.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to improve the
Department's performance in providing timely written statements and
answers to QFRs and IFRs?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work 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.
access to documents and materials
Question. In the course of oversight activities on behalf of the
Armed Services Committee staff frequently requests and receives
detailed briefings and materials on ongoing programs and activities of
the Department. The information requested sometimes includes
proprietary, source selection, or other sensitive categories of
information. From time to time, various officials of the military
departments and defense agencies have requested that the committee
provide a letter signed by the chairman, or a certification signed by
the staff member, as a precondition to providing such information.
These conditions are inconsistent with past practice and the historic
relationship between the Department and the committee.
What is your view of the circumstances, if any, in which it would
be appropriate for the Department to insist on a letter from the
chairman before providing documents and information requested by the
committee staff to carry out the committee's oversight responsibility?
Answer. Requiring written requests from the chairman is appropriate
where FOIA exempt materials or other materials that may have privacy
concerns are an issue. Though FOIA and its exemptions do not apply to
requests from Congress, only the chairman of a congressional committee
may make a request on behalf of Congress. Though privacy concerns also
do not apply to requests from Congress, the Department has certain
requirements that they must follow to protect such material and a
request from the chairman in the record assists the Department in
keeping their records complete.
Question. What is your view of efforts to change the Department's
historic practice and require a certification by committee staff before
providing documents and information requested by the staff to carry out
the committee's oversight responsibility?
Answer. I look forward to reviewing these processes if confirmed,
and working through related issues with Congress.
providing information to congressional support agencies
Question. Congress relies on its three support agencies--the
Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO), and the Congressional Research Service (CRS)--for information
and analysis. On defense matters, there have been instances where the
Department has not been as responsive and forthcoming in timely
providing relevant information to these support agencies as the
committee would expect.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that the
Department responds fully to GAO, CBO, and CRS and would you be
committed to ensuring that the Department cooperates with these
agencies in fulfilling their responsibilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will commit myself to ensuring that all
congressional inquiries, whether they originate from an oversight
committee or a supporting agency, are responded to in a timely and
effective manner. Furthermore, I will use my position of leadership to
assist the Services and other defense entities in doing the same.
legislative fellows program
Question. In Senate Report 110-335 accompanying S. 3001, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, the committee
called for a critical review by May 1, 2009, of the Department's
Legislative Fellows Program in order to ensure that the program is
organized, resourced, managed, and controlled consistent with the
career progression needs of the officers who are assigned and the
manpower requirements of their respective Services.
What is the status of the required review of the Legislative
Fellows Program?
Answer. It is my understanding that the review has been completed,
and the report is being finalized for submission.
Question. What is your view of the optimal number of legislative
fellows and what do you consider the appropriate role and
responsibilities of a legislative fellow within a Senator or
Congressman's office should be?
Answer. The current number, 100 per year, seems to be about right.
I am informed this number is divided among the Services and Defense
Agencies. The Legislative Fellow Program should be a unique educational
experience, and as such, fellows should be given real opportunities to
learn how the legislative branch functions and not be used for
administrative office roles. I will therefore work to ensure that the
fellows program is meeting the needs of Congress, the Services, and the
Defense Agencies.
Question. Have the Services fulfilled their responsibility to
ensure that legislative fellows immediately serve in billets that will
utilize the training and experience they have obtained as legislative
fellows?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Services are in compliance
with DOD policy which states there should be an immediate follow-on
utilization tour following the fellowship. However, in those few cases
where operational or professional development needs preclude an
immediate follow-on utilization assignment, the Military Department may
delay, or ultimately waive, this requirement.
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 processes?
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.
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.
Question. 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?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Question for the record with answer supplied follows:]
Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
base realignment and closure
1. Senator Collins. Ms. King, Senator Reed mentioned your
involvement in an earlier round of base realignment and closure (BRAC)
decisions. Regrettably, the Brunswick Naval Air Station in Maine will
be closing over the next 2 years due to the most recent BRAC decisions.
This is a major blow at the worst possible time economically. At times,
it has been difficult for the redevelopment commission to get prompt
information and cooperative answers from the Pentagon. Will you pledge
to help communities in Maine and elsewhere coping with base closures
get the information and assistance they need from the Department of
Defense?
Ms. King. Should I be confirmed, I give you my personal assurance
all requests for information from the Brunswick Naval Air Station
community and all other communities facing BRAC, can expect a timely
response. When notified of these types of requests, I pledge to work
with the appropriate Department stakeholders in responding to them
quickly and thoroughly. Further, I will strive to keep congressional
members and their staffs informed of the way ahead on these and other
important actions involving the communities which have served our
Nation proudly for so many years.
______
[The nomination reference of Elizabeth Lee King follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 20, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Elizabeth Lee King, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant
Secretary of Defense, vice Robert L. Wilkie, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Elizabeth Lee King, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Elizabeth L. King
Elizabeth King is the Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor for
Defense, Foreign Affairs, and Veterans for Senator Jack Reed (D-RI).
For the past 12 years, Ms. King has been Senator Reed's primary liaison
to the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Appropriations
Committee in the areas of defense, military construction, veterans, and
foreign operations. Ms. King has traveled with Senator Reed and other
Members of Congress to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Korea,
Colombia, and East Timor.
Before joining the staff of Senator Reed, Ms. King was the
Legislative Director for Representative Marty Meehan (D-MA), a Member
of the House Armed Services Committee. She was also a counsel on the
1995 Defense Base Closing and Realignment Commission.
Ms. King was born and raised in Chicago, IL. She received a
Bachelor of Arts, cum laude, in American history and international
relations from the University of Pennsylvania in 1987 and a Juris
Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center in 1993. She is a member
of the International Institute of Strategic Studies.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Elizabeth L.
King 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.)
Elizabeth Lee King.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs.
3. Date of nomination:
April 20, 2009.
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 18, 1965; Evergreen Park, IL.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Single.
7. Names and ages of children:
None.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
St. Ignatius College Prep, 1076 Roosevelt Road, Chicago, IL;
Attended 1979-1983; received high school diploma, May 1983.
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Attended 1983-1987,
received B.A. May 1987.
Georgetown University Law School, 600 New Jersey Ave., NW,
Washington, DC; Attended 1990-1993, received J.D. May 1993.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor; U.S. Senator Jack Reed, 728 Hart
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC; March 1997-present.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Active member, DC Bar.
Member, International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Member, University of Pennsylvania Alumni Club of DC.
Member, University of Pennsylvania Band Alumni Club.
Member, Georgetown University 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.
Daniel Hynes, Illinois State Comptroller, $100, June 2008.
Colleen Callahan, Candidate for Congress in Illinois, $100,
September 2008.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Member, International Institute for Strategic Studies.
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.
Elizabeth Lee King.
This 27th day of April, 2009.
[The nomination of Elizabeth L. King was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on May 6, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 7, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Donald M. Remy by Chairman
Levin 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 the
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 hope to have an opportunity to assess whether
the challenges posed by today's security environment require amendments
to the legislation.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. This milestone legislation is now more than 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, but at this time I have no specific proposals to amend any
provisions of the act.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the General Counsel of the Department of the Army?
Answer. Title 10, U.S.C., section 3019, 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. I understand
that a few 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, providing legal advice
to the Army Acquisition Executive, and taking final action on certain
claims filed against the Army.
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 with honors from LSU in 1988,
where I was a Distinguished Military Graduate and commissioned second
lieutenant in the U.S. Army. Thereafter, I was awarded an educational
delay and graduated cum laude and third in my class from Howard
University School of Law in 1991, having served as executive articles
editor of law review. Immediately upon graduation from law school, I
was selected into the Honors Program in the Army General Counsel's
Office where I served as a Captain and Assistant to the General Counsel
focusing on domestic and international research, development, and
acquisition. I clerked for the Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. I have been in private practice
at two law firms, presently a litigation partner at a prominent global
firm. I served in a variety of significant capacities, legal and
business, at a major U.S. corporation. At the U.S. Department of
Justice, I served as a Senior Counsel for Policy and Deputy Assistant
Attorney General for Torts and Federal Programs in the Civil Division.
I believe that my extensive experience in the Army, at the Justice
Department, in corporate America, and in private practice all 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 continued
Army transformation. Indeed, my familiarity with the Department of
Defense and with broader governmental legal practice has well 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 18 years of the practice of law, most of which
has been in 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. If I am
confirmed, I will work to broaden my expertise and 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.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of the Army would prescribe for you?
Answer. Although the Secretary of the Army 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 the legal staffs of other Federal agencies. I
anticipate that the Secretary of the Army will expect me to continue
the effective and professional working relationship that exists between
the Office of the General Counsel and The Judge Advocate General and
his staff. Finally, I anticipate that the Secretary of the Army 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. Although there is no direct reporting relationship to the
General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Jeh Johnson has made
clear in his testimony before this committee and his actions in the
Department, that he intends to work closely with the Service General
Counsels. If confirmed, I anticipate having a close and professional
relationship with Mr. Johnson, characterized by continuing
consultation, communication, and cooperation on matters of mutual
interest, in furtherance of the best interests of the Department of
Defense.
major challenges
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, one major challenge will be to continually
provide responsive, accurate legal advice regarding the broad array of
complex issues likely to arise in connection with the Army's role in
support of Joint Operations while simultaneously adapting its aim
toward a balanced Army for the 21st century. 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. At this time, I am
not aware of any problems in the current delivery of legal services.
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 in all of the Army's endeavors.
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 value added 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 will 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. If confirmed, I will work diligently to
adequately resource and expertly staff the Army legal community, in
order to guarantee decisionmakers at all levels access to the best
possible legal advice.
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 the support of
military operations. I anticipate that the other legal issues of
highest priority will arise from the Army's operational readiness to
meet the challenges posed by today's dynamic security environment while
simultaneously planning and executing broad strategic initiatives. I
will ensure that expert advice is provided to those engaged in the
Army's efforts to improve the acquisition process and eliminate fraud,
waste, and abuse. 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.
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. As an Assistant to the General Counsel of the Army from
1991-1995 I believe that I worked in a collegial and collaborative
fashion with the Judge Advocate General's Corps to deliver effective
legal advice to the Army leadership. Indeed, 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, as well as The Judge Advocate
General and I, 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. The law expressly prohibits 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
statutory requirement, 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 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 that
synergistic partnership in providing legal services to the Army.
Question. How will you ensure that legal opinions of your office
will be available to Army attorneys, including Judge Advocates?
Answer. It is my understanding that the majority of legal opinions
provided to Army attorneys and judge advocates are issued by the Office
of The Judge Advocate General, and that many of these opinions are
coordinated with the Office of the Army General Counsel. The close,
professional cooperation between the civilian and uniformed members of
the Army's legal community is absolutely essential to ensure legal
opinions issued by the Office of the Army General Counsel will be
available to all Army attorneys and Judge Advocates and vice versa. If
confirmed, I will seek to ensure that the Office of the General Counsel
appropriately makes available any legal opinions that it issues.
Question. In response to attempts within the Department of Defense
to subordinate legal functions and authorities of the Judge Advocates
General to the General Counsels of the Department of Defense and the
Military Services, Congress enacted legislation prohibiting any officer
or employee of the Department of Defense from interfering with the
ability of the Judge Advocates General of the Military Services and the
legal advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide
independent legal advice to the Chairman, Service Secretaries, and
Service Chiefs. Congress also required a study and review by outside
experts of the relationships between the legal elements of each of the
military departments of each of the military departments.
What is your view of the need for The Judge Advocate General of the
Army to provide independent legal advice to the Secretary of the Army
and the Chief of Staff of the Army?
Answer. The Judge Advocate General's statutory authority to provide
independent legal advice has repeatedly been recognized as essential to
the effective delivery of legal services. Uniformed attorneys bring
another perspective and can provide insight and advice shaped by years
of service throughout the Army. In today's environment, our senior
leaders must have independent, honest advice from their lawyers. Recent
history has clearly demonstrated why that independent advice is
critical.
Question. What is your view of the responsibility of Army Judge
Advocates to provide independent legal advice to military commanders?
Answer. Army Judge Advocates in the field have a critical
responsibility to provide independent legal advice to commanders given
the missions they perform. Army commanders deserve the best legal
advice available, and that is in part made possible when the Judge
Advocates know they can operate independently with appropriate advice
and guidance from supervising attorneys in their technical chain.
Question. If confirmed, would you propose any changes to the
current relationships between the Army's uniformed Judge Advocates and
General Counsel?
Answer. Based upon my knowledge and understanding to date, I
believe that uniformed Army Judge Advocates and the Army General
Counsel have an excellent working relationship. If confirmed, I will
continue to foster this professional and collaborative relationship to
ensure the effective delivery of legal services to the Department of
the Army. Yet, as all relationships are dynamic, I will continually
assess whether any changes or improvements are needed.
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. The Judge Advocate General has the primary responsibility
for providing legal advice and services regarding the Uniform Code of
Military Justice and the administration of military discipline. 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. I will, if confirmed, consult 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. I will also work with The Judge
Advocate General in safeguarding the integrity of the military justice
system.
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 understand that the Army continues to recruit and retain
top quality military and civilian attorneys. Through an extensive
professional development program, Army military and civilian attorneys
are ready to perform the full spectrum of demanding positions. I recall
that the Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School is the
cornerstone of the successful continuing education of these attorneys.
If confirmed, I will continue to monitor and assess recruitment,
retention, and advancement programs for our military and civilian
attorneys.
Question. In your view, does the Department of the Army have a
sufficient number of attorneys to perform its missions?
Answer. The Army's legal community has grown out of necessity in
recent history, and may need to adjust because of new mission
requirements. If confirmed, I will evaluate the adequacy of the numbers
of attorneys in the Department of the Army to accomplish the Army's
missions.
Question. In your view, what incentives to successful recruiting
and retention of attorneys, if any, need to be implemented or
established?
Answer. I am not familiar with the full scope of the Army's
programs for recruiting and retaining military and civilian attorneys,
but if confirmed, with the Judge Advocate General I will look at this
area very carefully and support initiatives that enhance the Army's
ability to recruit and retain those critical skills that give it
flexibility and ensure we have the right attorneys performing every
mission.
detainee issues
Question. What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in helping
the Department of Defense and the Department of the Army address legal
issues regarding detainees?
Answer. Addressing the legal issues regarding detainees is of vital
importance to the Department of Defense and the Nation as a whole. I
understand that the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of The
Judge Advocate General have representatives on a DOD General Counsel
subgroup convened pursuant to the President's Executive Orders. If
confirmed, I will work closely with the DOD General Counsel and this
subgroup in executing the President's directives. Additionally, in
coordination with The Judge Advocate General, I will provide advice to
the Secretary of the Army in his role as the Department of Defense
Executive Agent for the administration of detainee operations policy,
with particular focus on our obligation to treat all detainees
humanely.
Question. Section 1403 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006 provides that no individual in the custody or
under the physical control of the U.S. Government, regardless of
nationality or physical location shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment.
In your view, is the foregoing prohibition in the best interest of
the United States? Why or why not?
Answer. Yes, I firmly believe that this prohibition is in the best
interest of the United States. This prohibition is consistent with the
longstanding military tradition of applying the humanitarian provisions
of the Law of War to those individuals who, for whatever reason, are no
longer actively participating in hostilities and find themselves in
custody. Moreover, this prohibition is consistent with international
standards to which the United States is a party. As President Obama
recently noted, ``[a] democracy as resilient as ours must reject the
false choice between our security and our ideals.'' Prohibiting the
cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment of individuals in
our custody or under our physical control upholds our ideals and
reinforces our moral authority around the world.
Question. Do you believe that the phrase ``cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment'' has been adequately and
appropriately defined for the purpose of this provision?
Answer. Although the phrase ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment'' is, on its face, susceptible to broad interpretation, the
proscriptions on such conduct contained in the Department's
implementing directives, as well as the provisions of the Geneva
Conventions that are embodied in those directives, make it clear to our
soldiers what conduct is prohibited. If confirmed I will ensure the
Army's implementation of this policy in doctrine, to include training
manuals, is clearly understood.
Question. What role do you believe the General Counsel of the Army
should play in the interpretation of this standard?
Answer. The appropriate role of the General Counsel is to provide
advice to the Secretary of the Army and his staff on detention and
interrogation policies that implement this standard. If confirmed, I
will ensure Army implementation is consistent with the law, the intent
of the administration, and the guidance issued by the Secretary of
Defense.
Question. What role do you believe the Judge Advocate General of
the Army should play in the interpretation of this standard?
Answer. The appropriate role of The Judge Advocate General is to
provide advice to the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Army staff on
detention and interrogation policies that implement this standard. The
Judge Advocate General should also continue to train and supervise the
Judge Advocates in the field, who are so instrumental in attaining and
maintaining this standard.
Question. If confirmed, will you take steps to ensure that all
relevant Army directives, regulations, policies, practices, and
procedures fully comply with the requirements of section 1403 and with
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions?
Answer. I will. I believe the requirements of section 1403 and
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions continue to be essential to
maintaining a disciplined Army, bound by the Rule of Law.
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. I do. These standards have been instrumental in restoring
the confidence of the American people in the Army and will be
important, in the future, in guiding our soldiers in contingency
operations.
Question. Section 2441 of title 18, U.S.C., as amended by the
Military Commissions Act of 2006, defines grave breaches of common
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, including torture and cruel and
inhuman treatment.
In your view, does section 2441 define these terms in a manner that
provides appropriate protection from abusive treatment to U.S.
detainees in foreign custody and to foreign detainees in U.S. custody?
Answer. These sections of the War Crimes Act were necessary to
define the ``serious crimes,'' or ``grave breaches,'' of Common Article
3 to the Geneva Conventions. Defining these felony-level offenses was
important to complete international law obligations to define, with
specificity, the grave breaches which must be prosecuted under the law
of war. In addition, in order to complete the U.S. obligation to ``take
all measures necessary for the suppression'' of all other violations of
the law of war, other than grave breaches, I believe the Department
must continue to hold soldiers accountable for violations of these
standards. I understand that these obligations will continue to be
enforced through appropriate directives, training, and oversight.
contractors on the battlefield
Question. U.S. military operations in Iraq have relied on
contractor support to a greater degree than any previous U.S. military
operations. The extensive involvement of contractor employees in a
broad array of activities--including security functions--has raised
questions about the legal accountability of contractor employees for
their actions.
Do you believe that current Department of Defense and Department of
the Army regulations appropriately define and limit the scope of
security functions that may be performed by contractors in an area of
combat operations?
Answer. It is my current understanding that Department of Defense
Instructions currently define the limit and scope of security functions
that may be performed by contractors in an area of combat operations;
however, I have been advised that this instruction is currently under
review. Accordingly, it would be premature for me to offer an opinion
at this time regarding whether current Department of Defense and
Department of the Army regulations on the subject are adequate, and if
confirmed I will support this review as appropriate.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to such
regulations?
Answer. It would be premature for me to recommend any changes to
Department of Defense or Department of the Army regulations until the
review of Department of Defense Instruction 3020.41 is complete.
Question. Do you believe that current Department of Defense and
Department of the Army regulations appropriately define and limit the
scope of contractor participation in the interrogation of detainees?
Answer. I understand that the current Department of Defense and
Department of the Army regulations define and, if implemented properly,
limit the scope of contractor participation in the interrogation of
detainees
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to such
regulations?
Answer. I have no basis to propose any changes at this time. If
confirmed, I will review the applicable Department of Defense and
Department of the Army regulations to determine what, if any, changes
may be needed.
Question. OMB Circular A-76 defines ``inherently governmental
functions'' to include ``discretionary functions'' that could
``significantly affect the life, liberty, or property of private
persons.''
In your view, is the performance of security functions that may
reasonably be expected to require the use of deadly force in highly
hazardous public areas in an area of combat operations an inherently
governmental function?
Answer. There are many factual data points that may have an impact
on determining whether the performance of security functions that may
reasonably be expected to require the use of deadly force in highly
hazardous public areas in an area of combat operations is an inherently
governmental function. For example, I understand that support services
that require substantial discretion or prudent judgment are inherently
governmental, and that the likelihood that an individual will be
required to resort to force, especially deadly force, and the degree to
which an individual may be required to exercise force in public are
important factors to consider in assessing whether a particular
security mission is inherently governmental. Therefore, if I am
confirmed, I intend to examine this issue in greater depth to ensure
the Army's assessment regarding this issue is fully considered in the
ongoing review of its policies.
Question. In your view, is the interrogation of enemy prisoners of
war and other detainees during and in the aftermath of hostilities an
inherently governmental function?
Answer. I understand that under Department of Defense policy the
direction and control of intelligence interrogations--to include the
approval, supervision, and oversight of interrogations, as well as the
execution of those aspects of an interrogation that entail substantial
discretion--are inherently governmental activities. However, an issue
may arise to the extent that properly trained and cleared contractors
may be used to conduct government approved interrogations if they are
supervised and closely monitored throughout the interrogation process
by properly trained DOD military or civilian personnel. In my view the
conduct of interrogations is a dynamic activity that could create
circumstances that might cause a contractor to exercise discretion that
could significantly affect the life, liberty, or property of private
persons. As a result, the Department should continue to assess the
appropriateness of the contractors' role in an interrogation.
Question. What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in
addressing the issue of what functions may appropriately be performed
by contractors on the battlefield?
Answer. If confirmed, I will provide advice to the Secretary of the
Army and the appropriate Assistant Secretaries regarding the functions
that contractors may legally perform on the battlefield, and I will
assist them in implementing policies regarding the use of contractors
that are consistent with applicable statutory and regulatory
constraints.
Question. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) was
enacted in 2000 to extend the criminal jurisdiction of the U.S. courts
to persons employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces outside the
United States.
In your view, does MEJA provide appropriate jurisdiction for
alleged criminal actions of contractor employees in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and other areas of combat operations?
Answer. I understand that MEJA was intended to address the
jurisdictional gap in U.S. law regarding criminal sanctions, as applied
to civilians employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces outside the
United States, members of the Armed Forces, and former members of the
Armed Forces, including their dependents. In my opinion, MEJA provides
an effective means of exercising extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction
over contractor employees in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas of
combat operations who engage in conduct that would constitute a felony-
level Federal crime in the United States.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to MEJA?
Answer. I understand that legislation has been proposed in the past
that would expand MEJA to cover individuals employed under a contract
(or subcontract at any tier) awarded by any department or agency of the
United States, where the work under such contract is carried out in an
area, or in close proximity to an area (as designated by the Department
of Defense), where the Armed Forces are conducting contingency
operations. If confirmed, I will study this and assess whether this or
any other change to MEJA may be appropriate.
Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in
developing administration recommendations for changes to MEJA?
Answer. The General Counsel is responsible for the administration
of Army contracts and the supervision of Army civilian employees
potentially subject to prosecution under MEJA. If confirmed, I would
play an active role in the development of any proposals to change MEJA.
I would also coordinate closely with The Judge Advocate General in the
development of any such proposals given the complementary and sometimes
competing availability of jurisdiction under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ).
Question. Section 552 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007 extended criminal jurisdiction of military courts
martial under the UCMJ to persons serving with or accompanying an armed
force in the field during time of declared war or a contingency
operation, such as our current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In your view, does the UCMJ provide appropriate jurisdiction for
alleged criminal actions of contractor employees in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and other areas of combat operations?
Answer. The UCMJ provides commanders the tools necessary to
maintain good order and discipline and the morale, welfare and safety
of all those under their jurisdiction during military operations.
Because misconduct by contractors may undermine good order and
discipline, Congress extended UCMJ jurisdiction over such individuals,
and the Secretary of Defense, in turn, published guidance on the
prudent exercise of such jurisdiction. This guidance ensures that the
Department of Justice and the Department of Defense each play an
appropriate role in resolving whether, and under which system,
jurisdiction might be better exercised in each potential case.
Question. What is your view of the procedures agreed upon by the
Department of Defense and the Department of Justice to reconcile
jurisdictional responsibilities under MEJA and the UCMJ?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to review the procedures
agreed upon by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice
to reconcile jurisdictional responsibilities under MEJA and the UCMJ.
If confirmed, I will monitor cases in which MEJA and the UCMJ are
employed in coordination with The Judge Advocate General to assess the
effectiveness of the procedures and whether further refinements of
these procedures are necessary.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the UCMJ to
ensure appropriate jurisdiction for alleged criminal actions of
contractor employees?
Answer. At present, I am not aware of any specific provisions in
need of change
religious guidelines
Question. What is your understanding of current policies and
programs of the Department of Defense and the Department of the Army
regarding religious practices in the military?
Answer. As a former soldier and attorney in the Army General
Counsel's office and Civil Division of the Department of Justice, it
always has been my understanding that the Army's policies support
religious tolerance and respect. If confirmed, I would continue the
Army's apparent commitment to upholding the Constitutional tenets of
the ``free exercise'' and ``establishment'' clauses and review policies
as necessary to assure continued compliance with the First Amendment.
Question. In your view, do these policies accommodate the free
exercise of religion and other beliefs without impinging on those who
have different beliefs, including no religious belief?
Answer. I understand that, as they now stand, Army policies require
chaplains to support all unit personnel, regardless of their beliefs.
It is my view that these Army policies do accommodate free exercise of
religion. If confirmed, I am willing to study this issue further to
determine if changes in policy are necessary under the law.
Question. In your opinion, do existing policies and practices
regarding public prayers offered by military chaplains in a variety of
formal and informal settings strike the proper balance between a
chaplain's ability to pray in accordance with his or her religious
beliefs and the rights of other servicemembers with different beliefs,
including no religious belief?
Answer. I understand 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. In my opinion, these policies strike an
appropriate balance given the diversity of religious views in the Army.
If confirmed, I am willing to study this issue further to determine if
changes in policy are necessary under the law.
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 the
following:
a. Memoranda of Instruction that govern the conduct of
promotion selection boards and subsequent promotion selection
board reports.
b. Adverse information that is not in an officer's official
military personnel file that may be presented to the promotion
selection board. I have been advised that this information is
reviewed to ensure it is accurate and comports with the
requirements of title 10 such that the information is
``substantiated, relevant information that could reasonably
affect the deliberations of the selection board.''
c. Adverse information related to general officers. In
general officer cases, the standard for adverse information
that must be presented to a promotion selection board is ``any
credible information of an adverse nature.'' I have been
advised that the Office of the Army General Counsel
participates in a detailed screening process in which a panel
of senior officials reviews all credible information related to
officers whose records will be reviewed by a promotion
selection board for promotion to a general officer grade. The
panel ensures that all adverse information is properly
identified for presentation to the promotion selection board.
d. Adverse information that becomes available after a
promotion selection board makes its recommendations. I have
been advised that the Office of the Army General Counsel and
the Office of The Judge Advocate General coordinate in
providing legal advice to the Secretary of the Army so that he
may determine whether a promotion review board should be
convened to consider whether to continue to support the
promotion of the considered officer or take steps to remove the
officer from the promotion list.
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, 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 Memoranda of Instructions 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.
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. It is my understanding 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, accurate,
and comprehensible 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 an
individual case in which military personnel policies were not fairly
and lawfully applied, I would take appropriate action to ensure that
the case is properly resolved. I will coordinate with the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), who exercises
overall supervision of the Army Review Boards Agency, regarding the
legal sufficiency of materials and recommendations that the Army Board
for the Correction of Military Records is providing to senior
Department of the Army leaders. In addition, I am aware of and fully
respect the independent role that the Army Board for the Correction of
Military Records plays in the correction of military records.
sexual assault prevention and response policy
Question. Numerous cases of sexual misconduct involving soldiers
have been reported from 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 respond appropriately by providing basic services,
including medical attention and criminal investigations of their
charges.
What is your understanding of the resources 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. This is an extremely important issue for the Army and, if
confirmed, I will focus significant attention on this area. While I am
not fully aware of all Army initiatives or resources, 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. If confirmed, I will
study this matter in greater depth with a view to ensuring the Army
continues to take 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. In my opinion, the Army has taken several extremely
important steps in its campaign to prevent sexual assaults on female
soldiers at their home stations and when they are deployed. I have been
advised that the Army launched a new comprehensive sexual assault
prevention campaign in 2008. If confirmed, I will ensure that the legal
community fully supports this initiative and any others and will assess
whether additional steps need to be taken. If confirmed, I look forward
to working closely with Army leaders on this and other vital
initiatives to prevent sexual assault.
Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the training and
resources the Army has in place to investigate and respond to
allegations of sexual assault?
Answer. Presently, I am not familiar with all of the Army's
training and resources to investigate and respond to allegations of
sexual assault. If confirmed, I will assess whether additional steps
should be taken to support victims and hold offenders accountable.
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. 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 that they
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. Whistleblower protections for military personnel affirm 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. I believe
that these protections are essential to the integrity of our process.
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 required 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 examined 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 is your understanding of the conclusions and lessons that 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. Although I have not reviewed the study in detail, it is my
understanding that the study revealed that the Army is in compliance
with the requirements of the law relating to women in combat. It is
also my understanding that the Army's transformation to modular units
took into account and is in compliance with the current assignment
policy for women. Women have and will continue to be an integral part
of the Army team, performing exceptionally well in all specialties and
positions open to them.
Question. In your view, should the current policy regarding
assignment of women in combat be revised to reflect changing roles for
female soldiers?
Answer. At this point I do not believe that I have enough
information to make an informed judgment about whether the policy
should be changed. However, if I am confirmed and the Army determines
after careful study and deliberation, that there is a need to seek a
change to the policy, I will provide the Secretary with cogent legal
advice regarding the changes sought and ensure that the Army complies
with all of the notification requirements of the law.
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 revision? If so, what do you see as the major problems
and what changes would you suggest?
Answer. There appears to be a growing need for a systemic civilian
attorney professional development program that appropriately reflects
the tenets by which we have historically developed judge advocates. I
understand that there is a Working Group in the Army for the purpose of
assessing and recommending programs for the professional development of
civilian attorneys. If confirmed, I would work closely with all of the
entities affected by this issue to support the continuing and important
efforts of the Working Group and any other initiative deemed
appropriate.
client
Question. In your opinion, who is the client of the General Counsel
of the Department of the Army?
Answer. The client of the General Counsel of the Department of the
Army is the Department of the Army, acting thorough its authorized
officials.
legal ethics
Question. What is your understanding of the action a Department of
the Army attorney or an Army Judge Advocate should take if the attorney
becomes aware of improper activities by a Department of the Army
official who has sought the attorney's legal advice and the official is
unwilling to follow the attorney's advice?
Answer. Army attorneys generally provide legal advice to Army
officials in their capacity as representatives of the Department of the
Army. The Department of the Army is the attorney's client, and no
attorney-client privilege is established between the attorney and the
Army official. When an Army attorney advises an Army official, the
official may use that advice to exercise official functions. If an Army
attorney suspects that the individual Army official, either in the
exercise of functions or in the failure to exercise functions, violates
a law or standard of conduct, I believe that he or she should report
the potential violation. Potential violations of the conflict of
interest laws may be reported to Army criminal investigators; potential
violations of provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation may be
reported to the appropriate contracting officer; and potential
violations of the standards may be reported to an Army ethics
counselor, the head of the Army command or organization, the
individual's or attorney's supervisor, or the Army Inspector General
(IG), as appropriate. At all times, Army personnel and attorneys may
report any misconduct to the IG or criminal investigators, either in
person or anonymously.
Question. Do you believe that the present limits on pro bono
activities of government attorneys are generally correct as a matter of
policy or does the policy need to be reviewed and revised?
Answer. I understand that government attorneys may participate in
pro bono activities so long as the representation is consistent with
general governmental ethical rules and with the rules of professional
responsibility applicable to attorneys. I understand that Army civilian
attorneys may, for instance, perform pro bono work with supervisory
approval so long as the representation does not occur on Government
time or at its expense, does not interfere with official duties, and
does not create a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict
of interest. I understand the Army also operates legal assistance
program for soldiers and families, providing free services in areas
such as family law, wills and estate planning, tax law, landlord/tenant
matters, contract disputes, consumer law, and assistance during the
disability evaluation system. Although I am not aware of any need for
revision of the present limits, it is important that government
attorneys be able to participate in pro bono activities. If confirmed,
I would review the current policy in coordination with The Judge
Advocate General and recommend revisions, if appropriate.
Question. In your view, do the laws, regulations, and guidelines
that establish the rules of professional responsibility for attorneys
in the Department of the Army provide adequate guidance?
Answer. The Army has a comprehensive regulations, based upon the
American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct which
govern the ethical conduct of Army lawyers, both military and civilian.
All Army attorneys, military and civilian, must, at all times, be in
good standing with the licensing authority of at least one State,
territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. This regulatory system would appear to
provide adequate guidance; however, if confirmed, I would review the
current policy in coordination with The Judge Advocate General and
recommend revisions, if appropriate.
acquisition issues
Question. What role should the General Counsel play in ensuring
that Army procurement programs are executed in accordance with the law
and DOD acquisition policy?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary of the
Army, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology), and other senior Department of the Army leaders to ensure
that the Department of the Army's acquisition and procurement programs
are executed in accordance with applicable provisions of the U.S. Code,
as well as higher-level regulations and policy. Today's acquisition
professionals face the challenge of managing their programs' cost,
schedule, and performance while remaining in compliance with a myriad
of legal and policy requirements. I believe it is the responsibility of
Army lawyers to proactively assist their acquisition clients in meeting
that challenge. From the earliest stages of program development,
counsel should be involved in identifying potential issues and, where
appropriate, legally-compliant alternative courses of action. In those
rare situations, where an issue cannot be satisfactorily resolved, it
is incumbent on counsel to promptly elevate their concerns in order to
protect the Department's overarching interests.
Question. What role should the General Counsel play in ensuring
that ethics provisions on conflict of interest are followed both by
Army personnel and by Army contractors?
Answer. Structuring Departmental business practices to avoid both
personal and organizational conflicts of interest should be one of the
Army's highest priorities. If confirmed, I will work closely with the
Secretary of the Army, the Assistant Secretary (Acquisition, Logistics
and Technology) and other senior Departmental officials to promote an
organizational climate that is sensitive to the need to avoid conflicts
of interest and that reacts appropriately when specific issues arise. I
believe that Army lawyers can make a significant contribution to this
endeavor through the provision of acquisition ethics training and
through early and sustained involvement in the Department's acquisition
programs and procurement activities.
Question. Allegations of fraud and abuse during contingency
contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan have been wide-spread. What role
should the General Counsel play in ensuring that Army personnel are
properly trained in contingency contracting and are supervised in the
performance of their duties?
Answer. It is my understanding that the contracting workforce was
understaffed and not fully equipped to handle the resultant surge of
contracting actions in support of our Nation's missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan. This situation undoubtedly contributed to the widely
publicized increase in allegations of fraud and abuse in connection
with contracting in those theaters of operations. Secretary of the
Army, Pete Geren, responded by appointing Dr. Jack Gansler to lead a
special commission on contracting with the purpose of assessing current
conditions and providing a long-term strategic view of the Army's
acquisition and contracting system in support of expeditionary
operations.
If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary of the Army,
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology), and other senior Department of the Army personnel to
ensure that the legal community continues to fully support the
initiatives recommended and currently being implemented as a result of
the Gansler Commission's assessment. One of the Commission's
recommendations was to provide training and tools for contracting
activities that would equip contracting personnel to handle the
complexities of a contingency contracting mission for our warfighters,
while assuring proper fiscal stewardship of taxpayer dollars. If
confirmed, I will ensure the legal community is proactive in providing
timely legal advice and training of the highest possible quality to
effect the recommended Gansler Commission changes in compliance with
the letter and spirit of the law. I would also work closely with The
Judge Advocate General and the other Army legal qualifying authorities
to ensure that adequate legal resources are available to support the
contingency contracting mission.
role in the officer promotion and confirmation process
Question. In your view, what is the role of the General Counsel of
the Department of the Army in ensuring the integrity and proper
functioning of the officer promotion process?
Answer. As addressed above, 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. In addition to the legal review of memoranda of instruction
and selection board reports to ensure they comport with statutory
standards, the Army General Counsel must also ensure the conduct of the
board process conforms to all legal requirements. Additionally, the
Army General Counsel must advise the Secretary of the Army of any case
in which a selection board report or selection board process 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. Additionally, the Office of the
Army General Counsel coordinates closely on these matters with The
Office of the Judge Advocate General.
litigation involving the department of the army
Question. In your opinion, what is the relationship between the
Department of the Army and the Department of Justice with respect to
litigation involving the Department of Defense?
Answer. The Department of Justice represents the Department of the
Army in civil litigation. In general, my recollection is that
coordination on every level is timely and consistent. If confirmed, I
will work with The Judge Advocate General to ensure the continuation of
a collaborative relationship with the Department of Justice with
respect to litigation involving the Department of the Army.
Question. In your view, does the Department need more independence
and resources to conduct its own litigation or to improve upon its
current supporting role?
Answer. The Army's interests in civil litigation are effectively
protected and defended by the Department of Justice. If confirmed, I
will work with The Judge Advocate General to ensure that adequate
resources are available to ensure that the Army is able to provide the
appropriate level of support to the Department of Justice and protect
the Army's interests in civil litigation in which the department is
involved.
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.
Question. 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?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Mel Martinez
experience at fannie mae
1. Senator Martinez. Mr. Remy, the Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) Report of the Special Examination of
Fannie Mae of 2006 identified numerous accounting discrepancies and
management failures at Fannie Mae during the period from 1998 to 2004.
The report details a corporate culture where Fannie Mae employees
manipulated accounting and earnings to trigger bonuses for senior
executives from 1998 to 2004. Please explain your involvement as the
Deputy General Counsel and Vice President for Housing and Community
Development from 2000 to 2006 in the events described in the
investigation that led to the 2006 OFHEO Report.
Mr. Remy. During most of my tenure at Fannie Mae, I served as an
attorney in the Office of the General Counsel. In that capacity I was
principally responsible for advising on litigation, employment law,
antitrust, procurement contracts, internal investigations of employee
or contractor malfeasance, and building and maintaining a compliance
system for adherence to laws, regulations, and the Code of Conduct. I
did not perform any accountant functions, and made no accounting
judgments. Similarly, during my time in the Housing and Community
Development Division, I was not involved in any accounting activities,
but rather was responsible for humanitarian relief and investment in
rebuilding communities along the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita. More particularly, at no time was I involved in any way in
making any accounting judgment, including the specific accounting
judgments reviewed by the OFHEO, and I was not implicated in any way in
the errors that were the focus of the Special Examination conducted by
OFHEO.
The 2006 Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae issued by
OFHEO was the product of a multi-year review by the company's
regulator, focused on whether the implementation of certain accounting
pronouncements complied with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP). The original impetus was the December 2003 Report of the
Special Examination of Freddie Mac and an effort to determine whether
similar issues existed at Fannie Mae. During the course of its review,
OFHEO concluded that a number of accounting policies and practices--
including those relating to premium and discount amortization (FAS 91)
and derivatives and hedging activities (FAS 133)--had been erroneous.
OFHEO also addressed more general problems relating to accounting
policy development, poor segregation of duties of the CFO, and other
internal control deficiencies. All of these issues were described in a
211 page September 2004, Report of Findings to Date of the Special
Examination of Fannie Mae. As I played no role in the accounting
practices being reviewed, I was not mentioned at all in that report.
Subsequent to the September 2004 report, the Board of Fannie Mae
hired former Senator Warren Rudman and the law firm of Paul Weiss
Rifkin Wharton & Garrison (Paul Weiss) to conduct an independent review
of the issues identified in the OFHEO Report and any other issues they
deemed appropriate. Paul Weiss issued a 616 page report at the
conclusion of its review. While I was mentioned in that report
regarding my compliance roles and responsibilities, I was in no way
found to have engaged in any improper activity.
Further, in December 2004 the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) determined that the accounting policies of Fannie Mae
for both FAS 91 and FAS 133 departed from GAAP and advised the company
to restate its financial statements for the years 2001 through 2004.
Nothing regarding my conduct or matters falling within my areas of
responsibility was implicated in any way in the SEC's investigation.
OFHEO's Special Examination continued, as it looked into additional
accounting issues and other issues. In May 2006, OFHEO issued its 340
page Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae (the ``2006 OFHEO
Report'' or the ``Report''). Some of my appearances in this report were
identified in your letter and are discussed in summary below and more
fully in response to your specific questions. I am not certain if any
of these instances in which I am mentioned are responsive to your
requcst in this question for information regarding my ``involvement in
. . . events described in the investigation that led to the . . .
report.'' Nonetheless, I list them here in an effort to be responsive
and complete.
First, in the section of the report that is related to
OFHEO's regulatory authority, I am referenced regarding advice
and legal strategy discussed with the General Counsel. As a
Deputy General Counsel responsible for litigation it was part
of my job to engage with the General Counsel on matters that
might involve litigation. This is a reference to one such
conversation. This mention, which is discussed in further
detail below, however does not find that I am responsible for
any improper corporate culture, tone at the top, or regulatory
interference.
Next, I am referenced as having transferred
information in my official capacity to the external auditor
regarding an internal investigation. This reference
demonstrates that as the Chief Compliance Officer I properly
informed the external auditor of some issues raised by an
employee.
Another reference to me appears in a footnote
describing a memorandum that I wrote which reflected that the
Company's external auditor was at a meeting regarding an
internal investigation in which it was determined that certain
items had been properly accounted for. I was the supervisor of
some of the individuals who conducted the investigation into
allegations made by an employee that accounting amortization
practices were improper, allegations that his reporting
environment discouraged dissent, and allegations that he was
discriminated against. In my capacity as Chief Compliance
Officer, I wrote a memorandum to memorialize and consolidate
the final findings of these various investigations.
In another footnote my name appears as having been
cc'd on an e-mail from the General Counsel regarding responses
to a question posed by an employee in a town hall ``unplugged''
meeting held by the Chief Operating Officer.
Finally, I am referenced as having been given the
title of and certain responsibilities as Chief Compliance
Officer, which OFHEO found conflicted directly with my
responsibilities for managing the defensive components of the
Legal Department (i.e., litigation and employment.) OFHEO did
not conclude or even suggest that the potential for conflict
resulted in any instances of improper conduct or actual
conflicts that impacted my job performance.
Also, although not referenced in the Report, I
assisted in the efforts to produce documents and witnesses to
OFHEO to help facilitate its examination.
2. Senator Martinez. Mr. Remy, the 2006 OFHEO Report details that,
while you were serving in a senior position at Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae
over-reported its earnings by a total of $10.6 billion. Earnings
management made a significant contribution (approximately $52 million)
to the compensation of then Chairman and CEO totaling over $90 million.
We all know the ramifications of unethical behavior in the mortgage
market. Describe what you did in your role as Senior Vice President for
Housing and Community Development of Fannie Mae between 2003 and 2006
to prevent or mitigate these false earning reports.
Mr. Remy. In my role in as SVP, Housing and Community Development
from late 2005 until my departure in 2006, I was responsible for
developing a plan for humanitarian relief and investment in rebuilding
communities along the Gulf Coast most affected by Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita. Much of this time, I was on the ground with the victims of
the storms and community leaders in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,
Florida, and Texas attempting to help develop solutions to critical
housing issues. I had no role or responsibilities in that job with
respect to accounting or earning reports.
3. Senator Martinez. Mr. Remy, did you know of these false earning
reports?
Mr. Remy. I was unaware of the accounting errors that led to the
restatements of earnings or any false earnings reports or earnings
management that OFHEO concluded led to higher bonuses. Nothing in my
job responsibilities or my skill sets would have put me in a position
to have knowledge of those issues before the potential problems were
identified through allegations, investigations or examinations by
regulators. Once the accounting problems, which impacted earnings, were
identified the company withdrew its financial statements and
established a restatement team to mitigate the problems that had been
created. I was not part of those decisions or the restatement effort.
advanced policy question reponses
4. Senator Martinez. Mr. Remy, on answering the advanced policy
question (APQ) for the committee, ``What background and experience do
you possess that you believe qualifies you to perform these duties?'',
you failed to recognize Fannie Mae as your employer. At any time during
the vetting process for this nomination, were you advised to remove
references to Fannie Mae in your biography or this APQ? If not, why did
you decide to not be candid with the committee about your employment
with Fannie Mae?
Mr. Remy. No. I was never told to remove references to Fannie Mae
from my biography or my APQ response. I have tried, at all times, to be
completely and fully candid with the committee. Indeed, I clearly
stated my past employment with Fannie Mae in other materials I
submitted to the committee and in a courtesy call with committee staff.
In submitting my biography, I used one of several versions that I have
used in the private sector. That more summary version discusses certain
segments of my work experience generally, and does not expressly
reference Fannie Mae. That version, however, should never have been
used to respond to the APQ or sent to the committee, which has a duty
to carefully evaluate all of my experience and qualifications. That was
a mistake for which I take full responsibility. I have answered the
enclosed questions and other questions asked by the committee about my
tenure at Fannie Mae fully and frankly, as I am certain there is
nothing in my service there by which I cannot proudly stand.
office of federal housing enterprise oversight review of fannie mae
5. Senator Martinez. Mr. Remy, on May 23, 2006, James B. Lockhart,
Acting Director of the OFHEO said he found an ``environment where the
ends justified the means'' and ``there was a systematic effort by
senior management to manipulate accounting, reap financial rewards, and
prevent the rest of the world from knowing about it.'' Fannie Mae
agreed to pay $400 million as part of settlements with OFHEO and the
SEC. For the 6 years, you were a senior executive within Fannie Mae.
Can you explain your involvement in the OFHEO's investigation and in
the subsequent settlement?
Mr. Remy. OFHEO's Special Examination of Fannie Mae began in 2003
and ended with the release of its report in May 2006. Hence, my
involvement in the Special Examination did not begin until 2003. I
assisted in the Company's efforts to preserve and produce documents and
witnesses to OFHEO. I was not involved in the settlements with OFHEO
and the SEC.
pay and bonus structure while at fannie mae
6. Senator Martinez. Mr. Remy, the committee understands you were
employed with Fannie Mae from 2000 to 2006. Please provide a schedule
of your total annual compensation (including but not limited to your
annual salary and bonuses) for each of the 6 years you were employed at
Fannie Mae.
Mr. Remy. The following is a schedule of my salary, bonus, and
stock awards. I also have included the severance payments I received
upon departure. As the long-term stock and Performance Share Plan (PSP)
compensation are more complex and very difficult to value, I provide
you with the stock option or restricted stock award amounts. I never
exercised a single stock option that I was granted--which are all now
expired. Hence the actual value of all options received by me during by
entire 6 years with the company is $0.00. Moreover, many of the
restricted shares that I was granted were sold at a loss.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restricted Stock Awarded
Year Salary\1\ Cash Bonus Options Granted \3\ \4\ Severance \7\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000.......................................................... $160,000 $68,800 6,960 @ $60.84 2,000 shares
5,700 @ $77.10
2001.......................................................... $164,800 $92,000 3,680 @ $78.56
8,030 @ $80.95
2002 \2\...................................................... $215,000 $219,375
2003.......................................................... $235,000 $229,800 2,718 @ $69.43
6,693 @ $69.43
2004.......................................................... $258,000 \5\ $0 9,476 @ $78.32
2005.......................................................... $280,000 \6\ $332,5 0 \6\ 3,100 shares
00 6,039 shares
2006.......................................................... $290,500 $0 0 \8\ $391,058
\9\ $274,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Salary for each year is annualized, not actual.
\2\ Promoted to Senior Vice President during 2002 and salary was increased to $215,000.
\3\ Options are listed based upon year of grant. Of course, they only have value if they increase above the strike price. Options however vest over a
period of 3 or 4 years. All options currently have no value and in any event have expired. I never exercised any options and therefore received no
value from these grants.
\4\ Restricted shares vest either over a period of 3 years or 4 years. The value of the stock is attributed as income in the year that they vest.
\5\ No bonus pool was available due to restatement.
\6\ Includes retention bonuses and accelerated vesting upon departure in 2006.
\7\ I left the company and upon departure received severance payouts under the standard Management Group Severance Program at the time. I also received
a distribution of deferred compensation upon departure.
\8\ I was paid 1 year of salary, plus 3 weeks of salary for every year of service. Severance also included payout of prorated bonus.
\9\ Received final payment of retention bonus.
7. Senator Martinez. Mr. Remy, please describe to what extent any
of your compensation was directly tied to the performance of Fannie
Mae's earnings per share.
Mr. Remy. I was eligible to receive a bonus under Fannie Mae's
Annual Incentive Plan (AIP), if the pool was funded for bonuses. During
most of the years I was at Fannie Mae, the AIP funding pool was set in
part based upon the company's performance, including EPS, but I
understand that the actual bonus I received was based on my job
performance (i.e., quality of work, responsiveness of direct reporting
organizations, soundness of judgment, and progress of organizational
improvements), which was unrelated to the financial performance of the
company. Once I was promoted to Senior Vice President, I also was
eligible to participate in Fannie Mae's PSP--a long-term stock
compensation plan that is based both on financial and nonfinancial
company goals. However, grants and vesting under that plan were
suspended during the restatement and only one of the grants from that
plan vested while I was with Fannie Mae.
conflicts of interest while at fannie mae
8. Senator Martinez. Mr. Remy, the 2006 OFHEO Report states your
position of Chief Compliance Officer was in direct conflict of interest
with your responsibilities for managing the employment law, antitrust,
and potential criminal and civil liability groups in the Legal
Department. Do you agree with this summary? If so, why did you not
realize this then? If not, what steps did you take to mitigate or
eliminate the apparent conflict?
Mr. Remy. During almost my entire time at Fannie Mae I served as
one of several Deputy General Counsels in the Office of the General
Counsel providing legal advice to the Company through its executives.
My job responsibilities were set by my superiors and over time I was
rewarded for hard work and delivering results with new and challenging
assignments. I was given the assignment of building a new compliance
system at the time I already had responsibility for among other areas,
employment law, litigation, and the Office of Corporate Justice (OCJ).
To me, it was a logical assignment, given the work that I already had
been doing with OCJ and my ability to succeed as a project manager.
Although it was found that my duties as the senior reporting official
for litigation, employment, or defensive activities potentially
conflicted with my responsibilities as the senior reporting official
for the Office of Corporate Justice or Office of Corporate Compliance,
it was never found or suggested that such a conflict resulted in any
actual or apparent impropriety. Quite to the contrary, I believe that I
was widely regarded as an excellent manager and superior steward of the
Company's interest--even when that required making hard unpopular
decisions. Moreover, the 2006 OFHEO Report expressly determined that I
was not the person responsible for the creation of such potential
conflicts.
Before the OFHEO Report was released in May 2006, I already had
relinquished my responsibilities as Chief Compliance Officer and
management of OCJ and taken on new responsibilities in the Housing and
Community Development Division regarding responses to Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita. As a result, any apparent conflict had been
eliminated.
fielding concerns of inappropriate accounting at fannie mae
9. Senator Martinez. Mr. Remy, on September 9, 2003, the Director
of Securities of Fannie Mae brought to the Chief Operating Officer
concerns about Fannie Mae's accounting, including amortization
accounting, which had also been brought up by another employee a month
earlier. The head of the Office of Auditing validated these concerns,
yet the firm's General Counsel later disregarded them. This was despite
the Baker Botts LLP internal report on Freddie Mac demonstrating fraud
in their accounting. At that time, you were the Deputy General Counsel
at Fannie Mae and reportedly carbon copied on the General Counsel's
emails (OFHEO Report pages 269-270).
Please inform the committee of your role with regard to enforcing
regulatory compliance of amortization accounting, if you did or did not
speak to the concerns of the Director of Securities at the time, and if
you had supported the General Counsel's dismissal of the Director's
validated concerns.
Mr. Remy. As discussed above, I did not have any responsibility for
setting any accounting policies or practices, including amortization
accounting. Moreover, monitoring, developing internal controls, and
assuring compliance with accounting policies was not part of my duties
or responsibilities.
If anyone at the company raised a concern about accounting, the
Office of Corporate Compliance and later the Office of Corporate
Justice, did however, have authority to investigate such allegations of
improper accounting. Because no one in those offices (including me) was
an accountant, however, such an investigation would require the use of
an accounting firm or other knowledgeable accounting experts to
conclude whether the accounting was appropriate. While most allegations
that led to investigations did not involve accounting issues, those
that did followed this process and in fact the OCJ used an independent
expert boutique accounting firm on a number of occasions to look at the
issues. If findings of impropriety were found, corrective action would
be required and would be enforced by one of those offices under my
supervision. For example, in an actual investigation of amortization
accounting issues conducted weeks earlier, there also were allegations
regarding work environment. Because the findings identified some
problems, corrective actions were required and were enforced by the
OCC.
In my roles in the Office of the General Counsel, I reported to the
General Counsel and she on occasion copied me on messages for
informational rather than action purposes. This would make sense in
this instance given the prior investigation of amortization accounting
of which I was aware. Although on OFHEO report page 269-270 it cites to
an e-mail from her where she apparently copied me, I do not recall
being involved in addressing this Director's concerns and therefore
would have no basis to support or reject a determination of the
internal auditor or an action of the General Counsel.
In response to Questions for the Record from Senator McCain, I
provided an answer to a similar question which I believed at the time
related to a different investigation into amortization accounting
issues. Your citation to page numbers in your question prompted me to
look up those specific pages in the OFHEO Report. As a result, I now
have realized that I misunderstood Senator McCain's question and just
as you are, he in fact was asking about the circumstances described on
page 269-270 of the OFHEO Report.
In the interest of completeness, however, I provide you below the
answer to the question that Senator McCain asked, which I mistakenly
believed referred to an actual investigation conducted weeks earlier
into an allegation of improper accounting amortization made by a
different employee.
What were Mr. Remy's actions with respect to the internal
investigation and were they proper?
Yes, my actions with respect to the internal investigation
into allegations of improper amortization accounting were
proper and no investigation or inquiry has found otherwise. I
did not choose the method, structure or personnel to conduct
the investigation--that was done by the General Counsel. I did
not interview witnesses or develop facts in connection with the
investigation. I was not present at the meeting when internal
audit presented its views to the employee and external
auditors. I did, however, communicate the results of the
investigation to the external auditor and discussed with them
follow-up forensic work. I also reviewed drafts of the OCC
report on the work environment in the controller's office and
the OCJ report on discrimination. I issued a final memorandum
memorializing the findings in the OCC, OCJ, and litigation
aspects of this matter upon the conclusion of each of its
parts.
chief compliance officer
10. Senator Martinez. Mr. Remy, in a letter you wrote to the Senate
Armed Services Committee on April 28, 2009, you state that from late
2002 to late 2005 you ``supervise(d) internal investigations.''
According to the 2006 OFHEO Report, on September 9, 2003, the Director
of Securities brought up an issue with Fannie Mae's accounting
practices which resembled practices deemed inappropriate in an internal
Freddie Mac investigation done by Baker Botts LLP. What role did you
play in this internal Fannie Mae investigation? If there was no formal
internal investigation, why wasn't there?
Mr. Remy. As noted in response to question 9, I do not recall
playing a role in this matter at all. If I did, it would have been to
do nothing more than to receive an informational cc: as described above
and perhaps to provide input if I had any. The little I do recall about
this matter after reading your references in the report is that it was
a response to a question posed at a town hall ``unplugged'' session. It
was not the type of whistle blower employee complaint or allegation
that necessarily would have required an OCJ or OCC investigation;
rather it appears that it was a ``question'' posed by an employee to
which a complete answer was owed. In that context, I do not find it
unusual for the Chief Operating Officer to get the ``right'' people--
head of internal audit, general counsel, external audit--involved in
finding out the answer and reporting back to the employee promptly.
11. Senator Martinez. Mr. Remy, in an e-mail dated April 28, 2004,
you wrote to then General Counsel of Fannie Mae that you recommended
that Fannie Mae sue the OFHEO to prevent an impending investigation of
Fannie Mae by OFHEO. Please describe all of the reasons you now believe
it was appropriate for Fannie Mae to obstruct OFHEO's planned
investigation.
Mr. Remy. The April 28, 2004 e-mail referenced above was wholly
unrelated to OFHEO's ongoing Special Examination of Fannie Mae, and
does not state or suggest in any way that the Company take legal action
to prevent any such investigation of Fannie Mae. Instead, the e-mail
relates to press accounts of regulation being considered by OFHEO that
appeared to go beyond the authority granted the agency by Congress. In
providing candid advice, I laid out alternatives to address this,
including the company availing itself of the procedures authorized in
the Administrative Procedures Act, which provides a mechanism for
independent court review of agency actions that may go outside the
scope of their authority.
internal control systems at fannie mae
12. Senator Martinez. Mr. Remy, in a letter you wrote to the Senate
Armed Services Committee on April 28, 2009, you state that from late
2002 to late 2005 you were ``given the responsibility of developing and
implementing Fannie Mae's first corporate wide centralized legal and
regulatory compliance system.'' According to the 2006 OFHEO Report,
``Senior executives exploited the weaknesses of the Enterprise's
(Fannie Mae) accounting and internal control system.'' Please explain
whether the ``regulatory compliance system'' described in your letter
is the same ``internal control systems'' which were exploited by
executives to increase their bonuses per the AIP.
Mr. Remy. The legal and ``regulatory compliance system'' described
in my letter and the accounting ``internal control system'' for
financial reporting referenced above are wholly unrelated. The first
was within my area of responsibility; the second completely outside. As
discussed above, I was responsible for constructing a program that
would help ensure the Company's compliance with certain applicable laws
and regulations, as well as compliance with the Company's own Code of
Conduct. These include, but are not limited to, laws and regulations
such as anti-money laundering, antitrust, Title VII, fair housing and
fair lending, and intellectual property. Again, my responsibilities did
not include developing internal controls for financial reporting under
GAAP. That type of responsibility rest with the Controller's office and
the Office of Internal Audit would audit its effectiveness.
______
[The nomination reference of Donald M. Remy follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 20, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Donald Michael Remy, of Virginia, to be General Counsel of the
Department of the Army, vice Benedict S. Cohen, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Donald Michael Remy, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Donald Michael Remy
Mr. Remy is a partner in the Washington, DC, Office of Latham &
Watkins, where he defends individual and corporate clients in criminal
and other government investigations, as well as civil litigation. In
addition, Mr. Remy advises corporations on issues involving the
International Traffic and Arms Regulations, the Office of Foreign
Assets Control and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement, as well
as financial, accounting and procurement fraud and general corporate
governance.
Prior to joining Latham & Watkins, Mr. Remy served as an attorney
and business person for a major U.S. company where he held a number of
positions including: Vice President and Deputy General Counsel for
litigation; Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel; Senior
Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer; and Senior Vice President,
Housing and Community Development. In these roles, his responsibilities
included managing litigation, handling employment law matters, advising
on procurement contracts, investigating employee and contractor
malfeasance, developing and implementing a corporate compliance system,
and building an investment strategy to rebuild communities on the Gulf
Coast after Hurricane Katrina.
From 1997-2000 Mr. Remy served in the U.S. Department of Justice as
a Senior Counsel for Policy and as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General
for the Torts and the Federal Programs Branches of the Civil Division.
He supervised litigation on behalf of 100 Federal agencies, the
President and Cabinet officers, and other governmental officials. Those
matters involved a myriad of subject areas and included the defense
against constitutional challenges to Federal statutes, suits to
overturn government policies and programs, and attacks on the legality
of government decisions. Mr. Remy also personally handled litigation in
the matters arising out of the events at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
As an Army Captain, Mr. Remy was an Assistant to the General
Counsel of the Army from 1991-1995, where he advised senior Army
officials on legal and policy issues concerning all aspects of
government contracting, specifically including major weapon system
acquisition. Further, he assisted in the Army's litigation of bid
protests and contract disputes and assisted the Department of Justice
in government contract litigation that directly affected the Army.
During his tour of duty at the Pentagon, Mr. Remy was detailed on
special projects to other offices in the Department of Defense where he
analyzed statutes and regulations governing programs affecting small
and disadvantaged business and historically black college and
university contracting with the Department of Defense, recommended
modifications to ensure compliance with both the law and the
President's guidance, assisted in development of the Department of
Defense position on acquisition reform, crafted proposed legislation
related to the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, negotiated
legislative proposals, drafted portions of Defense Performance Reviews,
and coordinated with the Office of the Vice-President on issues related
to the National Performance Review.
Mr. Remy also served as a clerk to The Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Mr. Remy is a cum
laude graduate of Howard University School of Law and received his
undergraduate degree from Louisiana State University, where he
graduated with honors and was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant in the U.S.
Army. Mr. Remy has published, lectured, and testified before Congress
on legal topics relating to torts, constitutional law, employment law,
diversity, government contracts, litigation, and compliance. In 2005,
Mr. Remy was recognized by Black Enterprise as one of America's most
powerful executives under 40. He is a DC Bar Delegate to the American
Bar Association. Further, Mr. Remy sits on the Boards of Louisiana
State University-University College, the Washington Lawyers Committee
on Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, the Abramson Foundation, and the
Legal Counsel for the Elderly.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Donald M. Remy
in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Donald Michael Remy; Don Remy.
2. Position to which nominated:
General Counsel, Department of the Army.
3. Date of nomination:
April 20, 2009.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
February 8, 1967; Fort Lee (Petersburg), VA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Monitra Charrise Lashawn Butler.
7. Names and ages of children:
Jonathan Alexander Remy; 15.
Jason Andrew Remy; 11.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Howard University School of Law, 08/1988-05/1991, J.D.-05/11/1991.
Louisiana State University, 08/1984-05/1988, B.A.-05/18/1988.
University of New Orleans, 05/1986-08/1986.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Latham & Watkins LLP, Partner, 555 11th St., NW., Washington, DC,
09/06-Present.
Fannie Mae, Senior Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, 11/02-
03/06, Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, 03/00-11/02, 3900
Wisconsin Ave., NW, Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Justice, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Division, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC, 03/97-03/00.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Consultant (SGE), Department of Defense, April 17, 2008-present.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Partner--Latham & Watkins LLP
Member of Board of Directors--Washington Lawyers Committee on Civil
Rights & Urban Affairs
Member of Board of Directors--Abramson Foundation
Member of Board of Directors--Louisiana State University,
University College
Member of Board of Directors--AARP, Legal Counsel for the Elderly
DC Bar Delegate--ABA House of Delegates
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
See response to question 11 above. Additionally, I hold the
following memberships:
Member, American Bar Association
Member, National Bar Association
Member, Washington Bar Association
Member, District of Columbia Bar
Member, Pennsylvania Bar Association
Member, Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity
Member, Army Navy Club
Volunteer Coach, Cardinal AAU Basketball
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.
Obama for America: Volunteer (conducted canvassing in various
States), fundraiser (Member of the Mid-Atlantic Finance Committee), and
legal advisor (assisted with election protection and other legal
issues).
(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.
10/15/08 Barack Obama--Obama Victory Fund--$1,000
09/30/08 Barack Obama--Obama Victory Fund--$1,000
09/21/08 Barack Obama--Obama Victory Fund--$1,000
03/21/07 Barack Obama--Obama for America--$2,300
03/31/06 Hillary Clinton--Friends of Hillary--$1,000
10/15/05-1/7/06 Payroll deduction to Fannie Mae Pac--$5,000
05/03/05 Adrian Fenty Exploratory Committee--$250
06/24/04 Fannie Mae Pac--$5,000
06/12/04 Barack Obama--Obama for Illinois--$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.
Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America; America's Most Powerful
Executives under 40, Black Enterprise Magazine; Meritorious Service
Medal, U.S. Army; American Jurisprudence Award for Torts, Criminal Law,
Remedies, Commercial Paper, Small Business Law, and Constitutional Law
II; Merit Scholarship for High Scholastic Achievement (Full Law School
Tuition); Chancellor's Scholarship; National Political Science Honor
Society; 4 Year Army ROTC Scholarship; Distinguished Military Graduate.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
U.S. Department of Justice Makes Prevention and Prosecution of
Procurement Fraud a Top Priority through Creation of National
Procurement Fraud Task Force. Latham & Watkins Client Alert, January
22, 2007.
Commission on Wartime Contracting First Public Hearing: Burgeoning
Waste, Fraud and Abuse Investigations. Latham & Watkins Client Alert,
February 10, 2009.
Student Note: The Constitutionality of Drug Testing in Government
Regulated ``Private'' Industries 34 Howard Law Journal 4 1990.
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.
Donald M. Remy.
This 27th day of April, 2009.
[The nomination of Donald M. Remy was withdrawn by the
President on June 17, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Dr. Michael Nacht by
Chairman Levin 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. Goldwater-Nichols was landmark legislation that led to
dramatic improvements in operational effectiveness, unity of effort,
and civilian oversight. There is now a generation of military leaders
who are experienced with operating in a coordinated and joint, multi-
service environment. At this time, I do not see the need to change the
provisions of this legislation.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. I see none at this time.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, what will be your relationship with:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. Under the direction of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs
(ASD(GSA)) advises the Secretary of Defense on global security strategy
and policy on issues of DOD interest that relate to nuclear weapons,
missile defense, countering weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and the
space and cyberspace domains.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The ASD(GSA) provides similar support to the Deputy
Secretary of Defense as described above.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Answer. The ASD(GSA) provides similar support to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy as described above.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology
and Logistics.
Answer. At the direction of the Under Secretary for Policy, the
ASD(GSA) works closely with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to achieve the Secretary's
objectives and ensure that policy formulation and execution are well
informed and supported appropriately. The ASD(GSA) also provides policy
input regarding acquisition and programmatic activities of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics that
relate to nuclear weapons, missile defense, countering WMD, and the
space and cyberspace domains.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Affairs.
Answer. The ASD(GSA) works with the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for International Security Affairs to provide sound policy advice to
the Under Secretary and the Secretary on crosscutting global security
strategy and policy issues, such as countering the proliferation of WMD
in the Middle East.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific
Security Affairs.
Answer. The ASD(GSA) works with the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs to provide sound policy advice
to the Under Secretary and the Secretary on crosscutting global
security strategy and policy issues, such as the requirement for a
missile defense system in the Pacific region.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense.
Answer. The ASD(GSA) works with the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Homeland Defense to provide sound policy advice to the Under
Secretary and the Secretary on crosscutting global security strategy
and policy issues, such as enhancing the survivability of critical
cyberspace infrastructure.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations
and Low Intensity Conflict
Answer. The ASD(GSA) works with the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict and Interdependent
Capabilities to provide sound policy advice to the Under Secretary and
the Secretary on crosscutting global security strategy and policy
issues.
Question. The Assistant to the Secretary for Nuclear Chemical and
Biological Defense.
Answer. The ASD(GSA) works with the Assistant to the Secretary for
Nuclear and Biological Defense (ATSD-NCB) to provide sound policy
advice to the Under Secretary and the Secretary on crosscutting global
security strategy and policy issues. The ATSD-NCB is responsible for
implementing the range of activities for which the ASD(GSA) develops
policy guidance. Therefore, the relationship between the two offices
should be very close.
Question. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
Answer. As the principal military advisor to the Secretary of
Defense, the President and the National Security Council, the Chairman
has a unique and critical military role. At the direction of the Under
Secretary or Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy,
the ASD(GSA) works with the Chairman and Vice Chairman to provide
support on matters that affect strategy and policy for nuclear weapons,
missile defense, countering WMD, and the space and cyberspace domains,
working to ensure that military advice is taken into account in an
appropriate manner.
Question. The Service Secretaries.
Answer. The ASD(GSA) works with the Service Secretaries on a broad
range of global strategic issues.
Question. The Service Chiefs.
Answer. The ASD(GSA) works with the Service Chiefs on a broad range
of global strategic issues.
Question. The regional combatant commanders.
Answer. In coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, the ASD(GSA) works closely with the regional combatant
commanders to provide policy oversight of strategy, plans and
operations in support of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the
Secretary of Defense, and the President of the United States.
Question. The Administrator and Deputy Administrators of the
National Nuclear Security Administration
Answer. The ASD(GSA) works with the Administrator and Deputy
Administrators of the National Nuclear Security Administration to
provide sound policy advice to the Under Secretary and the Secretary on
crosscutting global security strategy and policy issues, relating to
nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, nuclear material security, U.S.
nuclear stockpile matters, and related issues.
duties
Question. The position for which you have been nominated is being
substantially restructured.
What is your understanding of the duties that you will be assigned
if you are confirmed?
Answer. My understanding is that the newly restructured Assistant
Secretariat for Global Strategic Affairs is primarily responsible for
advising and supporting the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and
the Secretary of Defense on policy and strategy in the areas of nuclear
weapons, missile defense, countering WMD and the space, and cyberspace
domains.
Question. Are there any additional or other duties that have not
yet been assigned but are under discussion for assignment to the office
of the Assistant Secretary for Global Security Affairs?
Answer. I am not aware of any duties that have not yet been
assigned but are under discussion for assignment to the ASD(GSA).
qualifications
Question. What background and experience do you have that you
believe qualifies you for this position?
Answer. My career has focused on technology, national security and
public policy, which is the centerpiece of GSA's responsibilites. I
have considerable government experience working these issues.
Question. What additional actions do you believe you need to take,
if any, to fulfill the responsibilities of this position?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the stakeholders in
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Policy, AT&L, the Joint Staff
and others to ensure sound and effective policy development.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Security
Affairs?
Answer. The ASD(GSA) will be involved in a number of major reviews
relating to key DOD mission areas. These include the Nuclear Posture
Review (NPR), the Missile Defense and Space Posture Reviews, as well as
implementation of the interagency Cyber Policy review. In addition, the
ASD(GSA) will be able to play an important supporting role in new U.S.
Government overtures to the Russian Federation, particularly in the
nonproliferation and nuclear security areas where DOD has previously
developed good working relationships.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed as ASD(GSA), I believe the key priority for
addressing these challenges will be prompt establishment of close
relationships with key stakeholders in DOD, among interagency partners,
and in Congress to develop broadly coordinated solutions.
Question. What do you anticipate will be the most serious problems
in the performance of your responsibilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will assess the resources and other
``tools'' available to me to perform my responsibilities. Presently I
am not able to evaluate in detail the challenges I might face in
performing my duties, if confirmed.
Question. If confirmed, what management action and timelines would
you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with my new staff and the Under
Secretary for Policy to identify and prioritize problems impeding
performance of my responsibilities, and to developing timelines for
their rectification.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
for the office to which you have been nominated?
Answer. Under Secretary Flournoy has emphasized enhancement of her
office's voice supporting the Secretary in the Planning, Programming,
Budgeting and Execution System. If confirmed, I would seek to maximize
my support to this and any other issues the Under Secretary for Policy
has highlighted in support of the Secretary.
nuclear posture review
Question. If confirmed what role will you play in the NPR?
Answer. If confirmed, it is my understanding that I would develop
guidance for the NPR, coordinate the review with my colleagues in the
Departments of State and Energy, and help frame issues and strategic
decisions for the Undersecretary for Policy and the Secretary. The
Secretary has highlighted the group of issues covered in the NPR as
being among the most important long-term challenges we face, and key to
restoring confidence in our nuclear complex. The NPR will help define
how to support the President's ultimate goal of eliminating nuclear
weapons worldwide while ensuring that in the meantime the United States
retains a nuclear deterrent capable of deterring any threat.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure the Strategic Command,
the military Services, and the National Nuclear Security Administration
participate in the NPR process?
Answer. It is my understanding that Strategic Command and the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) are already formal
members of the NPR analytical process, supporting examination of
nuclear arsenal issues, force posture, and the international dynamics
associated with possible changes in our strategic deterrent. Similarly,
it is my understanding that the military services are involved at all
levels of the NPR process. Such participation and leadership by NNSA,
STRATCOM, and the military services are critical in ensuring that their
perspectives, expertise, and equities are leveraged to their fullest
extent as the NPR process unfolds.
space posture review
Question. If confirmed what role will you play in the Space Posture
Review?
Answer. My understanding is that the Space Posture Review is a
joint review to be conducted by the Secretary of Defense and the
Director of National Intelligence, intended to clarify national
security space policy and strategy of the United States. In this
regard, if I am confirmed, I will support the Secretary and work with
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and others to
ensure the review is responsive to the congressional requirement and
inclusive of all stakeholders' views.
space programs
Question. If confirmed what role will you play in establishing
architectures for various space systems, such as communications and
Overhead Persistent Infra-red (OPIR)?
Answer. The capabilities provided from space, such as satellite
communications and OPIR, are very important to our forces, the global
economy, and the defense of our Nation. If confirmed, I expect to
participate actively in a variety of DOD decisionmaking processes,
including in strategy development and the Planning, Programming,
Budgeting and Execution system in order to ensure architectures for our
space systems are implemented in a manner to effectively achieve our
national security objectives.
Question. If confirmed what role will you play in developing a
space protection strategy and improving space situational awareness?
Answer. The protection of our national security space systems is
very important to our military capabilities and the defense of our
Nation. In this regard, if I am confirmed, I will work to ensure
appropriate and effective strategies are in place to assure the
missions provided by our space systems. The foundation of protection
for our space capabilities is knowledge of the space environment
provided by our space situational awareness systems.
space rules of the road
Question. Over the course of the last several years there has been
discussion about establishing international space rules of the road to
deal with, mitigate, and reduce generation of space debris.
What are your views on establishing space rules of the road?
Answer. The safe and responsible use of space and preservation of
the space environment are important issues for all nations, especially
for space-faring nations. Encouraging responsible behavior through
establishment of international norms, such as the Space Debris
Mitigation Guidelines led by the United States and endorsed by the U.N.
General Assembly, may be an excellent model. If confirmed, I will work
closely with other Departments and Agencies to explore options to
address generation of space debris and to promote the development of
international norms for safe and responsible behavior in space.
international space cooperation
Question. Given the concern about increase in space debris
generated by the collision of the Iridium satellite and a
nonfunctioning Russian satellite, and the need to improve the ability
to forecast potential conjunctions, in your view is there an
opportunity to cooperate with Russia in the area of space debris
analysis and warning?
Answer. The collision of the Iridium satellite and a nonfunctioning
Russian satellite illustrates the increasing number of objects in space
and the need to improve our space situational awareness capabilities.
All space-faring nations, including Russia, have a shared interest in
the area of space situational awareness to avoid collisions.
nuclear capabilities
Question. Since the Air Force unknowingly flew nuclear weapons on a
B-52 bomber on August 30, 2007, the Air Force has taken a number of
significant steps to increase its attention, discipline and expertise
on nuclear weapons management.
What role if any will you play in ensuring that nuclear weapons are
safe, secure and accounted for, and that the military services have
established a high level of attention, discipline and conduct of
operations with respect to nuclear weapons?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the other OSD, Military
Services and NNSA stakeholders and direct my staff to support both
ongoing and new activities to ensure that the necessary focus and
attention is given to all aspects of our nuclear force and the nuclear
weapons enterprise, to include safety, security, and accounting.
Question. The various reviews of the Air Force incident also
exposed significant gaps in the OSD with respect to the attention and
expertise to deal with nuclear weapons issues.
What steps will you take to address the recommendations in the
Welsh, Schlesinger and other reports that identify shortfalls in
management of nuclear matters in the OSD?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, the Assistant to the Secretary for Nuclear,
Chemical, and Biological matters, and other key stakeholders, to
identify the best solutions that can effectively be implemented.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure that there is
sufficient technical expertise in the OSD with respect to nuclear
weapons?
Answer. If confirmed, I will press for inclusion of ``human
capital'' solutions among the various proposals to address shortfalls
in nuclear weapons-related activities. I will also reach out to
institutions such as the NNSA National Security Laboratories, with
which I have well-established relationships, in order to strengthen
interagency relationships and enlist on-site support through their
experts detailed to the OSD.
strategic nuclear programs
Question. The NPR will establish among other things, nuclear force
structure for the near term.
Do you see any force structure decisions being made in advance of
the NPR?
Answer. I am not aware of any force structure decisions being
considered for finalization in advance of the NPR.
ballistic missile defense
Question. For many years the Department of Defense (DOD) and
Congress have agreed on the principle that major weapon systems should
be operationally effective, suitable, survivable, cost-effective,
affordable, and should address a credible threat.
Do you believe that any ballistic missile defense systems we deploy
operationally must be operationally effective, suitable, survivable,
cost-effective, affordable, and should address a credible threat?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree that our missile defense systems should be
tested in a rigorous and operationally realistic manner in order to
demonstrate, and provide confidence in, their capabilities, including
through operational test and evaluation?
Answer. My understanding is that testing of weapons systems is not
among the responsibilities of the Office of the Undersecretary of
Defense for Policy. As a general matter, I agree that testing of any
weapon system should be done in a rigorous and operationally realistic
manner.
addressing current theater missile threats
Question. Iran and North Korea currently possess hundreds of short-
and medium-range ballistic missiles that can reach forward deployed
U.S. forces and our allies. In an April 6 press briefing, Secretary
Gates said that ``to better protect our forces and those of our allies
in theater from ballistic missile attack, we will add $700 million to
field more of our most capable theater missile defense systems,
specifically the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense and the Standard
Missile-3 programs.''
What are your views on the need to increase the focus of our
missile defense programs on protecting our forward-deployed forces,
allies, and friends from existing missile threats?
Answer. It is important to have an appropriate mix of short-,
medium-, and long-range ballistic missile defense capabilities that are
responsive to existing and emerging threats to our homeland, deployed
forces, allies and other friendly nations.
missile defense policy and strategy review
Question. Section 234 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) requires a
comprehensive review of U.S. ballistic missile defense policy and
strategy, with a report due no later than January 31, 2010. The
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs will be
responsible for missile defense policy, among other issues.
If confirmed, what role would you expect to play in the required
missile defense policy and strategy review?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to be significantly involved
in the missile defense policy and strategy review.
missile defense cooperation with russia
Question. After their recent summit meeting, President Obama and
President Medvedev of Russia issued a joint statement which noted that
they ``discussed new possibilities for mutual international cooperation
in the field of missile defense, taking into account joint assessments
of missile challenges and threats, aimed at enhancing the security of
our countries, and that of our allies and partners.''
Do you believe that U.S.-Russian cooperation on missile defense has
the potential to enhance our mutual security, as well as that of our
allies and partners?
Answer. Cooperation with Russia on missile defense has long been
desired. If confirmed, I intend to make this a priority. Having the
Russians on board with missile defense could not only help ease
tensions in the region, but potentially also lead to the creation of a
better system with a larger protective umbrella.
Question. Do you believe it would be beneficial to conduct ``joint
assessments of missile challenges and threats'' with Russia,
particularly concerning Iran's missile programs?
Answer. I have not been briefed on this aspect of the matter and
will consider it carefully if confirmed.
Question. Do you believe that U.S.-Russian missile defense
cooperation could send an important signal to Iran that the United
States and Russia are unified in their determination to reduce the
risks of Iran's nuclear and missile programs?
Answer. Yes.
proposed european missile defense deployment
Question. The Obama administration is reviewing the proposed
deployment of a U.S. missile defense system in Europe. At her
confirmation hearing, Under Secretary Flournoy said that reviewing this
issue would be a good topic for the Quadrennial Defense Review.
If confirmed, what role would you expect to play in the
administration's review of the proposed European missile defense
deployment?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to be significantly involved in the
missile defense policy and strategy review.
Question. Do you agree that such a review should consider a variety
of options and alternatives to determine the best path forward to
enhance our security, as well as that of our allies and partners?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you believe that such a review should also consider
the potential for a cooperative approach with Russia on regional
missile defense, including the sharing of Russian missile early warning
information from the Gabala radar in Azerbaijan and the Armavir radar
under construction in southern Russia?
Answer. Yes, I believe that the review of U.S. missile defense in
Europe should consider options for cooperation with Russia, including
U.S. and Russian proposals made in recent years, as well as new
proposals.
north atlantic treaty organization (nato) and missile defense
Question. The April 4, 2009, NATO Summit declaration from Kehl and
Strasbourg states that ``we judge that missile threats should be
addressed in a prioritized manner that includes consideration of the
level of the imminence of the threat and the level of acceptable
risk.''
Do you agree with this statement of NATO's approach to missile
defense?
Answer. Yes. This statement was endorsed by all NATO members
including the U.S.
Question. The proposed U.S. missile defense deployment in Europe
would not defend all of NATO Europe, and would not protect those
portions of NATO Europe that are currently within range of Iranian
ballistic missiles.
Based on the central NATO principle of the indivisibility of Allied
security, do you believe that any future NATO territorial missile
defense system should provide protection for all NATO allies, and not
leave some allies unprotected?
Answer. The principle of the indivisibility of Allied security is
longstanding and also applies to ballistic missile attack against
member states. If confirmed, I expect to contribute to our ongoing work
with NATO allies on alternatives to provide protection to member
states.
chemical and biological defense
Question. One of the areas under the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Global Strategic Affairs is the Chemical and Biological Defense
Program of the DOD.
What do you believe are the principal challenges in chemical and
biological defense, and what would be your priorities for the DOD
Chemical and Biological Defense Program?
Answer. My understanding is that the Office of the Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological matters
manages the Chemical Biological Defense Program. If confirmed, I would
be responsible for policy oversight of the program. I have not been
briefed yet on the details of this program, but I understand that key
issues include developing defenses against nontraditional chemical
agents, accelerating the ability to conduct CBRN detection and
forensics, and working toward the development of vaccines and other
medical countermeasures to protect our personnel against multiple
threats.
chemical demilitarization
Question. DOD Directive 5160.05E states the DOD policy that ``the
DOD shall be in full compliance'' with the Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC) and the Biological Warfare Convention (BWC). In 2006, the
Department announced that the United States would not meet even the
extended deadline of April 2012 for destruction of its chemical weapons
stockpile, as required under the CWC.
Do you agree that the DOD and the United States Government should
be in full compliance with the terms and obligations of the CWC and the
BWC, including the deadline for destruction of the U.S. chemical
weapons stockpile under the CWC?
Answer. I believe that the United States should meet its treaty
commitments, and if that is not possible to state so clearly and come
into compliance expeditiously. Although I have yet to examine this
issue in detail, I understand that in 2006, the United States informed
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons that it would
not meet the 2012 deadline, but would accelerate the destruction effort
as much as practical. To date, I understand that the Department is on
track to destroy 90 percent of the US stockpile by the CWC deadline.
Question. If confirmed, will you work to ensure that the Department
takes steps needed to minimize the time to complete destruction of the
U.S. chemical weapons stockpile, without sacrificing safety or
security, and that the Department requests the resources necessary to
complete destruction as close to April 2012 as practicable?
Answer. Yes.
counter-wmd efforts
Question. One of the issue areas proposed under the position for
which you have been nominated is the DOD efforts to counter WMD,
meaning nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.
What do you believe are the principal challenges in countering WMD,
and what are your priorities for DOD efforts to counter WMD?
Answer. WMD in the hands of hostile states and terrorists represent
one of the greatest security challenges we face. If I am confirmed, I
will seek to increase barriers to WMD proliferation, develop
integrated, layered WMD defenses, improve DOD abilities to hold
emergent WMD threats at risk, and prepare for complex WMD
contingencies.
Question. If confirmed, what role do you expect to play in the
creation of policy for, and oversight of, DOD programs to counter WMD?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support the USD(P) in overseeing
development of policies governing all DOD programs to counter WMD. I
would engage other senior officials in DOD, as well as officials in the
Departments of Homeland Security, Energy, and Department of State, and
to consult fully with Congress in executing this responsibility.
proliferation security initiative
Question. The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) is an
international effort to identify and interdict WMD and related
materials.
If confirmed would you recommend that the PSI program continue and
if so do you believe that it should be modified in any way?
Answer. If confirmed, I would recommend that PSI should continue
and I would work with my staff to turn PSI into a ``durable
international institution'' as President Obama called for during his
April 5, 2009, speech in Prague.
Question. The absence of funding specifically identified for the
PSI program has made it difficult for the Department and the Congress
to provide appropriate oversight.
If confirmed would seek to establish a separate budget account for
PSI? If not, why not?
Answer. If confirmed, I would review PSI's current funding in order
to determine if a separate budget account is needed for PSI to
accomplish its goals.
cooperative threat reduction program
Question. If confirmed what will your role be in implementing and
overseeing the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program?
Answer. If confirmed, I will lead development of policy guidance
for CTR program objectives, scope and direction, as well as providing
strategic vision for long range planning. My understanding is that the
ASD(GSA) works closely with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and
Biological matters to ensure proper execution of policy guidance.
Question. If confirmed what changes, if any, would you recommend to
the CTR program, including changes in legislative authorities,
programs, or funding?
Answer. If confirmed, I would review carefully the several studies
of CTR activities conducted in the past year. If confirmed, I will
consider these studies' findings, and work with CTR stakeholders and
Congress to improve upon existing CTR successes and look for ways to
better meet the WMD proliferation challenges of the 21st century.
comprehensive test ban treaty
Question. If confirmed what role will you play in any efforts to
obtain Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support the USD(P), as the lead DOD
policy point of contact responsible for the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty. In this role, I would support the administration in any of its
efforts to obtain Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty. I would expect to engage other senior officials in DOD, as well
as officials in the Departments of Energy and State.
follow-on to the strategic arms reduction treaty
Question. If confirmed, what role will you play in the
administration's negotiations and efforts to agree upon a new strategic
arms reduction treaty?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Secretary of Defense's
Representative to follow-on treaty negotiations, personally and through
my staff.
russia
Question. What areas of opportunity and cooperation do you believe
the U.S. could take to improve overall U.S. Russian relationships?
Answer. DOD's involvement in Russian relations generally is the
responsibility of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Affairs (ASD(ISA)). If confirmed, I would expect to contribute
to policy development, drawing on the several areas of non-
proliferation and nuclear security cooperation that have developed
between DOD and various Russian Federation ministries.
Question. Would you support an expansion of U.S. and Russian
military-to-military relationships?
Answer. My understanding is that the office of the ASD(GSA) does
not have significant involvement in military-to-military relations with
the Russian Federation, aside from any nonproliferation, nuclear
security, or arms control contacts we might have with the Russian
Ministry of Defense.
Question. What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, on these
issues?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to support the ASD(ISA) in any
way possible.
cyber security
Question. What are the main policy challenges facing the DOD in the
area of cyber security, both within the Department and with respect to
the Federal Government as a whole?
Answer. The DOD relies upon global data and telecommunication
networks, defense industries, and other critical infrastructure, much
of which is owned and operated by the commercial sector, to conduct
full spectrum land, sea, air, and space operations. I understand that
the National Security Council's 60-Day Cyber Review, directed by the
President and assisted by the DOD will soon prioritize cyber challenges
and propose a coordinated way forward for the Nation.
Question. What should the DOD's role be in defending the Nation
against cyber threats? Should the Department play the lead role in
stopping attacks from abroad through cyberspace, just as the Department
defends the Nation from attack by missiles, aircraft, or ships?
Answer. My understanding is that the DOD has been focused on
securing its own networks, which are crucial to the success of military
and other operations, as well as providing information assistance to
other departments and agencies when needed. If confirmed, I will
involve myself promptly in the broader debate on DOD's role in this
area.
Question. What should be the role of law enforcement and the
Department of Homeland Security in directing operations to defend the
Nation in cyberspace?
Answer. My understanding is that the Department of Homeland
Security plays a leading role in defending the Nation against cyber
attacks. I have been told that the Cyber Security Enhancement Act gives
the Department of Homeland Security additional tools to combat
cybercrime. Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in
partnership with the Department of Homeland Security play an important
role in the defense, investigation, and prosecution of cyber criminals
and cyber terrorists. However, to achieve a confident national
cybersecurity posture, all Federal departments need to collaborate more
closely and better involve the private sector in their efforts.
Question. What organizational and operational construct would allow
multiple departments and agencies to mount an effective, unified
defense of the Nation's cyber networks and resources?
Answer. My understanding is that the National Security Council's
60-Day Cyber Review, directed by the President and assisted by the DOD
is specifically reviewing organizational and operational constructs to
improve interagency unified defense.
Question. In your view, is there a need for a strategy and doctrine
for deterring foreign adversaries from engaging in attacks on the
United States through cyberspace, just as there is a nuclear deterrence
strategy and doctrine based on the threat of retaliation?
Answer. My understanding is that there may be a need to adapt our
defense and military strategies to ensure that we preserve the ability
to protect our national security. These concepts can be incorporated
into our general deterrence strategies.
Question. Should the United States have the ability, and announce
the intention, to undertake offensive operations in cyberspace, through
the DOD, in retaliation against, or to defeat, foreign aggression in
cyberspace? Does such doctrine exist today, in your view?
Answer. All nations have the right of self-defense. Military
doctrine is adaptive and has recognized the growing importance of cyber
capabilities. If confirmed, I will consider this issue carefully and
work with Congress and key stakeholders on potential improvements.
Question. Defending cyberspace implies the need for conducting
surveillance in cyberspace to achieve the ability to warn of threats
and to characterize them.
Can surveillance in cyberspace be conducted effectively without
impinging on the privacy interests of the American people?
Answer. Any surveillance activity conduct by or on behalf of the
U.S. government must be conducted in accordance with applicable
statutes and regulations designed to protect the privacy of the
American people.
Question. In your view, will it be necessary to publicly disclose
more information about the government's plans and methods for
conducting surveillance in cyberspace in order to explain how civil
liberties and privacy will be protected?
Answer. It is important for the government to be able to explain
its tactics, techniques, and procedures with enough context to ensure
public confidence that activities are being undertaken appropriately,
and for worthwhile purposes.
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 Global Strategic Affairs?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
Question. 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?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator John Thune
fiscal year 2010 defense budget proposal
1. Senator Thune. Dr. Nacht, on April 6, Secretary Gates announced
significant changes in the fiscal year 2010 defense budget proposal.
Some of the most significant changes deal with canceling some programs,
prematurely ending production of others, or putting other programs on
hold--as is the case for the CSAR-X, the F-22, and the Next Generation
Bomber, respectively. This announcement came 2 weeks prior to the
Department announcing the start of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR) and Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). As future policy advisors to
the Secretary, I would like to get your opinions on whether or not
these most recent budget decisions were indeed informed policy
decisions. Before making such significant changes, wouldn't these
important changes benefit from the knowledge gained by the QDR and the
NPR?
Dr. Nacht. Yes, Secretary Gates' most recent budget decisions were
informed policy decisions. He reached these decisions after
consultations with the President, and with the military and civilian
leadership of the Department of Defense (DOD). On his Defense Budget
Recommendation Statement on 6 April 2009, Secretary Gates described
these decisions as the product of ``a holistic assessment of
capabilities, requirements, risks and needs for the purpose of shifting
the department in a different strategic direction.''
Secretary Gates announced significant changes in the fiscal year 10
defense budget proposal and he wants that the QDR and the NPR inform
programs affected by these decisions. Some of the programs were halted
or delayed and others cancelled to allow the Department to reassess the
needs that these programs are supposed to meet. The Department will
consider the outcome of major defense reviews and arms control
negotiations in this process. Clear examples of this approach are the
three programs you addressed in this question.
First, to sustain U.S. air superiority, Secretary Gates committed
to build a fifth generation of tactical fighters capability that can be
produced in quantity at sustainable cost. He recommended increasing
investment on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and ending production of
the F-22 fighter at 187. Secondly, he placed the Next Generation Bomber
on hold to first assess the requirements, develop a better
understanding of the technology and of other capabilities we might have
for this mission, and to incorporate the outcome of the QDR, the NPR
and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) Follow-on negotiations.
Finally, Secretary Gates recommended terminating the Air Force Combat
and Rescue X (CSAR-X) helicopter program. This program has a history of
acquisition problems and is another example of single-service solution
with a single-purpose aircraft for an important mission affecting all
Services. The Department will reassess the requirements and develop a
more sustainable approach.
post-start negotiations and the next generation bomber
2. Senator Thune. Dr. Nacht, as an experienced nuclear arms
reduction negotiator, you no doubt have unique insight into what will
be involved in negotiating a Post-START arms treaty. How long do you
predict the Post-START arms treaty negotiation process will take?
Dr. Nacht. Everyone recognizes that the negotiation of a START
Follow-on Treaty will be difficult. The negotiations have started and
thus far have been business like. The Obama administration will make
every effort to conclude the Treaty before the expiration of the START
Treaty in December 2009.
3. Senator Thune. Dr. Nacht, do you think the Senate will have
enough time to fully consider and ratify the follow-on treaty by
December 5, 2009, when the current START treaty expires? If not, how
long do you think it will be before a follow-on START treaty can be
ratified by the Senate?
Dr. Nacht. We hope to conclude a START Follow-on Treaty by December
2009. There are options we might pursue if this does not prove
possible. We hope that the Senate will promptly ratify a START Follow-
on Treaty. The procedure and times lines for providing Senate advice
and consent are a matter for the Senate, not the executive branch.
4. Senator Thune. Dr. Nacht, one of the reasons Secretary Gates
gave for delaying development of the Next Generation Bomber is to
ensure the program will be informed by the outcome of the Post-START
arms control negotiations. One can only assume the Secretary is
concerned that the Post-START may restrict the Next Generation Bomber
to a conventional-only role, negating the requirement to design it as a
nuclear capable platform. In your opinion, what role do bombers play as
a nuclear deterrent?
Dr. Nacht. Currently, the United States maintains a triad of
strategic nuclear forces that includes land-based intercontinental
ballistic missiles (ICBMs), nuclear-powered ballistic missile
submarines (SSBNs) armed with submarine-launched ballistic missiles
(SLBMs), and long-range bombers able to deliver both stand-off cruise
missiles and gravity bombs. Each leg of the triad brings unique
capabilities. Together, the legs of the nuclear triad combine to
provide operational flexibility and help ensure that an adversary
cannot pose a threat that could potentially negate the entire force.
Secretary Gates stated that, ``We will not pursue a development
program for a follow-on Air Force bomber until we have a better
understanding of the need, the requirement and the technology. We will
examine all of our strategic requirements during the QDR, the NPR, and
in light of post-START arms control negotiations.'' He did not link the
funding of the new bomber to the outcome of the negotiations. As
Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff
General Norton Schwartz have both stated, ``We are also modernizing our
existing bomber force to increase its effectiveness and survivability
against emerging threats, while meeting the requirements of today's
Joint Force Commanders.'' I agree with this policy.
Any decisions on the future of the bomber force in the nuclear
deterrent role will be informed by the NPR.
5. Senator Thune. Dr. Nacht, since ground-based and submarine-based
ballistic missiles are not overtly visible deterrents, is it important
to have a credible, nuclear capable bomber force that can be used as a
visible sign of our National will?
Dr. Nacht. Everyone recognizes the need to maintain an effective
bomber force. As Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley and General
Norton A. Schwartz have recently stated, ``We are also modernizing our
existing bomber force to increase its effectiveness and survivability
against emerging threats, while meeting the requirements of today's
Joint Force Commanders.'' The U.S. Air Force is in the process of
setting up the Global Strike Command to assure that we have an
effective nuclear capable bomber force.
The United States maintains a triad of strategic nuclear forces
that includes land-based ICBMs, SSBNs armed with SLBMs, and long-range
bombers able to deliver both stand-off cruise missiles and gravity
bombs. Each leg of the triad brings unique capabilities. Together, the
legs of the nuclear triad combine to provide operational flexibility
and help ensure that an adversary cannot pose a threat that could
potentially negate the entire force.
The U.S. strategic bomber force, along with U.S. and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization dual-capable aircraft, provides a visible
deterrence tool that can be used to signal U.S. and allied resolve in
an escalating or continuing crisis.
The overall U.S. nuclear posture, including the issue of the
nuclear role bomber force, will be reviewed as part of the NPR, and any
changes to the current policy will be informed by the review.
joint task force guantanamo detainees
6. Senator Thune. Dr. Nacht, I would like to get your opinion on
the increasing burden of proof our military forces face when capturing
and prosecuting terrorists. With some of the recent decisions being
made, it appears the burden of proof that a detainee constitutes a
threat to the U.S. has increased to a level that is beyond our
servicemember's capability to meet. In other words, the review process
increasingly requires levels of evidence and chain of evidence, such
that our military is ill equipped, not properly trained, and, in my
opinion, should not be required to obtain while operating on the
battlefield. As the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Security
Affairs, one of your responsibilities will be detainee affairs. How
should the DOD properly balance the need for battlefield commanders to
detain hostile individuals with the increasing requirement to validate
their detention with an ever-increasing amount of substantiated
evidence?
Dr. Nacht. First, I would like to clarify that the office of
Detainee Affairs has been transitioned into the office of Detainee
Policy. Moreover, the office of Detainee Policy is no longer part of my
office, Global Strategic Affairs.
To respond to your question, U.S. forces conduct detention
operations in accordance with the law of war and are trained to be able
to determine which individuals may be lawfully detained. However, they
are not trained as criminal investigators, and the traditional
battlefield is not conducive to classic chain-of-evidence and similar
requirements. Imposing such requirements in a battlefield setting would
be problematic. Although detainees held at Guantanamo Bay have the
right to contest the basis for their detentions through petitions for
the writ of habeas corpus, the Federal Courts have also affirmed the
lawfulness of detaining those who engage in hostile activities against
U.S. and allied forces under the law of war.
7. Senator Thune. Dr. Nacht, the administration has stated that it
will close the Guantanamo detention facility within a year. What are
your thoughts on how the administration should close Guantanamo?
Dr. Nacht. Although this topic is not under my purview as Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, my colleagues who
work this issue inform me that the President's Executive Order, signed
on January 22, 2009, states that the detention facilities at Guantanamo
shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from
the date of this order. The Executive Order also directs a review of
the status of each individual currently detained at Guantanamo and a
determination as to the appropriate disposition for each individual.
DOD is fully participating in this Attorney General-coordinated review,
and it would be premature to comment on how Guantanamo should be closed
before the review is completed.
8. Senator Thune. Dr. Nacht, what plans would you propose in terms
of transfer of detainees to the U.S.?
Dr. Nacht. Although this topic is not under my purview as Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, my colleagues who
work this issue inform me that at this time, there are no court orders
to transfer detainees to the United States. DOD is fully participating
in the Attorney General-coordinated review of all 240 detainees
currently being detained by DOD at Guantanamo, and it would be
premature to decide on such a plan prior to the completion of the
review.
9. Senator Thune. Dr. Nacht, how will you take into account that
the Senate has passed a resolution by a vote of 94 to 3 that Guantanamo
detainees, including senior members of al Qaeda, should not be
transferred stateside into facilities in American communities and
neighborhoods?
Dr. Nacht. Although this topic is not under my purview as Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, my colleagues who
work this issue inform me that the President's Executive order, which
was signed on January 22, 2009, directed a review of the status of each
individual currently detained at Guantanamo and a determination as to
the appropriate disposition for each individual. The review is
identifying and considering all legal, logistical, and security issues
relating to the potential transfer of individuals currently detained at
Guantanamo to facilities within the United States. DOD is fully
participating in this Attorney General-coordinated review.
importance of missile defense third site
10. Senator Thune. Dr. Nacht, based on the changes to the ballistic
missile defense program Secretary Gates recently announced, coupled
with statements the administration has previously made, it appears that
President Obama has no intention to continue with plans to field a
third ballistic missile defense site in Eastern Europe. As the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Security Affairs, your office
will be responsible for building the capability of partners and allies,
coalition affairs, as well as security cooperation. How will the
decision to delay, and likely cancel, the third ballistic missile
defense site affect your ability to partner with other nation's defense
agencies?
Dr. Nacht. The administration currently is reviewing ballistic
missile defense policies, plans and strategies. No decision has been
made on whether to proceed, delay or cancel the ``third site'' in
Europe. Any such decision will be made in the context of pursuing
missile defenses that are effective and well proven.
We will consult with our allies to ensure they are fully aware of
and understand the basis for any decision on the third site. Therefore,
we expect to continue to enjoy close relations and full cooperation
with other nations' defense agencies.
11. Senator Thune. Dr. Nacht, won't our allies and coalition
partners be less likely to enter into arrangements with us for fear we
will back out based on the political circumstances back home?
Dr. Nacht. The United States is currently reviewing its BMD
policies and strategies, including options for defending against the
Iranian ballistic missile threat. Initial results will be available
later this year. Regardless of the option selected to address the
Iranian threat, the United States will move forward with missile
defenses and continue work with our allies where our common strategic
interests are best served.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. Michael Nacht follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 20, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Michael Nacht of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense, vice Joseph A. Benkert.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. Michael Nacht, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. Michael Nacht
Michael Nacht is currently Professor of Public Policy and former
Aaron Wildavsky Dean at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the
University of California-Berkeley. Nacht served a 3-year term as a
member of the U.S. Department of Defense Threat Reduction Advisory
Committee, for which he chaired panels on counter terrorism and counter
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, reporting to the Deputy
Secretary of Defense. He continues to consult for Sandia National
Laboratories and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. From 1994-
1997, Nacht was assistant director for Strategic and Eurasian Affairs
at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, leading its work on nuclear
arms reduction negotiations with Russia and initiating nuclear arms
control talks with China. He participated in five summit meetings with
President Clinton--four with Russian President Boris Yeltsin and one
with Chinese President Jiang Zemin. Nacht has testified before Congress
on subjects ranging from arms control to the supply and demand for
scientists in the workplace. Nacht earned his B.S. in aeronautics and
astronautics at New York University and began his career working on
missile aerodynamics for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration before earning a Ph.D. in political science at Columbia
University.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. Michael
Nacht 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 Leonard Nacht.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs.
3. Date of nomination:
April 20, 2009.
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, 1942; New York, NY.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Marjorie Jo (Seltzer) Nacht.
7. Names and ages of children:
David Allen Nacht, 43.
Alexander Carey Nacht, 39.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Christopher Columbus High School, New York City, NY; Attended:
1956-1959; High School Diploma, 1959.
New York University, New York City, NY; Attended: 1959-1963; BS
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1963.
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Attended: 1963-
1966; MS, Statistics, 1966.
New York University, New York City, NY; Attended: 1966-1969; MS
Operations Research, 1969.
New School for Social Research; Attended: 1967-1970; MA Political
Science, 1970.
Columbia University, New York City, NY; Attended: 1970-1973; Ph.D.
Political Science, 1973.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Professor of Public Policy, Goldman School of Public Policy,
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, July 1998-Present.
Dean, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California,
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, July 1998-June 2008.
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.
2002-2004; Chair, Panel on Counterproliferation, Threat Reduction
Advisory Committee, Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
2001-2002; Chair, Panel on Counterterrorism, Threat Reduction
Advisory Committee, Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
1994-1997; Assistant Director for Strategic and Eurasian Affairs,
U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (U.S. Senate Confirmed July
1994).
1963-1966; Aerospace Engineer, NASA Lewis (now John Glenn) Research
Center, Cleveland, OH.
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.
Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California,
Berkeley, Professor (1998-Present), Dean (1998-2008).
Sandia National Laboratories, Consultant.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Consultant.
Corporate Scenes, Inc., Consultant.
Center for Global Partnership, Consultant.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
See Question 11 above. In addition, I hold the following
memberships:
Council on Foreign Relations (New York), Member.
International Institute for Strategic Studies (London),
Member.
Cosmos Club (Washington, DC), Member.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
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.
09/08, $2,300, Obama, Barack.
06/07, $1,300, Obama, Barack.
06/07, $1,000, Obama, Barack.
05/07, $500, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, 2008.
05/07, $2,300, David Nacht for Congress, 2007.
04/07, $2,300, David Nacht for Congress, 2007.
09/07, ($400), David Nacht for Congress, 2007.
09/07, ($2,300), David Nacht for Congress, 2007.
03/06, $1,000, Miller, Harris.
08/04, $1,000, Kerry, John.
07/04, $1,000, Kerry, John.
14. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
2007, Fellow, California Council on Science and Technology.
2002, Listed, Who's Who in America.
1997, Distinguished Honor Award, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency.
1983, Traveling Fellowship, International Research and Exchange
Board.
1972, President's Fellow, Columbia University.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
See attached list of publications.
[Nominee responded and the information is retained 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.
Speech on American foreign policy delivered at the University of
Sydney, Australia, and December 2007. A published version was printed
in the Sydney Morning Herald, mid-December 2007. See attached speech.
[Nominee responded and the information is retained in the
committee's executive files.]
Prepared Statement Before the Subcommittee on International
Operations of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the U.S. Senate on
the Future of the Arms Control And Disarmament Agency, May 11, 1995.
Prepared Statement Before the Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific
Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the U.S. House of
Representatives, July 1991.
Prepared Statement on ``Scientists and Engineers: Supply and
Demand,'' Hearings Before the Science Policy Task Force of the
Committee on Science and Technology. House of Representatives, 99th
Cong., 2nd Sess., July 1985.
Prepared Statement on ``Security Relations,'' Hearings Before the
Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs and on International Economic
Policy and Trade of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. House of
Representatives, 98th Cong., 2nd Sess., May-June 1984.
Prepared Statement on ``Japanese Defense Policy,'' Hearings Before
the Committee on Foreign Affairs. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs. 97th Cong., 2nd Sess., March
1982.
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 Nacht.
This 27th day of April, 2009.
[The nomination of Dr. Michael Nacht was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on May 6, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 7, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Wallace C. Gregson by
Chairman Levin 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. Goldwater-Nichols was landmark legislation that led to
dramatic improvements in operational effectiveness, unity of effort,
and civilian oversight. There is now a generation of military leaders
who are experienced with operating in a coordinated and joint, multi-
service environment. At this time, I do not see the need to change the
provisions of this legislation.
duties
Question. Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5111.17 assigns the
responsibilities, functions, relationships, and authorities of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs
(ASD(APSA)). The directive establishes ASD(APSA) as the principal
advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Secretary
of Defense on various matters relating to the Asian and Pacific
regions, their governments, and defense establishments.
What is your understanding of the duties and functions of the
ASD(APSA)? Will they differ in any way from those described in DOD
Directive 5111.17?
Answer. The ASD(APSA) is the principal advisor to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)) and the Secretary of Defense
on international security strategy and policy on issues of DOD interest
that relate to the Nations and international organizations of the Asian
and Pacific regions, their governments, and defense establishments and
for oversight of security cooperation programs, including Foreign
Military Sales, in these regions.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. Throughout my 37-year career in the U.S. Marine Corps, I
had the privilege of serving the United States of America throughout
the Asia-Pacific region along side my fellow marines, soldiers, airmen,
sailors, coast guardsmen, and civilians. From 2003 to 2005 I served as
Commanding General of the Marine Corps Forces Pacific and Marine Corps
Forces Central Command, where I led and managed over 70,000 marines and
sailors in the Middle East, Afghanistan, East Africa, Asia, and the
United States. From 2001 to 2003 I served as Commanding General of all
Marine Corps forces in Japan. Prior to my time in Japan I was Director
of Asia-Pacific Policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from
1998 to 2000. I am a member of the Council on Foreign Relations; the
Pacific Council on International Policy; and the International
Institute for Strategic Studies.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, what will be your relationship with: the
Secretary of Defense; the Deputy Secretary of Defense; The Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy; the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence; the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Commander,
U.S. Pacific Command; Commander, U.S. Central Command; Commander, U.S.
Special Operations Command; other combatant commanders; the Service
Secretaries and Service Chiefs; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Affairs; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Homeland Defense; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global
Strategic Affairs; and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for SO/LIC &
Interdependent Capabilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will report to the Secretary of Defense and
Deputy Secretary of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy. I expect to develop and maintain a close working relationship
with under secretaries and assistant secretaries across the Department,
the General Counsel of the DOD, the Secretaries of the Military
Departments, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and with combatant commanders. As appropriate, if confirmed, I
would also work closely with and coordinate with the other Assistant
Secretaries of Defense within OSD Policy. Examples of this coordination
include working with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Affairs on the role of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) in Afghanistan; the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict and Interdependent
Capabilities on Counterterrorism and Pakistan; the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas Security Affairs on
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts in Asia; and the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs on
counternarcotics, nuclear and security assistance matters.
challenges and priorities
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the next ASD(APSA)?
Answer. I believe there are six major challenges in Asia and the
Pacific that the next ASD(APSA) will face. First, the Governments of
Afghanistan and Pakistan both need support to counter and defeat al
Qaeda and its extremist allies. Second, North Korea's conventional
military threat, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and proliferation
activities are a threat to regional security. Third, China's military
buildup may be tipping the stability balance in the Taiwan Strait and
poses an unknown risk to the region at large. Fourth, we must remain
vigilant as we continue alliance transformation and strengthening of
our important security alliances with Japan and South Korea. Fifth, a
conventional or even nuclear confrontation between Pakistan and India
would be a disaster. Finally, in Southeast Asia there are challenges in
sustaining defense reforms and democratic consolidation, as well
maintaining effective counter-terrorism cooperation.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. Strategies for dealing with many of the challenges are in
place at the Pentagon, but I am informed that since January, the
administration has been conducting a number of major strategy reviews,
particularly the recently completed Afghanistan-Pakistan strategic
review. These reviews are being conducted in close coordination with
the interagency community and with consultations with Congress and our
international partners. If confirmed, I will analyze current
strategies, review the results of the recent strategy reviews, and
participate in ongoing policy reviews, such as the Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR).
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues that must be addressed by the ASD(APSA)?
Answer. Strategies for dealing with these challenges are largely in
place at the Pentagon, among the U.S. interagency, and in agreements
with our partners in the region. If confirmed, I see the challenge as
principally one of careful, sustained execution of these strategies
rather than devising new initiatives.
In Afghanistan, my principal focus would be on supporting coalition
efforts to train and equip Afghan security forces, as well as
integrating both the military and governance elements of the
counterinsurgency. This also includes working with Pakistan to
eliminate safehavens in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.
Regarding North Korea, I would work with the Department of State
and regional partners to press North Korea to meet its commitments--
including denuclearization--as agreed to during the Six-Party Talks,
while maintaining the capability to deter potential North Korea
military threats and countering proliferation activities.
With regard to China, the strategy is one of careful, measured
military engagement with the Government of China and the Peoples
Liberation Army, pressing for transparency while also sustaining our
military capabilities to fulfill our defense commitments in the region.
In order to sustain the realignment and transformation processes
already underway, we need to review progress constantly and resolve
challenges in the bilateral relations with both Tokyo and Seoul: these
are complex, multi-stage projects that require sustained political and
budgetary support on both sides of the Pacific.
In South Asia, I would work with the Department of State to promote
confidence building measures between India and Pakistan while
continuing to develop our bilateral security relations with both
nations.
Finally, in Southeast Asia I would sustain and expand our relations
with regional militaries to promote regional security, defense reforms
and respect for human rights.
engagement policy
Question. One of the central pillars of our 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,
humanitarian assistance operations, and similar activities are used to
achieve this goal.
If confirmed, would you support continued engagement activities of
the U.S. military? If yes, would you advocate for expanding U.S.
military-to-military engagement? If not, why not?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support continued U.S. military-to-
military engagement. I believe the current and emerging security
environment will require robust engagement with the militaries of our
partners and allies around the world, and building productive
relationships with many States in which our past military-to-military
engagements have been limited or absent entirely.
Question. Do you believe that these activities contribute to U.S.
national security?
Answer. Yes.
stability operations
Question. Experience in Iraq has underscored the importance of
planning and training to prepare for the conduct and support of
stability operations in post-conflict situations.
In your view, what is the appropriate relationship between DOD and
other departments of government in the planning and conduct of
stability and support operations in a post-conflict environment?
Answer. DOD has and will continue to play a supporting role to
civilian agencies in stability and support operations post-conflict.
Question. What lessons do you believe the Department has learned
from the experience of planning and training for post-conflict
operations in Iraq?
Answer. Recent operations in Iraq demonstrate that long-term
success requires a robust capacity for integrated civil-military action
and substantially more resources to support the expeditionary capacity
of civilian departments. Long-term success will also require close
cooperation between DOD and other U.S. Government departments in
planning, preparing for, and conducting stability and support
operations, both in terms of DOD participation in whole-of-government
efforts and for interagency participation in the development of
military campaign and contingency planning.
building partner capacity
Question. In the past few years, Congress has provided the DOD a
number of temporary authorities to provide security assistance to
partner nations. These include the global train and equip authority
(``Section 1206'') and the security and stabilization assistance
authority (``Section 1207'').
In your view, what are our strategic objectives in building the
capacities of partner nations in the Asian and Pacific region?
Answer. The strategic imperatives driving our partner capacity
building efforts include strengthening bilateral relationships;
increasing access and influence; promoting militaries that respect
human rights, civilian control of the military, and the rule of law;
and building capacity for common military objectives. These objectives
differ by country and by context. DOD has a particular interest in
building the capacity of partner-nations to participate in coalition
operations or counterterrorism, or promote regional or global security
in order to reduce stress on the U.S. Armed Forces and reduce the risk
of future military interventions.
Question. What is your understanding of the purpose of the section
1206 global train and equip authority? What is your assessment of the
implementation of the global train and equip program?
Answer. As I understand it, section 1206 is intended to provide a
quicker more targeted ability to build partner capacity than the more
traditional routes of security assistance and is focused on building
capacity to achieve security objectives. This authority has two
discrete purposes outlined in law: to build a partner's national
military or maritime security forces' capacity either to: (1) conduct
counterterrorist operations; or (2) conduct or support stability
operations where U.S. forces are participating.
If confirmed, I will assess the program to ensure it is used in
keeping with the intent of the authority and that it produces the
intended security outcomes.
Question. What is the relationship of the global train and equip
authority to other security assistance authorities, such as
counternarcotics assistance and foreign military financing? What should
be done to ensure that the global train and equip authority does not
duplicate the efforts of these other assistance programs?
Answer. The global train and equip authority fills two specific
legal requirements (to build capacity for counterterrorism and
stability operations where U.S. forces are a participant). Foreign
Military Financing serves broad foreign policy objectives such as
improving bilateral relations, encouraging behavior in the U.S.
interest, increasing access and influence, and building capacity
particularly where host-nation and U.S. interests align. Secretary
Gates noted in April 2008 that ``. . . building partner capacity is a
vital and enduring military requirement--irrespective of the capacity
of other departments.'' Counternarcotics authorities are focused on
providing DOD the ability to support U.S. or other Government efforts
to counter the flow of narcotics globally.
We should avoid duplication of effort among these activities. If
confirmed, I will do everything I can to deconflict among them.
Question. What is your understanding of the purpose of the security
and stabilization assistance authority (``Section 1207'')? What is your
assessment of how this authority has been utilized?
Answer. My understanding is that section 1207 fills a gap in the
Department of State's ability to provide stabilization and
reconstruction assistance. It allows DOD to transfer funding to the
State Department to help meet State's reconstruction, security, or
stabilization efforts. Secretary Gates made clear in past testimony how
he sees the purpose of ``Section 1207'' authority: ``A touchstone for
the Defense Department is that 1207 should be for civilian support for
the military--either by bringing civilians to serve with our military
forces or in lieu of them.'' I will monitor it closely, especially as
it relates to the Asia-Pacific region, if confirmed.
Question. Secretary Gates has called for an expansion of the
Government's resources devoted to instruments of non-military ``soft
power''--civilian expertise in reconstruction, development, and
governance.
Do you agree with Secretary Gates that there is a need to expand
the Government's resources devoted to the ability of civilian
departments and agencies to engage, assist, and communicate with
partner nations?
Answer. Yes.
Question. In your view, what should be the role of the DOD, vis-a-
vis other civilian departments and agencies of the Government, in the
exercise of instruments of soft power?
Answer. Generally, the Department's role should be to support, not
lead, in the exercise of ``soft power.''
Question. Which department should have the lead in setting U.S.
Government security assistance policy, the Department of State or the
DOD?
Answer. The Department of State should retain the lead in setting
U.S. Government security assistance policy.
afghanistan
Question. In your view, what should be our strategic objectives in
Afghanistan?
Answer. I believe that America's most enduring interest in the
region is eliminating extremist threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan by
disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its safe havens in
Pakistan and preventing their return to Afghanistan or Pakistan. If
confirmed, I expect to support the Department's efforts in this
critical challenge, which requires urgent and sustained attention.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to our current
strategy in Afghanistan?
Answer. The President's new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan
takes the important step of adopting an integrated approach between
civilian and military elements and approaching Afghanistan and Pakistan
as one theater for diplomacy. This will help achieve key objectives of
disrupting terrorist networks, promoting a more capable, accountable
and effective government in Afghanistan, developing increasingly self-
reliant Afghan security forces, supporting civilian control,
constitutional government and a vibrant economy in Pakistan, as well as
supporting international community involvement and UN leadership in the
effort. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress in
achieving the important goals of this strategy.
Question. Do you believe that there is a need to develop a
comprehensive civil-military plan for Afghanistan, akin to that used in
Iraq?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What is your assessment of the contributions of NATO
allies to the effort in Afghanistan? Should the United States continue
to press the NATO and other allied countries to increase their
contributions to the Afghanistan effort, and if so, how might these
countries do so?
Answer. Our allies and non-NATO partners contribute significant
resources and personnel to the efforts in Afghanistan. Non-U.S. members
of NATO, Australia and other non-NATO allies are contributing
approximately 32,000 forces in Afghanistan. NATO countries also
announced new commitments of personnel and resources at the recent NATO
summit, with particular focus on building Afghanistan's own security
forces. Japan has made significant financial contributions, including
its recent $1 billion commitment to Pakistan. Nevertheless, the
challenges and needs in Afghanistan and Pakistan are even greater.
The United States should continue to look to our allies around the
world to shoulder a significant share of the military and financial
burdens in Afghanistan. If confirmed, I would support continued efforts
to urge our friends and allies to increase contributions in their areas
of greatest strength. I would particularly look forward to working with
our partners in Asia toward that end.
Question. General David McKiernan, USA, Commander of the NATO
International Security Assistance Force and Commander, U.S. Forces--
Afghanistan, has identified a need for 4 additional combat brigades and
support units in Afghanistan, equaling up to 30,000 additional troops.
President Obama has approved the deployment of an additional 17,000
U.S. troops to Afghanistan in late spring and summer of this year.
General McKiernan has said that these additional forces provide him
what he needs for the coming months, but additional forces will still
be needed to meet fully his request.
Do you support General McKiernan's request for additional forces?
Answer. I have not been fully briefed on the details of current
operations and threat assessments, or internal deliberations associated
with the Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy review. If confirmed, I look
forward to assisting the USD(P) and others to assess the appropriate
level of military forces required.
Question. If so, how should the Department support combat brigades
increases in Afghanistan, ahead of the national elections? Would you
support drawing down U.S. forces in Iraq faster or redirecting to
Afghanistan combat brigades already slated to replace brigades in Iraq
in order to meet General McKiernan's request?
Answer. The President has approved the deployment of more than
21,000 additional U.S. forces to Afghanistan to meet urgent security
needs, particularly in the volatile southern provinces, including the
critical necessity to train additional Afghan National Security Forces
(ANSF). My understanding is that these forces will arrive in
Afghanistan in advance of the presidential election in August. It is
also my understanding that the administration has looked to our allies
and partners to provide additional forces to ensure security during the
elections as well as the success of the ANSF training mission, and many
allies have recently made additional commitments. To my knowledge no
decision has been made on the deployment of additional U.S. combat
brigades beyond the 21,000 additional U.S. forces noted above.
Question. Would you support the temporary extension of combat
brigades already deployed to Afghanistan? Would you support the
accelerated deployment of combat brigades slated to deploy later this
year to Afghanistan?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to work closely with USD(P),
the Joint Staff and Secretary of Defense to ensure deployment lengths
of combat brigades in Afghanistan strike an appropriate balance between
meeting our commanders' operational requirements and maintaining the
health and readiness of our forces.
Question. The goal for increasing the size of the Afghan National
Army (ANA) has been revised from 68,000 to approximately 134,000
soldiers.
In your view, should rapidly increasing the number of U.S. trainers
to accelerate the expansion of the ANA be a top priority in
Afghanistan?
Answer. Building an effective, broadly representative, and
respected ANA requires significant resources, and the President's
strategy review has made this objective a top priority. If confirmed, I
will support the USD(P) and Secretary of Defense in providing oversight
and guidance that ensures there are the right numbers of trainers,
mentors, and advisors with sufficient resources to accomplish their
mission.
Question. What recommendations, if any, would you have for
encouraging or enabling our coalition partners to provide more training
team personnel to embed with ANA units?
Answer. It is my understanding that the United States and NATO have
assumed a long-term commitment to develop Afghan forces that can
eventually take the lead for security in Afghanistan. If confirmed, I
look forward to supporting the Department's efforts to encourage our
coalition partners to deliver on their commitments to provide training
team personnel.
Question. One of the main threats to U.S. and coalition forces in
Afghanistan comes from cross-border attacks by the Taliban and
extremist militants who find safe haven in Pakistan's border regions.
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair recently stated that
``No improvement in the security in Afghanistan is possible without
progress in Pakistan.'' He also stated, ``No improvement in Afghanistan
is possible without Pakistan taking control of its border areas and
improving governance, creating economic and educational opportunities
throughout the country.''
What steps in your view need to be taken to eliminate or mitigate
the threat posed by Afghan Taliban and extremist militants hiding out
across the Afghan-Pakistan border?
Answer. As the President's strategy makes clear, Afghanistan and
Pakistan are in many respects a single theater of operations, and both
President Obama and Secretary Gates have cited the need to eliminate
the terrorist sanctuary in the border regions of Pakistan. This
sanctuary poses a potential threat not only to Afghanistan, but to the
region and indeed to the United States. Clearly however, there is no
purely military solution. The United States must pursue an integrated
civil-military approach to promote development and prevent terrorism
across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, as called for in our new
strategy. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with my DOD and
interagency colleagues to that purpose.
Question. Would you agree that it is possible that developments
within Afghanistan could lead to improvements in Afghanistan's security
irrespective of developments in Pakistan's border areas?
Answer. I agree that many of Afghanistan's challenges are internal.
This is true of certain insurgent activities, the problem of warlords,
poppy cultivation and narcotics production, and general criminality.
However, I believe that we have learned from years of conflict that
insurgent and terrorist safe-havens in Pakistan and illicit cross-
border activity must also be suppressed to establish sustainable
security in Afghanistan.
Question. The ANA has shown itself to be effective, well-motivated,
and respected by the Afghan people.
Would you support giving the ANA the lead in stopping cross-border
incursions, either by transferring the mission of patrolling the border
to the ANA or by bringing the Afghan Border Patrol under the ANA?
Answer. The ANA has increasingly shown itself to be effective,
well-motivated, and respected. Clearly securing the border areas from
cross-border incursions and illegal smuggling is an important element
of a successful long-term strategy. The issue of command relationships
between the Afghan Border Patrol and ANA is an area that I have not
examined in detail, and if confirmed, will study more closely.
afghanistan-counterdrug efforts
Question. The cultivation of poppies and trafficking of opium has
reached alarming proportions in Afghanistan. Some estimate that over 50
percent of Afghanistan's gross national product is associated with the
illegal opium trade and that Afghanistan is at risk of failing as a
nation state. Coalition strategies for countering the opium trade have
not been effective to date.
In your view, what strategy would be most effective in reducing
opium production and trafficking in Afghanistan?
Answer. Opium traffic continues to distort the Afghan economy,
corrode the judicial system, and exacerbate corruption and criminal
violence. Countering the opium trade should include a nuanced and fully
resourced coalition and Afghan strategy, including crop substitution
and alternative livelihoods, interdiction and eradication, judicial
reform, better law enforcement and intelligence sharing, and rural
economic development and public information.
Question. What is the appropriate role for coalition nations and
the larger international community in effectively addressing the
counterdrug challenge in Afghanistan and the surrounding region?
Answer. I believe it is critical for the international community to
play a greater role across the full range of initiatives and operations
designed to help the Government of Afghanistan strengthen Afghan
institutions, ranging from the judicial and law enforcement system, to
its intelligence service, and the Afghan National Security Forces, so
that it can better take the lead in combating narcotics in Afghanistan.
afghanistan-reconstruction
Question. What is your assessment of the relationship between
reconstruction and development in Afghanistan and achieving U.S. policy
objectives in Afghanistan?
Answer. I believe that effective reconstruction and development
programs are essential elements of an integrated civil-military
strategy to achieve U.S. objectives in Afghanistan. These programs are
especially important at the provincial and local levels where they can
have the most direct impact in creating opportunity and improving
lives. Unless young Afghans have reasonable economic opportunities
there will never be stability and security in the country.
Question. What are the main challenges facing the U.S. and
international community's reconstruction and development efforts in
Afghanistan?
Answer. In my view, high levels of violence in Afghanistan
constitute the most immediate and pressing challenge to reconstruction
and development efforts, which must feature prominently in any
successful long-term strategy. The Afghan people have suffered through
more than a generation of war, and the country's development challenges
are immense. The majority of Afghans make their living from farming,
yet extensive drought and failing agricultural infrastructure create
openings for opium production to supplant the legal agricultural
economy. While Afghanistan has seen improvements in health care in
recent years, life expectancy remains below 45 years while more than
half of Afghan children suffer from poor nutrition and disease. While
progress has been made towards primary education in Afghanistan, fewer
than half of adult males and only one in eight females can read,
impeding the professionalization of the Afghan Government and security
forces and limiting economic growth.
Question. What would be your priorities for addressing those
challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to supporting the USD(P) in
working with interagency partners to help implement the
administration's strategy, including by engaging our coalition partners
and the international community to advance reconstruction and
development efforts in Afghanistan.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend for the
strategy, organizational structure, or resourcing of Provincial
Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in Afghanistan?
Answer. I believe that PRTs have been critical to the development
work undertaken in Afghanistan and Iraq in recent years. If confirmed,
I look forward to discussing the committee's concerns and ideas on the
use of PRTs.
pakistan
Question. What is your view of the current state of U.S.-Pakistani
security relations? Are there steps you would recommend to improve
these relations?
Answer. Pakistan is a critical ally in the long-term struggle
against extremism and terrorism. A confluence of overlapping security
concerns--including the presence of al Qaeda terrorists and Taliban
affiliated extremists, United States and NATO lines of communication to
Afghanistan, nuclear weapons, and an unstable economic environment--
make Pakistan a key national security interest for the United States.
Pakistan and the United States share mutual interests in these areas
and it is essential to continue to build and cultivate a long-term
relationship built on respect and trust regarding security and other
overlapping interests. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more
about all aspects of ongoing U.S.-Pakistan relations and helping the
USD(P) shape effective policies for engagement by the U.S. military,
the State Department, and other agencies.
Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the efforts
by the Pakistani Government to counter militant groups along the
Afghan-Pakistan border and to fight terrorism in general?
Answer. Any enduring solution to the challenge of defeating the
terrorist and cross-border insurgent groups that threaten Afghanistan,
Pakistan, and the international community requires Pakistan's strong
support. While the Pakistani Government has conducted several military
operations in the past against militants in border areas, the region
remains a sanctuary for al Qaeda and Taliban affiliated groups. The
threat appears to be increasing.
Question. In your view, is the Pakistani Government doing enough to
combat these threats? If not, what more should it be doing? What in
your view should be the U.S. approach vis-a-vis Pakistan?
Answer. While I have not been briefed in detail on any assessments
of Pakistan's willingness and ability to combat these threats, I
believe that any long-term success in countering them requires
extensive and sustained attention by various elements of Pakistan's
Government. If confirmed, I look forward to assessing ways in which the
United States and Pakistan can work better together to combat these
shared threats.
india
Question. What is your view of the current state of the U.S.-India
security relations?
Answer. A close and continuing security relationship with India
will be important for Central Asia's security and for effectively
managing Indian Ocean security in the 21st century. The United States
and India have a range of common security interests that include
maritime security, counterterrorism, and regional stability. I
understand that U.S.-India security relations are currently quite
positive, multi-faceted, and getting stronger. Military-to-military
engagement is growing in size, scope, and sophistication as the two
militaries become more familiar with each other through frequent
exercises and subject matter exchanges.
Question. If confirmed, what specific priorities would you
establish for this relationship?
Answer. If confirmed, I believe our priorities for this
relationship should be focused on increasing maritime security
cooperation, cooperating on counterproliferation, collaborating on
humanitarian assistance and disaster response, dealing with piracy,
finding ways to cooperate on counterterrorism, and deepening defense
trade. Additionally, I believe there is potential for greater
intelligence sharing on common threats, cooperation on missile defense,
and working towards stability in Afghanistan.
Question. What, in your view, is the effect on DOD interests, if
any, of the civil nuclear cooperation agreement with India?
Answer. The civil nuclear cooperation agreement was a landmark
agreement that significantly transformed the U.S.-India bilateral
relationship. The agreement has also deepened the level of trust
between the United States and India which will have positive effects on
DOD interests and will hopefully lead to greater military-to-military
cooperation and increased defense trade.
Question. How do you assess the relationship between India and
China and how does that relationship impact the security and stability
of the region?
Answer. As Asia's two largest powers, India and China collectively
will have a significant impact on Asia's future security landscape.
Both countries are in the process of building their respective military
capabilities. I understand India has concerns about China's increasing
presence in the Indian Ocean, and also has outstanding border disputes
with China. It is important to actively engage both of these Asian
powers to ensure they both contribute in a positive way towards Asian
stability and security.
Question. The recent incident in Mumbai raises questions about what
more might be done to help India guard against and react to terrorist
incidents, and underscores the fragile nature of the relationship
between India and neighboring Pakistan.
What do you believe the United States should do to assist the
Indian government in the prevention of and response to terrorist
events?
Answer. As the world's largest democracy, India is a critical
strategic partner of the United States. Both India and the United
States share an interest in preventing terrorism. After the Mumbai
attacks, I understand there may be greater interest from India in
counterterrorism cooperation. If confirmed, I will work with the State
Department to carefully consider all requests for counterterrorism
assistance from India.
Question. What is your assessment of the relationship between India
and Pakistan?
Answer. Tensions between India and Pakistan significantly increased
after the Mumbai attacks in November 2008. India's response after the
Mumbai attacks was commendable for its restraint and responsible
behavior. While the situation has stabilized somewhat since November, I
believe relations between India and Pakistan remain fragile.
Question. In your view, what impact has this rise in tensions
between Pakistan and India had on the stability of the South Asia
region, generally, and on the prospects for security in Afghanistan?
Answer. India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are linked by history,
culture, language, and trade, and regional stability cannot be achieved
without the cooperation of all three. It is in America's national
interest to play a constructive role in helping defuse the recent rise
in tensions and to help derive from the tragic attacks in Mumbai an
opportunity for further cooperation between three of America's crucial
partners. Doing so will allow Pakistan to commit more of its resources
to its western regions against extremist elements that are undermining
its stability, and will permit Afghanistan to focus its efforts on
developing an effective government that is able to secure both its
borders and its citizens.
force posture in the uspacom aor
Question. Perhaps more than with any other combatant command,
military exigencies in the U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) area of
responsibility (AOR) are subject to the ``tyranny of distance'' in
getting forces to points of conflict. Significant changes to the U.S.
force posture in the region are planned over the next several years,
including movement of marines from Okinawa to Guam and relocation of
U.S. forces within South Korea.
In your view, how important is the forward basing strategy to the
ability of USPACOM to execute its operational contingencies?
Answer. The United States' forward-basing strategy is critical to
enable USPACOM's execution of its operational contingencies given the
importance of providing capabilities that can be flexibly deployed,
employed, and sustained in a timely manner across a spectrum of
contingencies.
Question. What do you see as the implications of the proposed force
structure changes, particularly in Korea, Japan, and Guam, with respect
to the Asia-Pacific region in general?
Answer. I believe U.S. posture changes in Korea and Japan
contribute to strengthening our alliances and better positioning U.S.
forces to ensure a more sustainable and capable regional force posture.
By relocating U.S. forces, the United States will address longstanding
host-nation concerns such as noise and encroachment without
compromising their missions. The moves also improve and enhance mutual
defense infrastructure in the region, incorporating and executing
several large investment projects from the Governments of South Korea
and Japan. At the same time, the United States will make better use of
Guam's strategic advantages by arraying U.S. forces in Asia more
effectively for the evolving security environment.
Question. How does the relocation of U.S. forces from Okinawa to
Guam improve our security posture in the region?
Answer. This is the most comprehensive package of force posture
changes in Japan and Guam in decades, and I believe that these
initiatives will further several strategic goals. First, they will
strengthen our alliance with Japan by addressing long-standing problems
with our presence in Okinawa. Second, they will ensure the continued
long-term presence of U.S. forces in Japan and in the Western Pacific.
Third, by making better use of Guam's strategic advantages, they will
array U.S. forces in Asia more effectively for the evolving security
environment.
Question. What impact, if any, do you expect the proposed changes
in our force posture will have on the U.S. ability to defend South
Korea and Japan or to react to a crisis in the Taiwan Strait?
Answer. These posture changes increase flexibility to respond when
and where U.S. forces are needed, and strengthen the United States'
overall capacity to deter coercive and aggressive action in the Asia-
Pacific region. Planned posture changes in the region will strengthen
deterrent and strike capabilities (i.e., U.S. maritime, air, and
deployable ground forces) forward in the Pacific as well as strategic
mobility and command and control (C2) support from the United States--
all of which are relevant to supporting our allied commitments for
self-defense in contingencies.
Question. Some observers suggest that the United States is
preoccupied in Iraq and Afghanistan and not focused sufficiently on the
challenges in East Asia at a critical time in the development of that
region.
How do you assess the U.S. engagement in East Asia relative to U.S.
engagement in other parts of the world, particularly Central and
Southwest Asia?
Answer. I agree with Secretary Gates' observation at the 2008
Shangri La dialogue that the United States has never been more engaged
with more Asian countries.
Question. Are the levels of funding, manning and military-to-
military engagement in the Asia-Pacific region appropriate as compared
to other regions? Do you see a need to increase those levels in the
coming years?
Answer. Strengthening partnership capacity, reinforcing existing
alliances, and enhancing emerging relationships will continue to
require investment of resources and attention. If confirmed, I will
advocate for appropriate levels of funding, manning and military-to-
military engagement in the Asia-Pacific region.
Question. Many of our key alliances in Asia were established years
ago when global conditions and threats to U.S. security were different
than today. USPACOM has as a top objective the development of
cooperative security arrangements with allies and partners in the
region.
Do you agree with this objective and, if so, what countries do you
see as the top priority for such arrangements to best enhance stability
and security in the region? Why?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to support the development of
cooperative security arrangements with allies and partners in the
region. Access to regional ports, airfields, and logistical facilities
on a nonpermanent but recurring basis, increases the flexibility of our
force employment options. Australia and Singapore are top priorities in
this regard. I will work with the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, to
ensure a complementary approach to this important objective.
Question. How should U.S. policies and engagements in the Asia-
Pacific region change to best meet new threats and conditions
Answer. A critical step to meeting the new threats and conditions
in the Asia-Pacific region is to execute the transformational security
agendas we have with many allies and partners in the region. Additional
significant changes will be guided by the ongoing QDR process.
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.
How would you characterize the U.S. relationship with China?
Answer. I would characterize the U.S.-China security relationship
as complex, with some elements of cooperation and others of potential
competition. The military aspect of the relationship is embedded within
an even more complex set of political and economic relationships
between Washington and Beijing, and fundamentally colors our security
relationships with Japan, South Korea, the Southeast Asian nations, and
Taiwan.
Question. 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. I believe that U.S. policies and actions can influence the
direction of China's development. No country has done more to assist,
facilitate, and encourage China's national development and integration
into the international system than the United States. However, U.S.
policy and actions, or the policies and actions of any country or group
of countries for that matter, cannot alone determine China's future
which, in many ways, will be based upon the choices that China's
leaders make. Today, as Secretary Gates noted in a speech at the U.S.
Institute of Peace on October 15, 2008, ``China is a competitor but not
necessarily an adversary, and there is no reason for China to become an
adversary.'' More fundamentally, the United States can also help to
shape the environment in which China makes its strategic choices, and
in so doing, encourage China to ``do the right thing.''
Question. What do you see as the impact of the current global
economic crisis on stability and security in China specifically, and in
the region generally?
Answer. It is too early to gauge the full impact of the global
economic crisis upon China and stability in the Asia-Pacific region
more broadly. But those who manage defense and security issues must be
attentive to the security-economic interconnections and be prepared to
work together with colleagues in economic and diplomatic fields, both
to guard against negative outcomes and also to seek positive ways
forward where they may exist.
Question. China's defense spending in 2009 will exceed 2008
spending by 15 percent. This continues China's trend of double-digit
increases in defense spending every year since the late 1980s.
What do you believe are the objectives of China's steady increase
in defense spending and its military modernization program?
Answer. I am deeply concerned about China's military modernization.
China continues to invest heavily in strategic weapons, power
projection, area denial, and asymmetric warfare. China appears focused
in the near-term on generating capabilities for potential Taiwan
contingencies, including those that would involve U.S. intervention.
China is also developing longer range capabilities that have
implications beyond Taiwan. Some of these capabilities have allowed it
to contribute cooperatively to the international community's
responsibilities in areas such as peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance
and disaster relief, and counterpiracy. However, some of these
capabilities, as well as other, more disruptive ones, could allow China
to project power to ensure access to resources or to enforce claims to
disputed territories. China has left unclear to the international
community the purposes and objectives of China's evolving doctrine and
capabilities. Seeking to clarify this ambiguity is an important
strategic goal for the United States. If China exercises responsibility
and restraint in the pursuit of its legitimate aspirations, it will
find a willing partner in the United States.
Question. How should the United States respond to the Chinese
military modernization program?
Answer. The pace and scale of Chinese modernization, coupled with
the lack of transparency surrounding both capabilities and intentions,
are a source of concern for the United States as well as for its allies
and the region more broadly. An appropriate U.S. response would include
efforts to fully comprehend the future direction of China's intentions
and capabilities, active engagement to reduce the potential for
miscalculations and to manage unwanted competition, and, finally,
defense preparedness to ensure the United States maintains an enduring
strategic presence in the Asia-Pacific region, and retains an edge in
areas that are critical to achieving specific operational objectives.
Question. What do you believe are the Chinese political-military
goals in the Asia-Pacific region? Globally?
Answer. Broadly, the overriding objectives of China's leaders
appear to be to ensure the continued rule of the Chinese Communist
Party, continue China's economic development, maintain the country's
domestic political stability, defend China's national sovereignty and
territorial integrity, and secure China's status as a great power.
Within this context, preventing any moves by Taipei toward de jure
independence is a key part of Beijing's strategy. Within each dimension
there lies a mix of important challenges and opportunities for the
United States that will continue to deserve priority attention.
Question. How do you assess the current cross-strait relationship
between China and Taiwan, and how can we help prevent miscalculation on
either side?
Answer. Taiwan has made significant strides to reduce tensions in
the Taiwan Strait. These initiatives should be encouraged. I believe
the United States can help to prevent miscalculation on either side by
continuing to abide by our longstanding policies, based on the three
joint U.S.-China Communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act, to include
making available to Taiwan ``defense articles and services in such
quantities as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a
sufficient self-defense capability.'' Such a continued commitment by
the United States will allow Taiwan to continue its outreach to the PRC
without fear of coercion.
Question. What is your view regarding the longstanding U.S. policy
of selling military equipment to Taiwan despite objection and criticism
from China?
Answer. U.S. policy on arms sales to Taiwan is based on the 1979
Taiwan Relations Act, which provides that the United States ``will make
available to Taiwan defense articles and services in such quantities as
may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense
capability (sec. 3.a).'' That policy has contributed to peace and
stability in the region for over 30 years and is consistent with the
longstanding U.S. calls for peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue in
a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. I
believe our arms sales have been carried out in a responsible manner.
Question. How do China's efforts to establish a strategic presence
in various South Asian seaports affect its political-military posture
and influence in the region?
Answer. China looks to South Asia as an area of strategic
importance, which includes political objectives, access to resources,
trade, and investment. In regards to South Asian seaports, the
important question is how China intends to use its presence. The United
States retains strong relationships in South Asia and should continue
to monitor China's growing presence in the region.
Question. What are your views of China's recent deployment of
warships to the west Indian Ocean to counter piracy in that area and
how does this deployment contribute to China's ability to project
power?
Answer. Generally speaking, I see China's participation in counter
piracy operations as a positive development that contributes to solving
a global security challenge and demonstrates China's ability to use its
military in a positive, constructive, and responsible manner. It is
more than likely that from this experience China could begin to develop
capabilities that would enhance its ability to sustain a deployed force
over an extended period of time.
Question. Our military-to-military relations with the Chinese
military have been characterized as ``modest'' and the Chinese approach
to these relations can be accurately described as ``on again, off
again.''
What is your assessment of the current state of U.S.-China
military-to-military relations?
Answer. There are some signs of progress, but overall there is a
lack of trust and mutual understanding, and the relationship continues
to be marred by incidents such as those involving USNS Impeccable in
March 2009.
Question. 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. More can be done to improve the U.S.-China military-to-
military relationship, both in terms of the quality and the quantity of
exchanges between the Armed Forces of our countries. If confirmed, I
would look closely at exchanges with the Chinese armed forces at all
levels and across a range of issues, including the recently opened
dialogue on nuclear policy and strategy, which I understand is a
priority for Secretary Gates. If confirmed, I look to engage in a wide
range of areas where we can encourage China to act responsibly both
regionally and globally.
Question. Recently, Chinese-flagged ships harassed the USNS
Impeccable, a U.S. military ship conducting ocean surveillance in the
international waters of the South China Sea. The incident underscores
the nature of certain Chinese maritime claims and the sensitivity
associated with U.S. naval operations in these areas.
What is your assessment of the incident?
Answer. I view the harassment of the USNS Impeccable within China's
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as a serious incident. The United States
has a longstanding policy on freedom of navigation, consistent with
customary international law and as reflected in the U.N. Convention on
the Law of the Sea.
Question. What can the United States do to help prevent such
incidents in the future?
Answer. I believe the United States should clearly assert and
exercise its rights, work with other states with similar interests and
perspectives as appropriate, and ensure effective communications to
reduce the risks of accident or miscalculation. I was very pleased by
Secretary Gates' statement on March 18 that ``. . . based on the
diplomatic exchanges that have taken place, since the aggressive acts
against the Impeccable . . . there won't be a repetition of this
[incident].''
Question. In its 2008 Report to Congress, the U.S.-China Economic
and Security Review Commission (USCC) concluded that China is asserting
various excessive claims of sovereignty, including maritime, air and
space, and also concluded that these claims have negative implications
for the United States. Further, the Commission concluded that more must
be done to ensure that China's rapid expansion of nuclear power does
not result in the decline in safety or an increase in proliferation of
nuclear weapons technology or expertise.
How should the United States respond to excessive claims of
sovereignty by China? Would U.S. accession to the United Nations Law of
the Sea Convention be beneficial in this regard? If so, how?
Answer. As stated above, the United States has a longstanding
policy on Freedom of Navigation, and as recent events relating to the
USNS Impeccable have demonstrated, does not acquiesce to excessive
maritime, air, or space claims that restrict navigation and over-flight
rights under customary international law (as reflected for example in
the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea). In addition to asserting
U.S. rights, I believe the United States should work with other
countries that have a stake in this issue to engage China.
I support U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention. It is in
America's enduring interest to be at the forefront of promoting the
rule of law, including in the world's oceans. Were we to become a party
to the Convention it would send a clear signal to the world that we are
committed to advancing the rule of law at sea. Additionally under the
Convention, we would provide the firmest possible legal foundation for
the navigational rights and freedoms needed to project power, reassure
our friends and allies, deter adversaries, respond to crises, sustain
deployed combat forces, and secure sea and air lines of communication
that underpin international trade and our own economic prosperity.
Question. What is the role of DOD in helping to ensure that China's
nuclear power industry does not contribute to the proliferation of
nuclear weapons in the region?
Answer. The Obama administration has reiterated that preventing the
proliferation of WMD and delivery systems, along with related
technologies and materials, is a key goal for the United States. I
believe that DOD should work in the interagency process to ensure that
any proliferation concerns relating to China including its nuclear
power industry are expressed to the Chinese Government in appropriate
forums, and should similarly support the development of appropriate
interagency responses in the event that China takes steps that do
contribute to proliferation.
Question. The USCC also concluded that cyber space is a critical
vulnerability for the United States, that China is aggressively
pursuing cyber warfare capabilities, and that China would likely seek
to take advantage of the U.S. dependence on the internet and cyber
space in the event of a potential conflict situation.
If confirmed, what would you do to help ensure our military is
protected in cyber space and prepared to defend against a cyber attack?
Answer. We, as many other nations, have been the target of
innumerable malicious activities via cyberspace from hackers,
criminals, and unidentified entities, some of which may well be nation
states. I understand that numerous steps have been taken to increase
network defense and monitoring capabilities. This work continues
aggressively today. The DOD should also continue to evaluate all global
threats to its networks and work closely with other government
agencies, industry, and the international community in order to meet
those threats.
Question. On January 11, 2007, China used a ground-based missile to
hit and destroy one of its weather satellites in an anti-satellite test
creating considerable space debris and raising serious concerns in the
international community.
What is your view of China's purpose in conducting this test?
Answer. In my view, this test was just one element of China's
military modernization effort to develop and field disruptive military
technologies, including those for anti-access/area-denial, as well as
for nuclear, space, and cyber warfare.
Question. What do you see as the long-term implications of this
test for the U.S. military, for U.S. national security, and for U.S.
interests in space?
Answer. Space systems are vital to our national interest. In this
regard, the United States should seek ways to protect our interests in
space.
Question. If China were to conduct a second test, would that change
your view? Why or why not?
Answer. A second test of such a system would reaffirm my view that
this system is one element of China's broad military modernization
program that features a number of disruptive elements designed to
support a strategy of anti-access and area denial. More troubling than
that would be China's blatant disregard for the concerns expressed by
the international community after their January 2007 test if China were
to conduct another such test in the future.
Question. What are your views regarding the potential weaponization
of space and the international agreements to prevent space
weaponization?
Answer. The safe and responsible use of space and preservation of
the space environment are important issues for all nations, especially
for space-faring nations. Encouraging responsible behavior through
establishment of international norms, such as the Space Debris
Mitigation Guidelines led by the United States and endorsed by the U.N.
General Assembly, is an excellent model.
taiwan
Question. What is your view of the current state of the U.S.-Taiwan
security relations?
Answer. The United States has a robust security relationship with
Taiwan. I have had the privilege to go to Taiwan as a private citizen
and observe first-hand how we support Taiwan during their annual Han
Kuang Field Training Exercise. This is just one aspect of our
relationship and I will continue to look for additional ways to work
with Taiwan to bolster their defensive capabilities, consistent with
our obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act.
Question. What are the priorities, in your view, for U.S. military
assistance to Taiwan?
Answer. I believe priority areas include: enhancing the training
establishment; hardening of critical infrastructure; ensuring increased
munitions are available to counter the threat; and an advanced
integrated air and missile defense. If confirmed, I would continue to
work with Taiwan to review its defensive needs considering the current
and projected PRC threat.
Question. What is your view of the relationship between the type of
assistance we offer Taiwan and regional stability?
Answer. The United States is closely monitoring the shifting
balance in the Taiwan Strait and Taiwan's defense needs, and we are
well aware of the increasing capability of the PRC military. Regional
stability depends on a strong Taiwan. Taiwan must be able to deter PRC
coercion, and the best deterrent available to Taiwan is a strong
defensive military.
Question. What is your opinion of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA)?
Enacted 30 years ago this year, do you see any need to modify the TRA
to reflect the current state of affairs in the region? If so, how?
Answer. The TRA has been in force for over 30 years, its
flexibility has allowed it to accommodate changing circumstances on
both sides of the Taiwan Strait, as well as Taiwan's evolving
relationship with the United States.
Question. What is your assessment of the implementation of the TRA?
Answer. The TRA provides that the United States ``will make
available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such
quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient
self-defense capability (sec. 3.a).'' That policy has contributed to
peace and stability in the region for over 30 years and is consistent
with the longstanding U.S. calls for peaceful resolution of the Taiwan
issue in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Taiwan
Strait.
Question. Given the increasing military imbalance across the Taiwan
Strait, what is the best policy prescription to encourage Taiwan to
invest more in its own self-defense?
Answer. The best method to improve Taiwan's defensive capability is
not just spending more; it must include spending more wisely. Taiwan
can no longer out spend the PRC on its defense. However, they can
invest more wisely to compensate for the current and future threats
posed by the PRC. Taiwan needs to enhance the professionalism of their
military, and transform their military to meet future threats. Some of
these ideas were addressed by Taiwan's QDR and, if confirmed, I intend
to work closely with PACOM to improve Taiwan's defensive capabilities.
Question. What measures, if any, would you recommend be implemented
to encourage China to soften its military posture vis-a-vis Taiwan?
Answer. Consistent with longstanding U.S. policy, I believe that
the United States would support any resolution in the Taiwan Strait
provided that it is arrived at peacefully and with the support of the
people on both the Mainland and Taiwan. If confirmed I would look for
ways to highlight to Beijing the inconsistency between its military
posture opposite Taiwan and a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan Strait
issue that both sides can support.
the korean peninsula
Question. North Korea represents one of the greatest near-term
challenges to U.S. national security interests in Asia. Deterring
conflict on the Korean peninsula remains a top priority. At the same
time, the United States and South Korean relationship, while strong, is
undergoing substantial changes in terms of command and control and
force laydown over the next several years.
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 conventional military, WMD and proliferation
activities continue to pose a significant threat to regional peace and
security. Recent North Korean provocations, including its launch of a
Taepo Dong-2 missile, are unhelpful to regional stability and
relations. Working with our allies and other key parties in the region
and internationally on diplomatic solutions is an essential element in
addressing the totality of security problems on the Korean peninsula,
the most vital of which is the complete and verifiable denuclearization
of North Korea. Likewise, it is essential to maintain the capabilities
to deter North Korea's military threat and proliferation activities.
Strong alliances with South Korea and Japan remain instrumental in this
regard. These alliances help maintain the peace and stability that have
allowed the wider East Asia region to prosper over the past several
decades. Ongoing transformation and realignment efforts will continue
to strengthen our alliances, ensure an enduring U.S. military presence,
and improve U.S. capabilities to address future security challenges.
Question. What is your assessment of the threat posed to the United
States and our allies by North Korea's ballistic missile and WMD
capabilities, and the export of those capabilities?
Answer. I believe that North Korea missile and WMD programs pose a
serious threat to the United States, our forces, and our allies. This
threat was evidenced recently in North Korea's April launch of a Taepo
Dong-2 missile. Strong alliances and allied security cooperation,
regional partnerships, and forward military presence remain key means
to deal with these threats and to uphold allied defense commitments.
U.S. national capabilities, such as ballistic missile defense, are also
an essential element in deterring the threat and defending our
interests, and it is my understanding that these capabilities and
related developments in this area played an important role in the
improved cooperation with our allies, Japan and the Republic of Korea,
surrounding the April 2009 North Korean missile launch.
Question. What are the short-term and long-term military
implications for the United States of the ongoing tension on the Korean
Peninsula?
Answer. North Korea's actions and behavior pose a threat to the
peace and stability of the Republic of Korea, the United States, Japan,
and others in the region. While North Korea's conventional military
continues to deteriorate due to a lack of force modernization and
advanced training programs, the asymmetric threat it poses continues to
grow. North Korea continues to maintain strong nuclear ambitions. In
early April, North Korea demonstrated, against the will of the
international community, that it intended to continue its ballistic
missile development program. Additionally, North Korea's Special
Operations Forces, the largest in the world, maintain a high
operational readiness and training tempo, and its cyber capability is
also increasingly concerning. Given these asymmetric capabilities, the
combined U.S.-ROK defense posture on the Korean Peninsula continues to
be instrumental in deterring North Korean provocation. The U.S.
commitment to the Alliance and to the Republic of Korea plays an
immeasurable role in containing the North Korean threat and in reducing
the risk of the North's miscalculation on the peninsula.
Question. How do we ensure that we continue to protect our vital
regional interests, while continuing meaningful progress toward the
transfer of command and control to the Republic of Korea and the
relocation of U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula?
Answer. The U.S.' vital regional interests are well served by both
the successful transition of wartime operational control (OPCON) to the
Republic of Korea as well as the relocation of U.S. forces on the
Korean Peninsula to enduring facilities. With the transition of wartime
OPCON, the South Korean people will take a leadership role in the
Alliance and a greater role in the defense of their own country. While
this is long overdue, completing this transition in 2012 will
demonstrate to North Korea and the region that the Republic of Korea
military is strong and capable, thereby enhancing the Alliance's
deterrent and stabilizing role and shaping the attitudes of future
generations of Koreans about the Alliance. Similarly, the relocation of
U.S. Forces Korea is advancing U.S. vital interests in the region by
ensuring a sustainable U.S. military presence for the long-term. The
ROK's substantial investment in this relocation effort is demonstrating
that it will continue to welcome this U.S. military presence on the
Korean Peninsula for the foreseeable future. As a result of this
combined realignment effort, the U.S. military's enduring presence will
continue to provide an effective deterrent and ensure peace and
stability on the Korean Peninsula and throughout the region, conditions
under which the Republic of Korea developed into a thriving democracy
and a robust free market economy (the world's 14th largest).
Question. With recent speculation regarding the possible poor
health of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, what, if anything, should
the U.S. be doing now to prepare for the possibility of a change in
leadership in North Korea?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the United States
and our allies are capable of addressing sudden onset crises, other
forms of instability, or any other scenario that may result from a
change in North Korean leadership. Fundamentally, our focus should be
ensuring we are ready to maintain stability in the region, support
defense of the Republic of Korea and Japan, and prevent the
proliferation of WMD or other dangerous technologies from North Korea.
Question. The alliance between the United States and South Korea
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 status of the U.S.
security relationship with South Korea?
Answer. I believe that the U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) alliance
remains strong and continues to ensure peace and stability on the
Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia. In the face of changes in the
regional security environment, the United States and the ROK have made
great strides in transforming their collective deterrent and defense
posture. In particular, the ROK has made major strides in developing
its defense capabilities, commensurate with its economic development.
Consequently, the Alliance remains relevant and capable both for
deterring aggression on the peninsula and for addressing regional and
global security issues.
Question. If confirmed, what measures, if any, would you take to
improve the U.S.-South Korean security relationship?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support the continued realignment of
U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula and the return of facilities that
our forces no longer require. The United States is also working toward
developing new command and control relationships with Korea and should
ensure that contingency plans remain appropriate to changing
circumstances. Additionally, I believe it is important to ensure the
U.S. and Korean publics continue to understand the enduring mutual
benefits derived from this alliance, and that the U.S. work effectively
with the Republic of Korea as it plays an increasing role in regional
and global security issues commensurate with its economic status and
influence.
Question. What is your view regarding the timing of turning over
wartime operational command to South Korea?
Answer. As Secretary Gates said publicly following his meeting with
the Korean Minister of Defense last October, the ROK military forces
and U.S. forces are on track to complete the alliance agreement to
transition wartime operational control in 2012. This effort will enable
the ROK military to take the lead role in the defense of Korea. If
confirmed, I will support the efforts of the Secretary, this committee,
and others to ensure that the important transition in command
relationships is carried out in a manner that strengthens deterrence
and maintains a fully capable U.S.-ROK combined defense posture on the
Korean Peninsula.
Question. Do you support expanding the number of U.S. personnel
assigned to the Korea Peninsula for 2- or 3-year tours of duty and
increasing the number of military and civilian personnel authorized to
be accompanied by their dependents for these longer assignments?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I would support the expansion of tour
lengths for servicemembers assigned to Korea. Normalization of tours
will provide greater stability for U.S. servicemembers and their
families in Korea, enhance operational readiness on the Peninsula, and
demonstrate U.S. commitment to an enduring U.S. presence in the ROK.
Question. What is your assessment of Beijing's relative influence
over Pyongyang?
Answer. As North Korea's closest neighbor and historic ally,
China's influence has waned in recent years. However, it still retains
more influence than most. I believe that as the chair of the Six-Party
Talks, China has used its influence to play an important role in our
collective efforts along with Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Russia
toward achieving stability in the region through the peaceful
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
Question. What do you believe must occur within the framework of
the Six-Party Talks to ensure North Korea discontinues its nuclear
program, and what posture would you recommend in future negotiations on
this subject?
Answer. My understanding is that in accordance with the September
2005 Joint Statement, the DPRK committed to abandoning its nuclear
programs. Despite North Korea's recent statement of its intent to
withdrawal from the Six-Party Talks and nullify any agreements, the
United States should be prepared to resume negotiations to peacefully
and verifiably denuclearize the Korean Peninsula.
Question. Do you believe that the security relationship with South
Korea should remain focused on defense of the Korean Peninsula, or
should U.S. forces stationed in Korea have a more regional mission?
Answer. In accordance with the commitment to the Mutual Defense
Treaty, U.S. presence on the Korean Peninsula serves to deter potential
aggressors from taking hostile actions that would threaten the peace
and security of the Republic of Korea. This presence has both deterred
further war on the Korean Peninsula and contributed to the stability of
the Northeast Asia region. The U.S.-ROK Alliance is transforming to
ensure a capable and relevant forward presence for the future security
environment. As ROK military forces have served and will continue to
serve with the U.S. military in places off of the Peninsula (e.g.,
Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the Gulf of Aden), the U.S.-ROK Alliance will
continue to serve an important role regionally and globally.
japan
Question. How would you characterize the U.S.-Japan security
relationship?
Answer. The U.S.-Japan relationship is the cornerstone of security
in East Asia. Japan is a valued ally and anchor of democracy and
prosperity in the region. Our alliance has held fast through the
turbulence of the post-Cold War, political turnover in Japan, and some
contentious trade disputes and now stands poised to become a truly
global alliance. The United States and Japan are in the middle of a
complicated realignment process that is part of a larger Alliance
Transformation agenda that also includes a review of roles, missions,
and capabilities to strengthen and ensure the relevance, capability,
and cohesiveness of the Alliance for the next several decades. This is
an ambitious agenda that is worthy of attention and increased effort.
Question. How would you characterize Japan's relationship with its
regional neighbors, mainly China, North Korea and South Korea?
Answer. I believe it is important for Japan to continue to
cultivate constructive relations with all of its neighbors. By moving
forward, Japan and other East Asian nations can increase their security
cooperation. Working with other U.S. allies and friends in the region,
Japan can increase its contribution to peace, security, and prosperity
throughout Asia and globally. Japan is a valued and essential partner
in the Six-Party Talks process and in other important regional security
architectures.
Question. What steps, if any, do you believe Japan ought to take to
become a more active partner in security activities with the United
States and in the international security arena?
Answer. The security environment in Asia is changing and the United
States needs a more capable alliance with Japan to deal with those
challenges, including greater interoperability between armed forces at
the strategic, operational, and tactical levels. If confirmed, I would
work to encourage Japan's increasing contributions to the Alliance,
both regionally and globally. Cooperation and the development of
complementary and mutually reinforcing capabilities should range from
missile defense to increased bilateral training opportunities--in Guam,
for example.
Question. What is your view of the United States-Japanese joint
development of the Standard Missile-3, Block IIA missile defense
interceptor, and of the overall program of cooperation between the
United States and Japan on ballistic missile defense?
Answer. As we recently witnessed in the run up to the TD-2 launch,
ballistic missile defense cooperation with Japan is a success story for
the Alliance and has resulted in Japan's fielding of both sea- and
land-based missile defense systems. U.S.-Japan bilateral cooperation on
ballistic missile defense plays an important role in supporting our
common strategic objectives on defense. The SM-3 Block IIA is an
important cooperative program that will result in a significant
increase in SM-3 capability.
Question. Should the United States be doing anything more to
encourage the Japanese Government to increase their participation in
ongoing military operations, such as Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom, or future operations?
Answer. Japan is considering how to conduct international security
missions with its very capable Self-Defense Force while keeping its
Asian neighbors' historical concerns over the Japanese exercise of
military power in mind. The overall trend has been positive, but slow.
The deployment of Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyers to
the Horn of Africa to conduct escort operations to protect shipping
from piracy is another step forward. The Department is looking forward
to the dispatch of P-3Cs to join the counterpiracy mission, Japan's
first-ever ``joint'' deployment.
Question. Is the cost-sharing arrangement between the United States
and Japan to pay for the relocation of U.S. forces from Okinawa to Guam
and the costs associated with the continued presence of U.S. forces in
Japan equitable and appropriate? Why or why not?
Answer. I believe the cost arrangement between the United States
and Japan as outlined in the May 2006 Security Consultative Committee
(SCC) document known as the Realignment Roadmap is equitable and
appropriate. For relocations within Japan, the GOJ is paying the lion's
share of the costs to develop new facilities. The GOJ also understood
the strong desire of Okinawa residents for the relocation of forces
from Japan to Guam to occur rapidly and recognized that this move--
which it explicitly sought--would not happen anytime soon without
substantial investment on its part. Spending less than one percent of
its gross domestic product on its national defense, yet desiring the
continued regional presence of U.S. forces, Japan could also clearly
justify financial support for U.S. military construction within a U.S.
territory on the grounds that it is making a direct contribution to
Japan's own security and to overall alliance burdensharing. This
decision was not without controversy in Japan, as it is highly
unusual--perhaps even unprecedented--for a host country to pay for U.S.
forces to relocate out of that country. It will be important for the
DOD to work closely with the GOJ on project scope, management, and
other factors to minimize risks to the efforts.
counterterrorism in south east asia
Question. Admiral Keating, Commander, USPACOM, has described South
East Asia as ``the central front against terrorism in the Pacific.''
Indeed, the rise of Islamic militants in this region poses an ever-
increasing threat to security and stability throughout the Asia-Pacific
theater.
What more can the United States do in South East Asia to help
combat the threat of terrorism?
Answer. The DOD plays an important supporting role in combating
terrorism, mainly by helping build capacity in partner nation's armed
forces through security assistance and security cooperation programs.
If confirmed, I will work closely with the State Department's Office of
the Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism (S/CT) which has primary lead on
counterterrorism assistance.
Question. Which South East Asian countries are most important in
the fight against terrorism in that region and what should the United
States do to enhance our relations with those countries?
Answer. Again, because of the prominent interagency role in
building partner-nation counterterrorism capacity, especially on the
law enforcement side, the Department of State Office of the Coordinator
for Counterterrorism plays the critical role in synchronizing the
efforts of the U.S. Government. It is my understanding that the U.S.
Government takes a regional approach to counter terrorism and
encourages intelligence cooperation and law enforcement cooperation
within the region. For the DOD, Indonesia, and the Philippines should
be the top priorities for counter terrorism capacity-building
assistance in Southeast Asia, notably through National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) Section 1206-funded programs, which remains
one of the Department's most effective tools in building partner
capacity to combat terrorism. The Department enjoys good relations with
Indonesia and the Philippines and, in close consultation with Congress
and the Department of State, should sustain and enhance these
relationships through continued policy dialogues, security cooperation
and security assistance programs.
Question. How do you assess the security situation in the Strait of
Malacca and what can the United States do to better protect this
important trade route?
Answer. The security situation in the Strait of Malacca has
improved due largely to more effective coordination between the
Governments of Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. The United
States has also contributed to improved security through NDAA Section
1206-funded programs in Indonesia and USPACOM's robust security
cooperation outreach in the region aimed at improving maritime
security. It is important that the United States continue to work with
regional governments and militaries to safeguard this critical trade
route.
Question. What improvements or changes would you make to the
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)?
Answer. If confirmed, I would recommend that PSI should continue,
and, I would work with the appropriate offices within the Office of the
Secretary of Defense to turn PSI into a ``durable international
institution'' as President Obama called for during his April 5, 2009,
speech in Prague. I would defer recommendations on improvements or
changes to the incoming Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global
Strategic Affairs, which manages PSI for the DOD.
republic of the philippines
Question. What is your view of the current state of U.S.-Philippine
military-to-military relations?
Answer. The Philippines is one of the United States' five treaty
allies in East Asia and is a committed bilateral and regional partner
in combating terrorism. The alliance remains strong and the Philippines
remain important to the United States and to regional stability in
general. I believe the top two defense priorities with the Philippines
should be counterterrorism cooperation and defense reform.
Question. What is your assessment of U.S. military efforts in the
Philippines and the effectiveness of the U.S. assistance being provided
to the Philippine military in its fight against insurgent groups?
Answer. The U.S military is working effectively with the Armed
Forces of the Philippines to provide assistance that is consistent with
Philippine Constitutional restrictions on foreign forces. The
Philippine Armed Forces continue to professionalize and reform in a
manner consistent with U.S. and Philippine defense goals and
objectives. They benefit from various security assistance programs,
exercises, and engagement opportunities that develop capacity and
capability with their military. These efforts have resulted in numerous
strides against Abu Sayaf Group and Jemah Ismaliya terrorists in the
Southern Philippines and have resulted in better regional maritime
security cooperation.
Question. What do you believe the U.S. goals should be in the
Philippines and how best can we achieve those goals?
Answer. U.S. Defense goals are to deny safe haven, sanctuary and
training areas for Abu Sayaf Group and Jemah Ismaliya terrorists; and
to partner in cooperative regional maritime security programs. These
goals are best achieved through existing U.S. Government security
assistance and security cooperation programs.
Question. What policy guidelines, if any, would you establish, if
confirmed, to ensure that U.S. personnel do not become involved in
combat or law enforcement in the Republic of the Philippines?
Answer. The established current policy guidelines are clear: the
Mutual Defense Treaty and the Visiting Forces Agreement guide bilateral
policy with the Republic of Philippines. The Philippine Constitution
prevents foreign forces from conducting combat operations in the
Philippines. Deployed U.S forces will continue to be in strict
compliance with these strictures.
indonesia
Question. Indonesia is a key Asian power, and is the largest Muslim
country in the world. Consequently, it is important to build on
opportunities to improve and expand U.S. relations with Indonesia where
possible.
What is your understanding of the extent to which the Indonesian
Government is cooperating with the United States in the war on
terrorism?
Answer. If confirmed, I would consult with the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict and
Interdependent Capabilities on this question. Based on my current
understanding, I believe that the Government of Indonesia has
cooperated closely and effectively with the United States and our
allies in combating global terrorist networks in the region,
particularly against Jema'a Islamiya.
Question. What is your view of the current state of military-to-
military contacts with Indonesia?
Answer. Current military-to-military contacts with Indonesia are
positive and expanding. I believe that enhanced military contacts with
the Indonesian military (TNI) can help cement the recent progress we
have seen on human rights, particularly in conflict areas such as Aceh
and Papua, maritime security and military reforms. I also appreciate
Indonesia's contribution to peacekeeping operations--including Lebanon.
Going forward, I would like to see military-to-military contacts with
Indonesia deepen through a series of regular, predictable exercises and
engagements.
Question. Do you favor increased U.S.-Indonesian military-to-
military contacts? If so, under what conditions? Why?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support increased military-to-
military contacts, in close consultation with Congress and the
Department of State.
Question. What is your view of the commitment of the Indonesian
military leadership to professionalization of its armed forces,
adhering to human rights standards, improving military justice, and
cooperating with law enforcement efforts to investigate and prosecute
those military personnel accused of human rights abuses?
Answer. The Government of Indonesia continues to make progress in
military reform. Early progress toward defense reform--separation of
the police from the military, eliminating formal political roles for
the TNI, increasing accountability, and human rights training--has been
sustained. Continued progress on the divestiture of TNI businesses
would be unmistakable evidence of Indonesia's commitment to reform. The
2002 Defense Law and the 2004 TNI Law formally codified the roles and
responsibilities of the TNI as a mechanism to support, not replace,
civilian government. Continued ``hard'' reforms that the United States
should continue to push for include full accountability for past human
rights abuses, strengthening civilian control, putting the TNI fully
``on budget'', and continued professionalization of the TNI officer
corps. It also worth noting the TNI's professional conduct during
recently completed parliamentary elections.
Question. If confirmed, what would you do to encourage respect for
human rights and accountability in the Indonesian military?
Answer. If confirmed, I would sustain efforts of encouraging
professionalism within the military in terms of both human rights
respect and accountability, through bilateral security discussions,
joint training, military assistance and military training programs.
U.S. security assistance and security cooperation programs are the most
effective channels to encourage professionalism in the Indonesian
military.
war on drugs
Question. The DOD serves as the single lead agency for the
detection and monitoring of aerial and maritime foreign shipments of
drugs flowing toward the United States. In recent years, DOD has sought
to expand the list of countries eligible for counternarcotics train and
equip assistance authority (e.g. Section 1033) to combat drug
trafficking in the Asia-Pacific.
What is your assessment of the drug trafficking threat emanating
from the Asia-Pacific region?
Answer. South and Southeast Asia have become increasingly more
attractive as bases for drug trafficking organizations' production and
smuggling operations. Several Asian and Pacific nations have
experienced a significant increase in the production, trans-shipment,
trafficking, and consumption of narcotics in recent years.
Methamphetamine produced using diverted precursor chemicals, heroin
trans-shipment through Asia, poppy cultivation, and potential
narcoterrorist funding remain the primary drug threats to the United
States from the Asia Pacific region.
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (ha/dr)
Question. You have been quoted as saying that ``[h]umanitarian
assistance and disaster-relief (HA/DR) operations contribute directly
to the [Asia-Pacific] region's common stability and security'' and that
``[m]ilitary involvement is often essential''.
What is your assessment of the U.S. military contributions to HA/DR
in the Asia-Pacific region?
Answer. The Asia-Pacific region has experienced some of the worst
natural disasters in recent history and threatens to give the world an
even greater calamity--an avian influenza pandemic. In support of USAID
and the U.S. Government's broader relief efforts, DOD has played an
instrumental role in the international response to recent Asian
disasters (in Burma, Philippines, Bangladesh, China) and is deeply
involved in interagency disaster preparedness/mitigation planning
efforts.
DOD's HA/DR efforts have provided unique military capabilities
(strategic airlift, logistics, transportation, communication) and have
made significant contributions to security in the region by saving
lives, reducing human suffering, helping to build partner capacities,
and preventing crisis from becoming conflicts thereby increasing
security and stability in the region.
Question. In your view, what should the United States do to enhance
HA/DR efforts in the region?
Answer. In my view, DOD's HA/DR efforts in the region could be
enhanced through improved civilian-military cooperation and
collaboration. Successful civilian-military collaboration reduces
duplication of efforts, facilitates communication and information
sharing, and increases the military's effectiveness in providing
urgent, lifesaving capabilities in the immediate aftermath of a
disaster abroad.
prisoner-of-war (pow)/missing-in-action (mia) accounting efforts
Question. The Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command is critical to the
recovery and identification of remains of missing military members.
Recovery of remains of U.S. servicemembers from World War II, the
Korean War, and the Vietnam war continue to be a very high priority. In
2005, the DOD suspended U.S. cooperation with North Korea on recovery
and identification of the remains of U.S. personnel, citing concern for
the security of U.S. personnel in North Korea.
In your view is there any reason why we should not now resume
cooperation with North Korea to recover the remains of U.S. personnel?
Answer. I believe these efforts should resume once appropriate
conditions exist that both enable the United States to carry out this
important mission and to take all possible precautions to ensure the
safety of U.S. personnel.
Question. If confirmed, what steps, if any, would you take to
enhance POW/MIA recovery efforts in the PACOM area of responsibility?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for POW/Missing Personnel Affairs to ensure that APSA
continues its strong support for this mission and provides all
necessary assistance to enhance cooperation with the relevant
countries.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take, if any,
specifically with regard to recovery efforts in North Korea?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for POW/Missing Personnel Affairs, U.S. Pacific Command, the
State Department, and all other organizations involved to provide
advice and support whenever necessary.
foreign language policy
Question. In 2005, the Department of Defense 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.
How many Mandarin and/or Cantonese speakers does the Department of
Defense have in intelligence analyst positions?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to examine this issue in
detail. If confirmed, I will research this issue and look forward to
working with Congress to ensure the Department of Defense builds
sufficient foreign language capability and regional area expertise.
Question. Is this number sufficient to ensure good intelligence
assessments for use by the Office of Asian and Pacific Security
Affairs?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to examine this issue in
detail. If confirmed, I will research this issue and look forward to
working with Congress to ensure the Department of Defense builds
sufficient foreign language capability and regional area expertise.
Question. In your view, how should the Federal Government expand
the foreign language skills of civilian and military personnel in order
to improve the quality of intelligence input to, and policy output by,
the Office of Asian and Pacific Security Affairs?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to examine this issue in
detail. If confirmed, I will research this issue and look forward to
working with Congress to ensure the Department of Defense builds
sufficient foreign language capability and regional area expertise.
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 Asian and Pacific Security Affairs?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
Question. 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 of any good faith delay or denial in providing such
documents?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator John Thune
fiscal year 2010 defense budget proposal
1. Senator Thune. General Gregson, on April 6, Secretary Gates
announced significant changes in the fiscal year 2010 defense budget
proposal. Some of the most significant changes deal with canceling some
programs, prematurely ending production of others, or putting other
programs on hold--as is the case for the Combat and Rescue X (CSAR-X),
the F-22, and the Next Generation Bomber, respectively. This
announcement came 2 weeks prior to the Department announcing the start
of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and Nuclear Posture Review
(NPR). As future policy advisors to the Secretary, I would like to get
your opinions on whether or not these most recent budget decisions were
indeed informed policy decisions. Before making such significant
changes, wouldn't these important changes benefit from the knowledge
gained by the QDR and the NPR?
General Gregson. Yes, Secretary Gates' most recent budget decisions
were informed policy decisions. He reached these decisions after
consultations with the President, and with the military and civilian
leadership of the Department of Defense. On his Defense Budget
Recommendation Statement on 6 April 2009, Secretary Gates described
these decisions as the product of ``a holistic assessment of
capabilities, requirements, risks and needs for the purpose of shifting
the department in a different strategic direction.''
Secretary Gates announced significant changes in the fiscal year
2010 defense budget proposal and he wants that the QDR and the NPR
inform programs affected by these decisions. Some of the programs were
halted or delayed and others cancelled to allow the Department to
reassess the needs that these programs are supposed to meet. The
Department will consider the outcome of major defense reviews and arms
control negotiations in this process. Clear examples of this approach
are the three programs you addressed in this question.
First, to sustain U.S. air superiority, Secretary Gates committed
to build a fifth generation of tactical fighters capability that can be
produced in quantity at sustainable cost. He recommended increasing
investment on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and ending production of
the F-22 fighter at 187. Second, he placed the Next Generation Bomber
on hold to first assess the requirements, develop a better
understanding of the technology and of other capabilities we might have
for this mission, and to incorporate the outcome of the QDR, the NPR
and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty follow-on negotiations.
Finally, Secretary Gates recommended terminating the Air Force CSAR-X
helicopter program. This program has a history of acquisition problems
and is another example of single-service solution with a single-purpose
aircraft for an important mission affecting all Services. The
Department will reassess the requirements and develop a more
sustainable approach.
importance of long-range strike to future operations
2. Senator Thune. General Gregson, last month Lieutenant General
Maples, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified
before this committee. During that hearing, I asked about his
assessment of China's modernization programs that threaten the way the
United States projects power in the Pacific region. General Maples
said, ``China has developed a very modern layered air defense
capability in depth and is seeking additional air defense capabilities
that will project even out to a range of 400 kilometers. It
significantly affects potential U.S. operations in that region.''
Coupled with China's investment in asymmetric capabilities such as
cyber warfare, anti-satellite warfare, and anti-ship weaponry, China's
modernization programs gravely threaten potential U.S. operations in
the Pacific region. Do you agree that long-range systems able to
penetrate sophisticated air defenses will be necessary to ensure the
United States maintains its ability to project power in the Pacific
region in future years?
General Gregson. Developing long-range systems able to penetrate
modern integrated air defense systems is an important element of the
U.S. deterrence and warfighting capability. I agree with Secretary
Gates that these capabilities are necessary and that we will probably
need to develop these capabilities further. However, the decision to
pursue long-range systems must depend upon careful analyses that
examine which types of long-range capabilities are most appropriate to
deter and defeat emerging security challenges. Being flexible and
avoiding staid projections of thinking in the research and development
process will help us get this analysis right. The NPR and the QDR, two
major studies currently underway within the Department of Defense, will
help clarify the capabilities the United States will require to
maintain our ability to protect U.S. interests, allies, and partners.
3. Senator Thune. General Gregson, given this future environment,
how important is it that the Air Force continues plans to field the
Next Generation Bomber by 2018?
General Gregson. As in the case of the future of long-range systems
able to penetrate sophisticated air defenses, I agree with Secretary
Gates that the question of the Next Generation Bomber should be a part
of the analysis conducted under the QDR and the NPR.
______
[The nomination reference of Wallace C. Gregson follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 20, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Wallace C. Gregson, of Colorado, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense, vice James Shinn.
______
[The biographical sketch of Wallace C. Gregson, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Lt. Gen. Wallace C. Gregson, USMC (Ret.)
Since 2006, Lieutenant General Gregson (USMC, Retired) has been a
foreign policy and military affairs consultant for WCG & Associates
International. Previously he served as Chief Operating Officer for the
U.S. Olympic Committee. From 2003 to 2005 he was Commanding General of
the Marine Corps Forces Pacific and Marine Corps Forces Central
Command, where he led and managed over 70,000 marines and sailors in
the Middle East, Afghanistan, East Africa, Asia, and the United States.
From 2001 to 2003 he served as Commanding General of all Marine Corps
forces in Japan, where he was awarded the Japanese Order of the Rising
Sun, the Gold and Silver Star, and the Korean Order of National
Security Merit Gukseon Medal. Prior to his time in Japan he was
Director of Asia-Pacific Policy in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense from 1998 to 2000. He has served in the Marine Corps since his
graduation from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1968, and is a combat veteran
earning the Bronze Star with Combat ``V'' device for valor and heroism,
and also awarded the Purple Heart.
He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations; the Pacific
Council on International Policy; the International Institute for
Strategic Studies; the U.S. Naval Institute; and the Marine Corps
Association.
His civilian education includes a Bachelor's degree from the U.S.
Naval Academy, Master's degrees in Strategic Planning from the Naval
War College and International Relations from Salve Regina College. He
was awarded an Honorary Doctorate in Public Service by the University
of Maryland, University College.
General Gregson and his wife Cindy currently reside in Colorado.
They have two sons, one serving as a Marine Corps officer.
______
[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 Wallace C.
Gregson 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.)
Wallace C. Gregson, Jr., ``Chip''.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security
Affairs.
3. Date of nomination:
April 20, 2009.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
March 31, 1946; Pittsburgh, PA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Cynthia Ann Gregson. Maiden Name: Graham.
7. Names and ages of children:
Benjamin Wallace Gregson, 29.
Nicholas Scott Gregson, 26.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Valley Forge Military Academy, 1962-1964, high school diploma.
U.S. Naval Academy, 1964-1968, Bachelor of Science; 5 June 1968.
Salve Regina College, Master of Arts; 17 May 1987.
U.S. Naval War College; 1986-1987, Master of Arts; June 1991.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
U.S. Marine Corps officer, 1968-2005.
1999-2000, served as Director, Asia Pacific, Office of the
Secretary of Defense.
2000-2001, served as Commanding General, 3d Marine Division,
Okinawa, Japan.
2001-2003 served as Commanding General, III Marine Expeditionary
Force, Okinawa, Japan.
2003-2005, served as Commander, Marine Corps Forces Pacific and
Marine Corps Forces Central Command, Camp H M Smith, HI.
September 2005-April 2006, Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Olympic
Committee, Colorado Springs, CO.
April 2006 to present, owner of WCG & Associates International,
LLC, a consulting firm, Colorado Springs, CO.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Consultant to Governor Benigno Fitial, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI) and the CNMI Military Task Force; April 2007-
November 2008.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Vice president, NOETIC Corporation.
Trustee, Marine Corps University Foundation.
Treasurer, Injured Marine Semper Fi Fund.
Officer, Global Relief Technologies, Inc.
Advisor, Center for Unconventional Security Affairs, University of
California Irvine.
Advisor, Center for a New American Security.
Honorary Advisor, Okinawa International Development Council.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member, Council on Foreign Relations.
Member, Marine Corps Association.
Member, U.S. Naval Institute.
Member, International Institute of Strategic Studies.
Member, Pacific Council on International Policy.
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.
James Webb, August 2006, $2,100, campaign for Senate.
Joseph Bouchard, May 2007, $250, campaign for Virginia House of
Representatives.
14. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Defense Distinguished Service Medal.
Defense Meritorious Service Medal.
Legion of Merit (3).
Bronze Star with Combat ``V''.
Purple Heart.
Honorary Ph.D., Public Service, University of Maryland University
College, Okinawa, Japan.
Japanese Order of the Rising Sun, Gold and Silver Star.
Korean Order of National Security Merit Gukseon Medal. .
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Asia Now, Winning the War of Ideas; U.S. Naval Institute
Proceedings; February 2004.
Ready, Fire, Aim; U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings; April 1996.
Ideological Support, Attacking the Critical Linkage, Chapter 2 of
The Struggle Against Extremist Ideology; Center for Strategic
Leadership, the U.S. Army War College; August 2005.
Overseas Presence, Maintaining the Tip of the Spear; Marine Corps
Gazette; April 1999.
PP&O Responds; Marine Corps Gazette; September 1997.
Big Change; Marine Corps Gazette; December 1994.
A Tale of Two States; Marine Corps Gazette; December 1994 (with
Frank Hoffman).
Keeping Up with Navy Doctrine; Marine Corps Gazette; December 1990.
Sea Based Indirect Warfare; Marine Corps Gazette; May 1990.
Remembering the Maritime Side; Marine Corps Gazette; August 1989.
Portrait of the Arabs; Marine Corps Gazette; November 1987.
CPs, Softest Target on the Battlefield; Marine Corps Gazette;
August 1985.
Forward, Rule Number Two by Dr. Heidi Kraft; Little Brown and
Company; 2007.
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.
Remarks at Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association
(AFCEA) TechNet Asia-Pacific 2004, November 10, 2004, Royal Hawaiian
Hotel, Waikiki, HI, MARFORPAC Breakfast.
Remarks at the U.S. Army War College, June 5, 2008, Carlisle, PA.
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.
Wallace C. Gregson.
This 27th day of April, 2009.
[The nomination of Wallace C. Gregson was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on May 6, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 7, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Jo-Ellen Darcy by Chairman
Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works?
Answer. The duties and functions of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works are specified in section 3016 of title 10 of the
U.S.C. and Department of the Army General Orders No. 3, dated July 9,
2002 and General Orders No. 13, dated October 29, 2004. Section 3016 of
title 10 states that the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
``shall have as his principal duty the overall supervision of the
functions of the Department of the Army relating to programs for
conservation and development of the National water resources, including
flood damage reduction, river and harbor navigation, environmental
restoration and protection, water supply, shore protection,
hydroelectric power, recreation, and related purposes.''
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I have served in a variety of governmental and legislative
senior positions responsible for formulating and implementing energy,
environmental and conservation laws and policies. I currently serve as
the Senior Environmental Advisor to the U.S. Senate Committee on
Finance, working to develop energy, environmental and conservation
initiatives through the tax code. Previously, I served as the Senior
Policy Advisor, Deputy Staff Director and Professional Staff on the
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Both of these
positions have afforded me the opportunity to work closely with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Office of the Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Civil Works) officials and to develop a keen appreciation for
the scope, complexity and challenges facing them today.
I have served in a number of other governmental positions that
provided me with leadership and management skills necessary to be
effective in this important position. These include serving as the
Executive Director at the Great Lakes and Water Resources Planning
Commission in Michigan, as the Assistant to the Director of Personnel
for Gubernatorial Appointments for the Governor of Michigan and as a
Legislative and Policy Analyst in the U.S. House of Representatives
Banking Subcommittee on Economic Stabilization.
I have come to understand how large organizations function, to work
within the parameters of plans, programs, and budgets, and to face and
overcome challenges. I have had the privilege of building strong,
effective relationships with Senators, congressional staff, key
officials within the executive department, including the Department of
Defense, the Army Corps of Engineers, and civil works stakeholders.
I hold a Master of Science degree in Resource Development from
Michigan State University and a Bachelor of Science degree from Boston
College. My education and experiences have given me a broad base of
knowledge to lead in the development of sound processes, practices, and
policies to execute the critical mission of Army civil works.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Civil Works?
Answer. If confirmed, I would take several actions to enhance my
expertise as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). My goal
would be to travel to each Corps of Engineers division to see first-
hand the infrastructure development and environmental restoration
projects to fully understand the planning, design, construction,
operation and maintenance of these projects. I also intend to reach out
to Members of Congress, other Federal agencies, State and local
interests, study and project sponsors, and other stakeholders to
understand their perspectives in areas of mutual concern. I would also
work to develop a close relationship with other offices within the
Department of the Army and the Department of Defense to make better use
of resources and advance the interests of the Civil Works program.
I also will work closely with the Chief of Engineers and the Deputy
Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations to ensure that I
am fully informed and prepared to address the important issues I would
oversee as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of the Army would prescribe for you?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I expect to carry out the duties and
functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) as
articulated in General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002 and General
Orders No. 13, dated October 29, 2004. In addition, I expect to support
and assist the Secretary of the Army in carrying out critical
departmental responsibilities, including Continuity of Operations.
relationships
Question. Please describe how you envision your working
relationship, if confirmed, with the following:
The Secretary of the Army.
Answer. If confirmed, I expect the Secretary of the Army will
discuss the roles and responsibilities he wishes me to assume in
furthering the goals and priorities of the Secretary of Defense and the
President. Consistent with the statutory responsibilities of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and the
responsibilities and authorities assigned under the General Orders of
the Army, I expect the Secretary will rely on me to oversee the Civil
Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers, the programs of Arlington
National Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery.
Question. Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel
Readiness.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Under Secretary
of Defense (Logistics, Materiel Readiness) in areas of shared
responsibility.
Question. The Under Secretary of the Army.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Under Secretary
of the Army in furthering the goals and priorities of the President and
the Secretary of the Army.
Question. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) in areas of shared
responsibility.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense in areas of shared
responsibility.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and
Environment.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Assistant
Secretary for Installations and Environment in areas of shared
responsibility, such as land acquisition for civil works projects. I
will develop a cooperative relationship as we carry out the respective
duties assigned to us by the Secretary of the Army to protect and
preserve the environment and manage the Army's resources under our
stewardship.
Question. The Chief of Staff of the Army and the Army Staff.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Chief of Staff
of the Army and the Army Staff. I expect to coordinate closely with the
Army Staff regarding our responsibilities relating to the duties of the
Chief of Engineers.
Question. The Chief of Engineers.
Answer. If confirmed, I will develop a close working relationship
with the Chief of Engineers as we work effectively to manage the
Nation's Civil Works programs and projects, remaining mindful of my
oversight responsibility under the law and the Army General Orders. I
believe the interests of the Nation are best served when the
relationship between the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
and the Chief of Engineers is based on mutual respect, trust, and
cooperation. Both positions have enormous responsibilities and demand
focused attention to very complex issues. Our respective abilities to
respond to the President's priorities and carry out laws enacted by
Congress will depend heavily on the success of this relationship.
Question. State Governors.
Answer. The execution of the Corps of Engineers civil works mission
often demands a balancing of diverse interests. The proper
reconciliation of these interests requires an understanding of the
Corps' authorities and legal responsibilities and open communication
among all parties. If I am confirmed, I am committed to working
cooperatively with the Governors of the States for the public interest,
and I pledge to establish and maintain a full dialogue with the
Governors of the States on all issues that we must cooperatively
address.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works?
Answer. Communities across the country rely on Army Corps of
Engineers water resources projects to reduce flood damages, to enable
efficient competition in world trade, to provide needed water and
power, and to protect and restore our rich environmental resources. The
Civil Works program provides a sound investment in the Nation's
security, economic future, and environmental stability. I believe the
greatest continuing water resources challenge is to find sustainable
ways to strengthen the Nation's economy, while protecting and restoring
unique water and related land resources for the benefit of future
generations.
Two other challenges the Corps faces are the need to maintain its
existing water infrastructure and to repair damages to the natural
environment. An efficient water transportation system is critical if we
are to remain competitive in international trade. Our system of ports
and inland waterways enable us to efficiently transport goods in an
environmentally acceptable manner.
Flooding also continues to threaten communities. We should use the
Corps limited resources not only to respond to natural disasters when
floods and hurricanes occur, but also to work more creatively with
nature to prevent or reduce flood damages.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed I would expect the Secretary of the Amy and I
to work together to define the appropriate role for the Corps of
Engineers in addressing these problems. The challenges the Nation faces
are complex, and there are many difficult decisions to make. It is of
paramount importance that we bring all interests to the table and that
all have a voice in the development of solutions to our Nation's
problems. The Army Corps of Engineers should always engage in an open
and cooperative dialogue with Congress, other Federal agencies, States,
Tribes and local governments in addressing those important challenges
where the Corps can contribute to solutions for the Nation.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works?
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works has
wide-ranging responsibilities arising from the varied purposes of the
Civil Works Program. I believe the Assistant Secretary should continue
and improve its efforts to clearly establish and communicate policy and
direction so the Corps can effectively execute its important Civil
Works mission and to ensure continued broad support within the
Department of Defense and the Department of the Army for the national
cemeteries program.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and timelines would
you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, one of my first priorities will be to meet
with the Chief of Engineers and others in the administration and
Congress to seek their input on how the Corps can best meet the
Nation's water resources needs.
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Civil Works?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to improve the management and
administration of the Army Civil Works Program and the Army's national
cemetery program and would seek ways to more efficiently use Army's
resources in the development and execution of these programs.
civilian oversight of the army corps of engineers
Question. What is your view of the relative authority of the Chief
of Engineers, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the
Secretary of the Army, the Army Chief of Staff, and the Secretary of
Defense with regard to the civil works function of the Army Corps of
Engineers?
Answer. My view of the relative authority of the Chief of
Engineers, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the
Secretary of the Army, the Army Chief of Staff, and the Secretary of
Defense with regard to the civil works function of the Army Corps of
Engineers follows:
Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of Defense has full authority, direction, and control
over all elements of the Department of Defense. He exercises this power
over the Corps of Engineers through the Secretary of the Army, whose
responsibility for, and authority to conduct, all affairs of the Army
is subject to the authority, direction and control of the Secretary of
Defense. If confirmed, I will cooperate fully with the Secretary of
Defense in fulfilling the administration's national defense priorities
and efficiently administering the Corps of Engineers in accordance with
the policies established by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
The Secretary of the Army
As head of the Department of the Army, the Secretary of the Army is
responsible for, and has the authority necessary to conduct all affairs
of the Department of the Army. He may assign functions, powers and
duties as he considers appropriate to the Under Secretary of the Army,
as well as the Assistant Secretaries of the Army, and require officers
of the Army to report to these officials on any matter.
The Chief of Staff of the Army
The Chief of Staff of the Army performs his duties under the
authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of the Army and is
directly responsible to the Secretary. The Chief of Staff also performs
the duties prescribed for him by law as a member of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. If confirmed, I will establish and maintain a close,
professional relationship with the Chief of Staff. I will communicate
with him directly and openly as he performs his prescribed duties.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works is principally
responsible for the overall supervision of the Army's civil works
program, including flood damage reduction, river and harbor navigation,
environmental restoration and protection, water supply, shore
protection, hydroelectric power, recreation and related purposes. The
complex issues that arise in these areas demand a close, professional
relationship between the Assistant Secretary and the Chief of
Engineers, based on mutual respect, trust, cooperation and full and
open communication. The Assistant Secretary also is responsible for the
program and budget of the Army national cemeteries, namely Arlington
National Cemetery and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National
Cemetery. If I am confirmed, I am committed to establishing and
maintaining close professional relationships with all officials who
share and are responsible for aspects of these programs, in order to
respond effectively to the President's priorities and laws enacted by
Congress.
The Chief of Engineers
As a member of the Army Staff, the Chief of Engineers reports to
the Chief of Staff, through the Vice Chief of Staff, with respect to
military matters. The Chief of Engineers reports to the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) on civil works functions of the
Army, including those relating to the conservation and development of
water resources and the support for others program. The Chief of
Engineers also reports to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works) with respect to reimbursable support for non-Defense agencies
and for reimbursable international activities not directly in support
of U.S. forces overseas. In the area of military installation
activities, the Chief reports to the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Installations & Environment), who has principal responsibility for all
Department of the Army matters related to installations and the
environment.
Question. In your view, does the Corps need to make fundamental
changes in the way it operates? If so, what changes would you
recommend?
Answer. No. I believe the Corps is a fundamentally sound
organization. It has strong technical abilities and has proven time and
time again that it can solve difficult problems. It has served this
Nation for many years and can be counted on to continue to do so in the
future. However, the Corps should continually re-examine the way it
manages policy and technical reviews in order to ensure projects will
receive broad support. Also, the Corps should always seek better, more
effective ways of communicating with the broad range of interests that
have a stake in its projects.
Question. If confirmed, what procedures would you follow regarding
consultation with Congress prior to issuing any secretarial decisions
or announcements regarding reforms that may affect the execution of the
civil works and environmental functions of the Army Corps of Engineers?
Answer. If confirmed, I will follow Departmental procedures
regarding consultation with Congress that facilitate full and open
communication among all interested parties, including the executive
branch, Members of Congress, or the public. In performing my statutory
duties, I intend to appropriately involve all interested parties and
make decisions that take into account all relevant information.
Question. What is your view of the role of the civilian and
military leadership of the Army Corps of Engineers in developing goals
for Corps programs and presenting these goals to the legislative
branch?
Answer. If confirmed, I will provide leadership to enable the Corps
to continue to be a valuable asset to the Nation. Representing the
administration, I will work with Congress to insure the proper
direction for the Corps. I will work with the Corps' military and
civilian leaders to establish and provide to the legislative branch
appropriate Civil Works goals, and I will ensure that both the Office
of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works and the Corps continue to
respond to requests for information from the legislative branch.
integrity of corps of engineers projects
Question. In November 2000, the Army Inspector General found that
three Army Corps of Engineers officials had manipulated data in a cost-
benefit analysis in order to justify a $1 billion project.
What steps have been taken since 2000 to ensure that projects are
appropriately analyzed and justified?
Answer. My understanding is that the Corps has made substantial
changes to assure that projects are appropriately analyzed and
justified. The Corps has strengthened its procedures for internal peer
review and adopted procedures for external peer review that is both
consistent with guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget
and responsive to directives contained in the Water Resources
Development Act of 2007. Further, several years ago the Corps
established the Civil Works Review Board as a means to vet Corps Civil
Works project recommendations with the Corps senior leadership, Office
of Management and Budget staff, as well as the Office Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) personnel in advance of completing
Chief of Engineers reports. The Directorate of Civil Works several
years ago created the Office of Water Project Review, which is separate
from project development functions and, as I understand it, further
strengthens the internal review procedures.
Question. If confirmed, what further steps, if any, would you take
to ensure integrity in the oversight of projects executed by the Army
Corps of Engineers?
Answer. If confirmed, I will evaluate the current process guided by
the principle that Corps technical analyses must be absolutely sound
and the project evaluation process must be transparent and inclusive.
External reviews can contribute to reducing controversy and risk, but
these reviews must be integrated into the project development process
not added at the end of the process. Integration of external review
will improve projects and will assist the Corps in meeting urgent needs
in a timely manner.
navigation
Question. The Army Corps of Engineers has built and maintains an
intracoastal and inland network of commercial navigation channels, and
locks and dams for navigation, which comprise an integral parts of the
Nation's critical infrastructure. The Corps also maintains 300
commercial harbors, through which pass 2 billion tons of cargo a year,
and more than 600 smaller harbors. Significant amounts of heavy
equipment and supplies bound for potential overseas military operations
move by ship through ports maintained by the civil works program.
What do you view as the greatest challenges facing the Army with
respect to the execution of its navigation mission?
Answer. I expect one of the greatest challenges with the execution
of the navigation mission to be the maintenance, recapitalization and
modernization of aging infrastructure. Maintaining ports and waterways
is critical to our economic well-being. Another significant challenge
to the navigation mission is the management of hundreds of millions of
cubic yards of dredged material removed annually from our Nation's
marine transportation harbors and waterways. I believe the Army and the
Corps are continually working to make dredging and placement of dredged
material environmentally safe and acceptable. I believe these efforts
should be continued and we should look for innovative ways to integrate
the critical need for navigation improvements with and opportunities to
protect and restore the Nation's aquatic environment.
Question. Are there aspects of this mission which you believe
should be transferred from the Department of the Army?
Answer. At this time I do not believe that any aspects of the
Corps' navigation mission should be transferred from the Department of
the Army.
Question. In your view, how can the Corps best respond to
environmental concerns in carrying out its navigation mission?
Answer. I believe the Corps not only should continue to assess
environmental considerations as they arise in its Navigation program,
but also seek out opportunities for regional sediment management and
beneficial uses of dredged material. As lessons are learned, they
should be incorporated into the management of the navigation program to
best provide a safe, efficient, reliable, and environmentally sound
marine transportation system.
environmental mission
Question. The Corps is responsible for environmental restoration
projects at Department of Defense Formerly Used Defense Sites and also
at Department of Energy Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program. Under the DOE program, the Army Corps of Engineers cleans up
former Manhattan Project and Atomic Energy Commission sites, making use
of expertise gained in cleaning up former military sites, and civilian
hazardous waste sites under the Environmental Protection Agency
``Superfund'' program.
What do you view as the greatest challenges facing the Army with
respect to the execution of its environmental restoration mission?
Answer. Continuing to execute the vital cleanup mission while
always protecting the health and safety of workers and the public is
perhaps the biggest challenge for the Formerly Used Defense Sites
Program and the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. The
Corps should continue to apply good science and management practices
that will increase remediation efficiency and continue to meet the
commitments made to stakeholders. The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial
Action Program is a Civil Works mission under the oversight of the
ASA(CW), as is the Superfund and other environmental work the Corps
carries out on behalf of non-Defense agencies on a reimbursable basis
due to the Corps special expertise. In contrast, the Formerly Used
Defense Sites Program is an element of the Defense Environmental
Restoration Program under the responsibility of the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Installations & Environment).
Question. Are there aspects of this mission which you believe
should be transferred from the Department of the Army?
Answer. At this time I believe the Army is the appropriate agency
to perform this mission.
Question. What is your vision for this aspect of the Corps'
mission?
Answer. My vision for the Civil Works Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program and for the Corps' reimbursable support for
non-Defense agencies is that these programs should be executed
efficiently, in partnerships with others, and with the highest possible
level of technical competence.
Question. If confirmed, how would you propose to address the Corps'
environmental funding requirements?
Answer. If confirmed, I will evaluate the environmental funding
needs within the overall Corps Civil Works mission.
Question. If confirmed, how would you preserve the integrity of the
Corps' environmental and civil works mission?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with others, including
the Chief of Engineers, to ensure that all aspects of the Civil Works
program are carried out to the highest possible standards of
engineering and environmental science, and I will strongly support the
practice, strengthened by the Water Resources Development Act of 2007,
of engaging outside experts for independent reviews of the Corps' work.
I have an understanding of the practical issues regarding independent
review and will work to achieve the fullest implementation of
congressional intent.
Question. What are your views about the potential performance of
regulatory functions presently performed by the Army Corps of Engineers
by other governmental or nonmilitary entities?
Answer. At this time I believe the Army continues to be the
appropriate agency to carry out the regulatory functions currently
assigned to the Corps of Engineers.
Question. The Corps is also responsible for Environmental and
Ecosystem Restoration as part of its Civil Works mission. These include
the Everglades, Coastal Louisiana, and the Great Lakes. There are many
large ecosystem restoration projects around the Nation.
How do you propose to balance the Corps' work between ecosystem
restoration and traditional navigation?
Answer. The Corps Civil Works program has three major mission
areas: Navigation, Flood Damage Reduction, and Ecosystem Restoration.
If confirmed, I will work to improve watershed planning to balance
needs and facilitate comprehensive and integrated solutions that
preserve or enhance performance and sustainability at a system level.
state water quality standards
Question. In the past, the Army Corps of Engineers has not always
been required to meet State water quality standards in constructing and
operating its water resources projects.
Do you believe that the Army Corps of engineers should be required
to meet State water quality standards in constructing and operating
Corps projects?
Answer. Yes, I do. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that
the Army Corps of Engineers obtain certification from States, or
interstate water control agencies, that a proposed water resources
project is in compliance with established effluent limitations and
water quality standards. If a State in question has assumed
responsibilities for the section 404 regulatory program, a State 404
permit would be obtained which would serve as the certification of
compliance.
Section 404r of the Clean Water Act waives the requirement to
obtain the State water quality certification if the information on the
effects of the discharge is included in an Environmental Impact
Statement on the proposed project submitted to Congress before the
discharge takes place and prior to either authorization of the project
or appropriation of construction funds. Nevertheless, it is my
understanding that it is the policy of the Corps to seek State water
quality certification rather than utilizing the Section 404r exemption
provision.
budgeting
Question. The Corps of Engineers has a significant backlog of
Operations and Maintenance work and Construction work throughout the
country. This backlog has very real economic, environmental, and safety
implications.
How do you plan to address the backlog of work? How will you
prioritize certain types of projects above others?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the backlog of authorized
projects that have not been started to determine whether they are still
appropriate to meet today's water resources challenges, and I will
consider whether they should be recommended for inclusion in the
President's budget. Regarding the balance to complete for ongoing
construction projects, which sometimes is also referred to as part of
the backlog, I will strive to complete them as efficiently as possible
in accordance with administration budgetary criteria, in order for the
Nation to realize the benefits provided by those projects. Regarding
the maintenance backlog, I will carry out a thorough analysis of the
remaining backlog after assessing the benefits from the funding
provided for this purpose under the American Reinvestment and Recovery
Act.
Question. What are your views on using the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund, which has approximately a $4 billion surplus, to address the
Corps' backlog?
Answer. I understand that there is a large unspent balance of
revenues and interest in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and that the
annual revenues exceed recent rates of spending for eligible navigation
operation and maintenance. I believe this matter merits serious review
within the administration to determine whether policy, budgetary, or
legislative changes are appropriate.
workforce in the corps of engineers
Question. There has been much discussion and publicity about the
reduction in engineers graduating from our Nation's universities over
the last 20 years.
How would you assess the overall health of the national engineering
expertise and capability maintained within the Corps of Engineers
workforce?
Answer. From what I understand, this issue has been of great
importance to the Chief of Engineers for some time. I believe the Corps
is generally successful in filling positions and usually has multiple
highly qualified candidates for each position announced. Many of the
Corps' employees, both civilians and military officers have either
professional engineering degrees or project management skills
experience. I believe that recruiting and retaining talented employees
is key and is an area of great interest to me and, if confirmed, look
forward to working with the Chief of Engineers to ensure that emphasis
remains on this critical area within the Corps of Engineers.
Question. In your opinion, are adequate programs in place and
funded to ensure the Corps engineering workforce is educated on the
latest technologies and innovations?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with the Chief of Engineers to
learn more about the programs that are in place and to explore
additional options and ideas.
Question. Do you see any challenges or opportunities for
improvement to the workforce?
Answer. I believe that there are always opportunities to improve an
organization's overall workforce. If confirmed, I would work with the
Chief of Engineers to explore opportunities to improve.
acquisition processes for the corps of engineers
Question. In the last 5 years, the Corps of Engineers has
increasingly relied upon a contract process known as Design-Build,
which requires a design agent to partner with a construction agent to
compete for a contract. This differs from the traditional design-bid-
build process, where the Corps contracts first for a design product and
subsequently issues a separate solicitation for the construction. While
there are many benefits to a collaborative process between a designer
and the construction agent, there are also drawbacks. These include the
reduced oversight by the Corps engineers in the design/construction
process, and the systematic elimination of small to medium size
engineering/architecture firms as well as construction contractors who
do not have the resources to compete for design-build contracts.
In your opinion, what are the strengths and weaknesses in each
acquisition process?
Answer. From my limited prior experience in this area, by way of
strengths, the design-build process generally results in faster project
delivery because the requirements can be quickly defined in performance
terms and the design and construction phases can proceed largely
concurrently. In terms of weaknesses, the design build process requires
more effort and therefore may be more costly to industry to submit
offers and the Government and its customers have less control over the
final design solutions.
Question. How should the Corps determine which acquisition process
to use?
Answer. I believe the Corps plans all acquisitions pursuant to the
Federal Acquisition Regulations. The decision to use one delivery
system over another depends on many factors which involve the customer,
the project, industry and the Corps of Engineers. I believe all factors
must be weighed and considered before any particular acquisition method
is chosen.
Question. Do you believe the use of design-build contracts has any
effect on the proficiency of the Corps engineering and contract
management workforce? If so, can you elaborate?
Answer. If confirmed, I would consult with the Chief of Engineers,
to better understand the process and considerations when using the
design-build option and how it affects the proficiency of the Corps'
engineering and contract management workforce.
Question. Do you foresee any issues over the long term emerging
from the preponderant use of design-build contracts?
Answer. From what I understand, the Corps plans all acquisitions
and selects the appropriate delivery system depending on the specific
requirements. At this time, I do not foresee any issues over the long
term using design-build contracts.
nation-wide levee systems and flood control
Question. The recent floods in North Dakota and surrounding States
reemphasized the importance and fragility of our Nation's levee
systems.
How would you assess the health of these systems?
Answer. I understand that the Corps of Engineers is in the process
of inventorying and evaluating levees nation-wide. Until all the
information is collected, there are still many unknowns. However, in
general, I agree with the premise that levees across the Nation are
aging and that this is an important concern.
Question. In your opinion, is the process used by the Corps of
Engineers to prioritize national levee requirements adequate?
Answer. I believe the Corps of Engineers holds public safety as top
priority and uses basic risk concepts, such as population at risk, to
prioritize all aspects of levee activities, including inspections,
operation and maintenance, and construction projects. The Corps is
currently developing risk tools to improve how it evaluates the risk
associated with levees in order to improve how national priorities are
determined. If confirmed, I plan to review the prioritization of levy
requirements.
Question. Are the resources provided to date to address these
requirements adequate?
Answer. If confirmed, I will evaluate how resources are allocated
among all of the Civil Works programs.
Question. If not, what additional resources are needed, in your
opinion?
Answer. At this time, I do not know what additional resources may
be needed in this area. However, if confirmed, I will evaluate funding
for all programs within Civil Works.
Question. If confirmed, how would you address concerns about the
future of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) and a determination
on whether it should be closed?
Answer. It is my understanding that the MRGO was deauthorized on 5
June 2008, when the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,
the Honorable John Paul Woodley, Jr., sent to Congress the Report of
the Chief of Engineers, which presents the results of the comprehensive
plan for MRGO. The report recommended deauthorizing the portion of the
MRGO navigation channel from the Gulf of Mexico to Mile 60 at the
southern bank of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and physical
modifications to the MRGO and, based on the requirements of section
7013 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, includes a plan to
address ecosystem restoration.
I also understand that the Corps is currently building the MRGO
closure structure and conducting a feasibility study to develop an
ecosystem restoration plan for estuarine areas impacted by the MRGO and
that closure construction work is scheduled for completion this year.
If confirmed, I will closely monitor the MRGO project.
prioritization process in the corps of engineers
Question. The Corps of Engineers have always been subject to
pressure from various levels of government to carry out certain
projects of special interest.
Do you believe the prioritization process used by the Corps of
Engineers for civil works projects is adequate?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Corps does not prioritize
projects for authorization. Once authorized, projects are recommended
for appropriation consistent with the budgetary criteria set by the
administration on a yearly basis. Because the budget must address
prioritization of projects to receive limited funding, budgetary
criteria are often different from the criteria used to establish
Federal interest and ultimately support project authorization.
Question. If confirmed, do you plan to adhere to the established
prioritization processes, barring any unforeseen circumstances?
Answer. Yes, I believe that, in general, budgetary criteria reflect
the priorities of the administration and, if confirmed, I would support
the administration's budgetary criteria.
Question. What is your opinion of using peer reviews of Corps
projects to get an outside opinion on the need, urgency, and assessment
of effects caused by Corps projects?
Answer. I believe Corps project proposals should be reviewed by
both internal and external parties and that these reviews should be
integrated into the planning process in a way that is transparent and
seamless. In addition, these reviews should be undertaken in an
integrated manner to ensure feedback is appropriately incorporated into
planning investigations at the earliest possible stages of plan
formulation.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
Question. 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?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
harbor maintenance trust fund
1. Senator Levin. Ms. Darcy, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
(HMTF) has approximately a $4 billion surplus that is growing every
year, yet there are ports, waterways, and small harbors, including
harbors of refuge in Michigan, that are silting due to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) having insufficient funds available for
dredging and other operations and maintenance needs. The money
collected for the HMTF is intended for a specific purpose--maintaining
harbors and channels. As I mentioned though, the Corps has significant
operations and maintenance backlogs, and yet in fiscal year 2008 the
Corps only spent $766 million in operations and maintenance from the
HMTF, while the tax revenues collected were $1.6 billion. If confirmed,
how would you propose to address these needs as you work with the Corps
divisions and districts and the Office of Management and Budget in
developing the administration's future budget requests?
Ms. Darcy. Since I am not yet confirmed, I do not have a specific
proposal to address the imbalance between revenues to and spending from
the HMTF. If confirmed, I will work with the Office of Management and
Budget, other Federal agencies that have responsibilities related to
the Nation's waterborne commerce, and with nongovernmental stakeholders
with an interest in the Federal navigation channels and harbors
maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers, to explore options for
dealing with this issue. I know from my experience working for Senate
committees that the HMTF has been a longstanding concern to many
interested parties.
soo locks
2. Senator Levin. Ms. Darcy, over $30 million has been allocated to
the Soo Lock Replacement project over several years for engineering and
design work as well as construction. The Corps has stated that it will
not provide funding in its budget for the project. Roughly two-thirds
of the Great Lakes fleet is limited to the current 1,000-foot lock, and
if something happens which would incapacitate the current lock, there
would be severe repercussions throughout the region. The Corps is
considering whether homeland security concerns should also be
considered since so much raw material moves through the existing Poe
Lock. Along a parallel track, the Corps is also working on a Soo Locks
Asset Renewal Plan to upgrade the existing Poe and McArthur locks. This
project is estimated to cost $70 million, and is critical for the Great
Lakes shipping industry and American manufacturing. If confirmed, what
steps would you take to ensure that sufficient infrastructure
investments are made to maintain the Great Lakes maritime
competitiveness?
Ms. Darcy. I appreciate the importance of the Soo Locks to the
movement of cargo and the commensurate benefit to the economy. If
confirmed, I will review matters related to the Soo Lock Replacement
project,,the Soo Locks Asset Renewal-study, and the Army Civil Works
budgeting practices. I will give careful attention to impacts on Great
Lakes maritime competitiveness arising from existing and potential
Civil Works infrastructure investments.
3. Senator Levin. Ms. Darcy, will you commit to considering
relevant homeland security concerns in the cost-benefit analysis when
reviewing the Soo Locks Replacement project?
Ms. Darcy. If confirmed, I will review how homeland security
concerns should be considered in analysis and justification of Corps of
Engineers projects.
4. Senator Levin. Ms. Darcy, will the Corps' value the benefit of
reducing the risk and associated cost of lock failure as a result of a
terrorist act, natural disaster, or mechanical failure?
Ms. Darcy. I am not familiar with the Corps' current practices for
placing a value on the benefit of reducing the risk and impacts of
possible lock failure arising from a terrorist act, natural disaster,
or mechanical failure. If confirmed, I will review the current
practices and give full consideration to whether modifications are
warranted in the interest of national security.
national and great lakes operations and maintenance backlog
5. Senator Levin. Ms. Darcy, in Michigan, throughout the Great
Lakes, and across the country, there is a significant backlog of Corps'
work. In the Great Lakes, we have been contending with a backlog of
dredging and other operations and maintenance work. The Corps estimates
a backlog of 17 million cubic yards at commercial harbors that need to
be dredged and over 100 miles of breakwaters that need repairs. Due to
the dredging backlog, several freighters have become stuck in Great
Lakes channels; ships have had to carry reduced loads, and many
shipments have simply ceased altogether. Because of the disrepair to
the breakwaters, some vessels have been unable to use harbors of refuge
during storms, presenting real threats to public safety.
This problem stems in part because the Corps views the Great Lakes
as a coastal system and compares individual ports using tons as a
budget metric. In contrast, the Corps budgets our Nation's river
systems on a ton-mile metric. The current budget process and metrics
put the Great Lakes navigational system at a disadvantage compared to
other domestic navigational systems. For example, based on fiscal year
2005 funding levels, the Corps spent about $0.52 per ton of cargo
carried in the Great Lakes, but the Missouri River received about $15
per ton of cargo carried. Clearly, the Great Lakes are being
shortchanged.
How do you plan to address the backlog of Corps' work across the
country, and in particular the Great Lakes?
Ms. Darcy. The Nation's navigation channels and waterways are vital
components of our transportation system. However, competition for
Federal funds is very keen, and in a constrained funding environment
the Corps must prioritize its maintenance needs across the spectrum of
projects. If confirmed, I will analyze the Corps' current procedures
and performance measures for allocating scarce funding and will seek
ways to refine the metrics applicable to maintenance funding to ensure
that funding for navigation infrastructure is budgeted on a sound basis
that takes systematic impacts into consideration.
6. Senator Levin. Ms. Darcy, would you be willing to change the
Corps' budgeting guidelines to provide more equitable funding
allocations for the Nation's shipping channels?
Ms. Darcy. If confirmed, I will review current budgetary guidelines
and give full consideration to what changes, if.any, are needed to
enable the Corps to allocate available Civil Works funds in the most
equitable manner possible.
great lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration program
7. Senator Levin. Ms. Darcy, the Great Lakes are home to some very
unique species of fish and wildlife, but unfortunately, the fishery and
the ecosystem health of the Great Lakes are threatened by invasive
species, nonpoint source pollution, contaminated sediments, and habitat
loss. The Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration Program (GLFER)
was authorized 9 years ago. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission, which
is the Corps' primary partner in implementing GLFER, and the Corps has
expended considerable time, energy, and funds to begin the
implementation of GLFER. Unfortunately, the Corps has done little to
support GLFER in its proposed budget. In fact, the Corps has called
GLFER `unbudgetable' until a feasibility study is conducted to identify
every project to be done under GLFER. I believe that this is
unsatisfactory given the fact that it is impossible to identify the
universe of projects because some will emerge over time. Additionally,
GLFER is similar to other continuing authority programs such as Section
206 and Section 1135 for which it does budget. If you are confirmed,
will you continue to call GLFER `unbudgetable,' hamstringing its
contribution to Great Lakes restoration?
Ms. Darcy. From my prior experience, I am familiar with the view
that programs such as the GLFER Program should have a detailed
programmatic report on which their budget priority could be evaluated.
If confirmed, I will review this practice in general and its
application to the GLFER Program in particular.
invasive species-asian carp
8. Senator Levin. Ms. Darcy, by all accounts, invasive Asian carp
have the potential to wreak havoc on the Great Lakes economy and
environment. In an effort to slow or stop the spread of invasive
species between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River watersheds,
which are connected as a result of a Corps project, Congress authorized
a dispersal barrier demonstration project in the National Invasive
Species Act of 1996. The barrier has been operating successfully for
several years, and a second, permanent barrier is partially
operational. If confirmed, will you make ecosystem protection and
prevention of organism movement the principle driver for making
decisions about the electrical barrier system?
Ms. Darcy. I am aware that invasive species such as the Asian carp
are a critical concern for the Great Lakes. The Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal is an obvious pathway for these species to reach the Lakes,
presenting a pressing threat. If confirmed, I will ensure that the best
science and engineering are applied to complete the proposed three
barrier system to keep the Asian Carp out of the Great Lakes. In
coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard, I will work to ensure the
barriers are employed at the maximum safe levels of operation. I will
also explore additional alternatives, making every effort to keep
invasive species from the Lakes.
9. Senator Levin. Ms. Darcy, will you commit to completing the
authorized report on progress toward identifying a more permanent
solution to the problem of interbasin organism movement?
Ms. Darcy. If confirmed, I will make every effort within my
authority to complete the authorized report seeking a more permanent
solution to the problem of interbasin organism movement.
great lakes interagency task force
10. Senator Levin. Ms. Darcy, beginning in 2004, the Federal
agencies that manage programs on the Great Lakes began working
cooperatively as part of the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force. The
Corps of Engineers has many authorized programs and projects on the
Great Lakes, and your predecessor, Secretary Woodley, was engaged in
the activities of this Task Force. If confirmed, will you commit to
being an active partner in the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force?
Ms. Darcy. I believe the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force is one
of the most effective interagency collaborations both within the United
States and between the United States and Canada, and I understand the
Corps of Engineers has been instrumental in this collaboration. If
confirmed, I will be an active partner in the Task Force and will try
not only to sustain these collaborative efforts, but to strengthen
them.
local and state coordination
11. Senator Levin. Ms. Darcy, the Corps has a great deal of
expertise and resources that can be very valuable in the effort to
restore the health of the Great Lakes. One of the challenges local
organizations and State agencies often face in working with the Corps
is meeting the requirements for local cost share. Do you have any
recommendations for ways that the Corps might be a more effective
partner with local organizations in pursuing restoration projects by
reducing the overall cost of Corps restoration projects so that the
local share will be more affordable?
Ms. Darcy. I believe that one way the partnerships could be more
effective is to renew efforts to reduce the time it takes to plan and
make decisions regarding projects. If the time it takes to complete a
study is shortened, the overall cost of the study will be reduced since
a large portion of the cost is salaries and overhead. If confirmed, I
will work with the Corps to identify opportunities to shorten the time
required to complete studies, as well as opportunities to better
integrate existing planning studies and to examine benefits from more
emphasis on watershed-wide and regional programmatic analyses.
interagency coordination
12. Senator Levin. Ms. Darcy, one of the challenges we face in
restoring the Great Lakes is bringing the resources and talents of
multiple Federal agencies of the Federal Government together to meet a
common challenge. Too often, Federal agencies are confined by narrow
authorities or interpretations of their authority that make it
difficult for Federal agencies to work together on common Great Lakes
projects. President Obama's recent $475 million budget request for an
interagency Great Lakes restoration initiative (led by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)) may be an opportunity for
Federal agencies to pool or share resources so that the Corps can bring
its unique skills and expertise together with the unique skills and
areas of expertise of others in the Federal family to tackle a problem.
Can you recommend ways that the Corps can improve its ability to work
in a team setting with other Federal agencies to bring the best
combination of Federal skills and resources together to tackle a
problem?
Ms. Darcy. If confirmed, I will work with the Corps of Engineers,
the EPA, and other Federal agencies to determine the appropriate role
for the Corps in supporting the execution of President Obama's fiscal
year 2010 interagency initiative to restore the Great Lakes. I am
committed to maximizing interagency collaboration by building and
sustaining strong working relationships with sister agencies. If
confirmed, I will work to expand the Corps' watershed planning and
management activities and to more fully engage Federal and non-Federal
stakeholders in a wide variety of efforts.
13. Senator Levin. Ms. Darcy, are there any changes in authority
that might make this approach more feasible?
Ms. Darcy. While I am not aware of any specific concerns with the
Corps' current authorities to engage in partnerships with other Federal
agencies, if confirmed I will look into this matter. Also, I will work
with the EPA and other Federal agencies to determine whether any
additional authority is needed to enable the Corps to fully support the
President's initiative.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
maritime hazards
14. Senator Reed. Ms. Darcy, in past years, both the Corps and I
have sought and secured funding to remove several large boulders from
the mouth of the Charlestown (Rhode Island) Breachway, which connects
Ninigret Pond to the Block Island Sound. The boulders are a severe
safety hazard to vessels attempting to enter or exit the pond. There
are on average 20 grounding incidents on the rocks per year, and severe
damage causing complete loss of a boat occurs on average once every 10
years. While the damages from groundings are significant, town
officials are most concerned about the potential for loss of life
during a grounding accident in poor conditions.
This project has been funded and designed under section 107 of the
River and Harbors Act. However, as the project has gone through design,
the cost benefit ratio for commercial vessels, which does not include
the potential for loss of life, has been difficult to justify.
Nonetheless, Federal funds to complete the project have been
appropriated and are in hand. The Corps does have authority under
section 3 to help clear snags, debris, other impediments to navigation,
and I understand that the Corps has looked into using this authority to
complete the project, but such projects are capped at a total of $1
million.
Knowing the critical need for this project and the fact that funds
are available to complete it, will you work with me, once you are
confirmed, to ensure that this project can move forward with the
funding that has been appropriated and without an additional burden on
the local sponsor?
Ms. Darcy. I am aware of this project, and if confirmed, I will
work with you and the Corps to explore potential solutions to this
problem.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
prioritizing projects
15. Senator McCain. Ms. Darcy, in your answers to advance policy
questions submitted by this committee, and in response to my question
posed during the hearing, you responded to a question about
prioritization processes in the Corps for civil works projects with the
following: ``It is my understanding that the Corps does not prioritize
projects for authorization.'' Can you clarify exactly what you mean by
this statement?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, I would be happy to clarify my response to your
question. I understood your question to concern project authorizations,
as distinguished from project budgeting. It is my understanding that in
the budget formulation process, Civil Works projects are prioritized
annually on the basis of the economic and environmental benefits they
will provide to the Nation when completed. The authorization process
for Civil Works projects is different. The planning process for each
project looks at alternatives and recommends for authorization the best
overall project to achieve the intended purposes for that particular
project. Each proposed project is considered on its own merits. The
Corps ofEngineers Headquarters conducts a policy review of the project
``feasibility'' reports, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary
ofthe Army for Civil Works also conducts a policy review of the
reports.
It is my understanding that, once the Assistant Secretary's
questions and concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, the report
is forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget, where it receives
a third policy review pursuant to Executive Order # 12322. Only after a
feasibility report has been approved at all of these levels is the
project recommended by the Assistant Secretary for authorization by
Congress. Congress sometimes has a different view and does not always
enact legislation, including project authorizations, exactly as the
administration has proposed. One could consider the various policy
reviews a project undergoes before being recommended by the Assistant
Secretary for authorization to be a process of prioritization, although
I think of that term as applying to the budget formulation process.
corps responsibilities
16. Senator McCain. Ms. Darcy, what is your understanding of the
responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers as it relates to
recommendations for resource allocation and prioritization for the
Nation's navigation infrastructure, flood and storm damage controls,
hydropower, and numerous environmental requirements?
Ms. Darcy. I understand that the Corps of Engineers provides to the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and the Office of
Management and Budget accurate and complete information and options on
to make sound resource allocation and budget prioritization decisions.
The Corps also applies the resulting policy decisions, and priorities
in its justification of the budget and in the execution of the annual
program, unless Congress provides direction through Appropriations Acts
that modify the program proposed in the budget.
The Chief of Engineers has the responsibility to make technical
recommendations that are sound on an engineering and scientific basis.
Our shared responsibility, if I am confirmed, will be to ensure that
projects are properly formulated and consistent with law and
administration policies applicable to water resources project planning
and authorization.
corps' budget
17. Senator McCain. Ms. Darcy, if confirmed, how do you plan to
take part in the development of budgets and proposed project
authorizations for Corps programs?
Ms. Darcy. If confirmed, I will devote a significant amount of my
time to the development and defense of the budget for the Corps' Civil
Works program and to overseeing its execution from a policy
perspective. I also will devote my time to reviewing the Corps proposed
project authorizations, as documented in feasibility reports. I
understand that within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works), there is one team responsible for overseeing the
Budget process, and a separate team responsible for providing planning
policy guidance to the Corps, reviewing feasibility reports, and
recommending to the Office of Management and Budget whether or not the
administration should support authorization of the projects addressed
in the feasibility reports.
18. Senator McCain. Ms. Darcy, what is your understanding of your
potential responsibilities as they relate to the development of the
Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program 5-Year Development Plan,
the most recent version being for years, fiscal year 2009 to fiscal
year 2013?
Ms. Darcy. I understand that my responsibilities, if confirmed,
would be overseeing the preparation and approval of the Civil Works 5
Year Development Plan (FYDP). The Civil Works FYDP differs
significantly from the Future Years Defense Plan that is developed as
part of Department of Defense's military budget and program planning.
Also, since Civil Works projects and programs are individually
authorized, there is no annual authorization act to support the Civil
Works budget, as there is on the military side.
19. Senator McCain. Ms. Darcy, how do you plan to handle requests
by Members of Congress and other Federal, State, and local entities to
have special interest projects and earmarks inserted into various
legislation regarding Corps projects if these projects are not
consistent with the priorities proposed by the Corps?
Ms. Darcy. If confirmed, I will consider all proposals for
inclusion in the Civil Works budget and, by extension, the Civil Works
FYDP. I will apply administration policy for the Civil Works program to
mydecisions and, if I believe the policy needs to be changed, I will
work within the administration to achieve this outcome. I will listen
to all parties who have an interest in a project. I will rely heavily
on the Corps of Engineers for information, but I will make the
decisions. My legislative proposals will align with administration
policy or will contain proposals to change policy. Since the Civil
Works FYDP is a 5-year extension of the Civil Works annual budget, it
will continue to reflect the administration's and the Army's priorities
for resource allocation.
20. Senator McCain. Ms. Darcy, if confirmed, do you plan to change
or eliminate the prioritization processes outlined for each program in
the 5-Year Plan?
Ms. Darcy. If confirmed, I will consider all proposals for
inclusion in the Civil Works budget and, by extension, the Civil Works
FYDP. I will apply administration policy for the Civil Works program to
my decisions and, if I believe the policy needs to be changed, I will
work within the administration to achieve this outcome. I will listen
to all parties who have an interest in a project. I will rely heavily
on the Corps of Engineers for information, but I will make the
decisions. My legislative proposals will align with administration
policy or will contain proposals to change policy. Since the Civil
Works FYDP is a 5-year extension of the Civil Works annual budget, it
will continue to reflect the administration's and the Army's priorities
for resource allocation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator James M. Inhofe
water resources development act
21. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, Congress has tried to pass Water
Resources Development Acts (WRDA) every 2 years, with varying success.
Under that schedule, this year should see work on another WRDA. If
confirmed as Assistant Secretary, do you anticipate sending an
administration proposal to Congress for consideration this year?
Ms. Darcy. If confirmed, I will initiate discussions on whether the
administration should submit a WRDA legislative proposal this year.
While I cannot commit to the outcome of those discussions, I will
ensure that they take place.
inland waterways trust fund
22. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, as I am sure you are well aware, the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund no longer contains a surplus, and annual
revenues are not sufficient to support investments of the same level as
have been made for the past several years. President Obama's fiscal
year 2010 budget blueprint released earlier this year expressed support
for transitioning away from the current fuel tax and to lockage fees as
the revenue source for the Trust Fund. That concept was advanced by the
Bush administration last year, but received no traction here in
Congress. Are you willing to work with Congress, as well as the
navigation industry, to try to find an answer to this problem that can
be supported by all interested parties?
Ms. Darcy. While I have not seen the details of the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund legislative proposal being submitted with the
fiscal year 2010 budget, I am aware that a similar proposal was made
last year by the prior administration. I do appreciate both the need
for increased revenues in the Trust Fund and that there are differing
views on the best solution. If confirmed, I will work with Congress and
the navigation industry to find an answer to this matter.
water storage pricing
23. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, one of the problems some of the
communities in Oklahoma have run into is that even when there is
available municipal water supply storage at existing reservoirs, the
Corps' policy on pricing that water supply storage makes it
prohibitively expensive. Do you know how long it has been since this
policy has been reevaluated?
Ms. Darcy. At this time, I do not know how much time has passed
since the policy regarding water supply storage has been reevaluated.
If confirmed, I will work with the Corps of Engineers to evaluate this
policy and consider if changes are appropriate.
24. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, will you commit to working with me
to see if we can improve this policy--either administratively or
legislatively--so that communities can afford the water supply storage
opportunities that exist at Corps reservoirs?
Ms. Darcy. If confirmed, I will work with you and the Corps of
Engineers to determine what changes are necessary and the best method
to implement appropriate changes.
25. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, on the other side of the issue,
hydropower interests have expressed frustration with the Corps' policy
of determining compensation for lost generation due to reallocations.
Will you work with me to see if we can find a compromise?
Ms. Darcy. If confirmed, I will review the Corps' policy for
determining compensation for lost hydropower generation due to
reallocation of reservoir storage space, and I will work with you to
try to address this important issue.
water resource problem identification
26. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, many individuals and organizations
who work with the Corps of Engineers have complained that the process
the Corps follows to get from identifying a water resources problem or
need to implementing a solution can be very frustrating, overly long,
and costly. Do you have any ideas on improving that process?
Ms. Darcy. I am familiar with this longstanding issue due to my
prior position with the Committee on Environment and Public Works
(EPW). Periodically, there have been efforts to streamline the Corps
planning process, some of which have proven successful. Although I do
not have specific ideas at this time on how to improve the process, I
will, if confirmed, make it a priority to identify ways to shorten and
simplify the planning process and will work diligently to implement
these initiatives as quickly as practicable.
27. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, will you make it a priority to
develop and implement ways to rationalize the process?
Ms. Darcy. If confirmed, I will make it a priority to identify ways
to shorten and simplify the planning process and will work diligently
to implement these initiatives as quickly as practicable.
fee collection
28. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, you may have heard me state in
hearings and other meetings that I am very supportive of the concept of
allowing the Corps to use the fees it collects at recreation facilities
to operate, maintain, and improve recreation opportunities.
Unfortunately, we have consistently run into budget scoring problems
that have prevented us from enacting such a proposal. Will you please
commit to working with me to see if we can come up with other ways to
accomplish this goal of improving recreation opportunities that do not
have the same scoring hurdles?
Ms. Darcy. If confirmed, I commit to working with you and the EPW
committee to develop alternatives to improve recreation opportunities
that either don't create scoring hurdles or include means of addressing
the scoring issues that arise.
clean water act
29. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, the legislative debate regarding
Clean Water Act jurisdiction will be a controversial issue that the
Obama administration will have to deal with. Please describe what you
would like to see accomplished under the Obama administration regarding
Clean Water Act jurisdiction, keeping in mind the Federal interests and
State prerogatives envisioned in the Clean Water Act.
Ms. Darcy. I have not had specific conversations with the President
or members of his staff about Clean Water Act jurisdiction, but I do
know that generally, his administration is looking for good government,
and applying the principles of consistency, predictability, and
transparency to its regulatory programs is consistent with this
philosophy. I support these tenets. If confirmed, I will certainly keep
in mind the Federal interests and State prerogatives envisioned in the
Clean Water Act when implementing the section 404 program.
30. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, do you believe the Corps' and the
EPA's interpretation of ``waters of the U.S.'' in recent years has been
appropriate, overly broad, or overly narrow?
Ms. Darcy. I cannot say at this time whether the agencies'
interpretations of the term ``waters of the U.S.'' have been overly
broad or narrow. If confirmed, I will be looking to see exactly what
the Clean Water Act and relevant court decisions say with respect to
this question. I will then review the Corps' existing regulations to
ensure that the Corps is applying the law and regulations
appropriately, as influenced by court decisions.
31. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, can you please provide examples of
waters that are not currently considered jurisdictional waters of the
United States, but that you believe should be jurisdictional and vice
versa?
Ms. Darcy. I cannot provide you with a definitive response to this
question at this time. While I am familiar with the term ``waters of
the U.S.,'' and how it is applied, I do not at this time have a full
understanding of what waters, by type or other descriptor, the Corps
considers jurisdictional or not. If confirmed, I will explore this very
important question. Not only would I be interested in fully
understanding the jurisdictional status of various waters, but I would
want to learn how consistently the Corps applies or doesn't apply
jurisdiction across the country.
32. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, what is your opinion of the Clean
Water Restoration Act, as introduced earlier this month by Senator
Feingold?
Ms. Darcy. I am aware of the Clean Water Restoration Act introduced
earlier this year by Senator Feingold. However I have not yet
formulated an opinion on the bill, nor do I yet fully understand its
implications for the Section 404 Regulatory Program. If confirmed, I
will make it a priority to study that bill and any other legislation
relevant to the Corps' mission, and work with you and the Corps to
understand the implications.
33. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, the significant nexus test has been
criticized for leading to arbitrary applications and uncertainty within
industry regarding what waters are, and are not, considered waters of
the United States. Do you agree or disagree?
Ms. Darcy. As I understand it, the Supreme Court did not provide a
definition of the term ``significant nexus'', nor did the Court explain
exactly how such a test might be conducted. The decision only made
mention of certain waters having a significant nexus with traditionally
navigable waters. This state of play is posing challenges for both the
Corps and the regulated community. I believe that the Corps has worked
hard to figure out exactly what the term means and how to
operationalize it in the field. If confirmed, I will take a hard look
at how significant nexus determinations are being made, talk to
industry and the public, and work to clarify how jurisdictional
determinations are made.
34. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, how would you, as Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, seek to bring more certainty to
industry regarding where Clean Water Act regulation applies?
Ms. Darcy. If confirmed, I would meet with industry representatives
and other stakeholders to learn first hand what are the issues and
concerns. I would work within the administration to look at legislative
and policy guidance options for addressing certainty issues. Certainty
is important to industry for many obvious reasons, but it is also
important to the Corps Regulatory Program because clear, transparent,
predictable, and science-based regulatory processes and decisions are
fair, efficient, and effective in protecting the aquatic environment
while allowing important economic development activities to move
forward.
35. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, will you commit to working with my
staff in finding ways to improve certainty and increase permitting
efficiency?
Ms. Darcy. If confirmed, I am committed to working with you and
your staff to review to address jurisdictional, regulatory certainty,
and permitting efficiency issues.
36. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, what is your understanding of the
shared role of the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers in implementing
the Clean Water Act?
Ms. Darcy. My experience working for the Senate EPW Committee has
afforded me insight into how the Corps and EPA share Clean Water Act
responsibility. The Act clearly gives both agencies specific roles and
responsibilities, with EPA being responsible for most of the act and
the Corps responsible for Section 404 permitting.
37. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, do you intend to seek to modify the
shared responsibilities?
Ms. Darcy. If confirmed, I would support continued cooperation
between the agencies, but at this time have no plans for seeking to
modify the sharing of responsibilities.
38. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, do you intend to coordinate with
other agencies in implementing the Clean Water Act?
Ms. Darcy. Absolutely. The responsibility for implementing the
Clean Water Act is shared by the EPA and Army Civil Works, acting
through the Corps of Engineers. In addition, the Departments of the
Interior and Commerce have important roles in providing comments,
advice, and recommendations for fish and wildlife species, and their
habitat. I also believe that coordination with the Department of
Agriculture will be important because the NRCS is involved in wetlands
work and determinations under Swampbuster legislation, and the
Department of Transportation where the Corps and transportation
agencies have developed procedures to integrate NEPA and Section 404
actions.
coal mining permits
39. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, I am sure you are aware of current
backlogs of section 404 permits for coal mining, primarily the
Huntington and Louisville Corps District Offices. These permits are
critical to the continuation of existing mines and for new and
expanding mines that will create or maintain thousands of high paying
jobs in these regions. Many of the permits have been pending for 2 or 3
years--what will you do to address the backlogs?
Ms. Darcy. The efficient processing section 404 permits is
important to the Nation, our economic recovery and health, and for
achieving CWA environmental protection objectives. If confirmed, I will
make the Section 404 Regulatory Program a priority, and work with the
Corps and Congress to address issues like permitting efficiency,
backlogs, staffing, and funding for all permits under the Section 404
Regulatory Program.
40. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit recently issued a decision that in large part validates
the Corps' process for reviewing and issuing permits authorizing
discharges to waters associated with coal mining operations--yet, the
EPA is advocating the need for a much stronger role in Corps Section
404 permit decisionmaking process for coal operations. This can cause
duplication, delay, and increasing uncertainty in the program. What
will you do to ensure the Corps maintains the ability to exercise its
independent and primary decisionmaking authority as Congress intended?
Ms. Darcy. While I am familiar with the 4th Circuit's decision, I
have only limited knowledge as to how the decision is being interpreted
by the Corps or EPA. If confirmed, I will examine how the Corps is
executing its responsibilities regarding the Section 404 permit
decisions for coal operations to ensure we are carrying out the law.
41. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, what will you do to ensure those of
us that believe the Corps is doing a good job of performing
environmental review of these permits, as recognized by the courts,
that the flow of permits will no longer be unnecessarily delayed by the
EPA re-review process?
Ms. Darcy. If confirmed, I will look into issues regarding permit
processing times and procedures, and also coordination requirements,
with a view to having the Corps Regulatory Program be as efficient as
practicable. I do not have any information regarding EPA wanting to re-
review Corps permits. I will have to look into this issue and provide
you with a response in the future, should I be confirmed.
42. Senator Inhofe. Ms. Darcy, I believe that there are individuals
in the EPA that would like to see coal removed from our energy
portfolio. I know you have no direct role in the EPA deliberations but
you will have a consultative role, at least given your responsibilities
to administer the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit program. What are
your views on our continued use of coal and more specifically, what are
your views on the current methods used to extract coal?
Ms. Darcy. I am aware that there are issues regarding the use of
coal and the methods by which it is mined. If confirmed, I will be
briefed by the Army General Counsel, by my staff, and by the Corps and
consult with officials from the Department of the Interior and the
Office of Surface Mining before I could comment on these important
questions.
______
[The nomination reference of Jo-Ellen Darcy follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 2, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Jo-Ellen Darcy, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of the
Army, vice John Paul Woodley, Jr.
______
[The biographical sketch of Jo-Ellen Darcy, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Jo-Ellen Darcy
Jo-Ellen Darcy is the Senior Environmental Advisor to the Senate
Finance Committee responsible for environment, conservation, and energy
issues. Previously, she was Senior Policy Advisor to the Senate
Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, Democratic staff,
concentrating on fish and wildlife issues, the Army Corps of Engineers,
nominations, and a variety of conservation and water issues. At the
start of the 107th Congress, she was the Deputy Staff Director for the
EPW Committee. From 1993 through 2000, she served as a professional
staff member on the EPW Committee, working on a variety of issues,
including the Safe Drinking Water Act, Army Corps of Engineers
programs, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Everglades Restoration,
and the Clean Water Act.
Before joining the EPW Committee, Jo-Ellen worked on the Clinton
campaign in 1992, and was a legislative representative for the
Investment Company Institute. She worked on water resources issues for
Governor Jim Blanchard of Michigan in both Lansing and Washington, DC.
Previously, she worked for the Subcommittee on Economic Stabilization
of the House Banking Committee and was an elementary school teacher.
She hails from Fitchburg, MA, and has a B.A. in philosophy and
sociology from Boston College and a M.S. in resource development from
Michigan State University.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Jo-Ellen Darcy
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.)
Jo-Ellen Darcy.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
3. Date of nomination:
April 3, 2009.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
July 11, 1951; Fitchburg, MA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Single.
7. Names and ages of children:
None.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Fitchburg High School, Fitchburg, MA; 1966-1969; diploma received:
1969.
Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA; 1969-1973; graduated Cum Laude
with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy and Sociology, 1973.
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI; 1983-1984; Master of
Science in Natural Resource Development received 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.
Senior Environmental Advisor, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC; 2007-present.
Senior Policy Advisor, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC; 2001-2006.
Deputy Staff Director, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC; 2001.
Professional Staff, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC; 1993-2001.
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.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
None.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Member, Democratic National Committee.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
$400, Obama, 2008.
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 Army Commander's Award for Public Service, 2001.
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.
Jo-Ellen Darcy.
This 16th day of April, 2009.
[The nomination of Jo-Ellen Darcy was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on May 6, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on August 7, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Dr. Ines Triay by Chairman
Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management?
Answer. The duties and functions of the Assistant Secretary of
Environmental Management (EM) include providing leadership, management,
and oversight of cleanup activities at Department of Energy (DOE or
Department) sites across the country. EM is responsible for the risk
reduction and cleanup of the environmental legacy of the U.S. nuclear
weapons production, and is the largest and most technically complex
environmental cleanup program in the world. The Assistant Secretary
directs the EM program and establishes the vision of the environmental
cleanup; is externally focused and responsible for representing the
program to Congress, the tribal nations, the States, regulatory,
oversight, and advisory organizations, the media, and other
stakeholders. The Assistant Secretary is the chief executive of the
Environmental Management program, and in that capacity is responsible
for assuring that the corporate strategies of the Department for the
environmental cleanup are effectively implemented by the Federal and
contractor workforce. The Assistant Secretary is also responsible for
assuring that the projects in the EM portfolio are delivered on
schedule and within cost; the overall program is managed in an
efficient and effective manner; and all EM activities are conducted in
a safe, secure, and compliant manner.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary Chu would prescribe for you?
Answer. I expect to be asked to carry out those duties and
functions outlined above.
qualifications
Question. What qualifications and experience do you have that would
qualify you to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary of Energy
for Environmental Management?
Answer. I have a thorough understanding of the complexity and
magnitude of the task that we face in the Environmental Management (EM)
program. My formal training is as a physical chemist with a doctorate
from the University of Miami, FL. I worked at Los Alamos National
Laboratory for 14 years in progressively more responsible positions,
from Postdoctoral Researcher to Group Leader in the Isotope and Nuclear
Chemistry Division, to Acting Deputy Director of the Chemical Science
and Technology Division. While at Los Alamos, I focused on the study of
the same nuclear isotopes we are concerned with in the cleanup program
today.
In April 1999, former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson named me as
Manager of the Department's Carlsbad Field Office in New Mexico. There,
I was responsible for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), the
Nation's only deep geologic repository for the disposal of transuranic
waste. I am most proud of the fact that during my tenure, I led the
engineering of the transuranic waste complex from its inception of 1 or
2 shipments to WIPP per week, to full operations at 25 shipments per
week.
In January 2004, I was named the Deputy Chief Operating Officer for
Environmental Management, and in May 2005, I assumed the position of
Chief Operating Officer. Under my leadership in these positions, the EM
program completed the cleanup of the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons
site in Colorado and the former Fernald uranium processing plant in
Ohio. I played a leadership role in the commencement of remote-handled
transuranic waste disposal operations at the WIPP in New Mexico.
In October 2007, I was named Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for the EM program, and since November 2008, I have been the acting
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. To summarize, I have
extensive experience as a field and laboratory researcher, as a
contractor operations manager, as a DOE field operations manager, and
as a senior member of the EM headquarters team. I have worked
diligently with our stakeholders and regulators at the local and at the
national level, and I have had the opportunity to work closely with
Members of Congress and their staffs as well. I have witnessed every
function that we perform in the program on a first hand basis and I
have dedicated my life to the successful cleanup of the environmental
legacy of the Cold War nuclear production.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management and the
Environmental Management program?
Answer. The major challenges facing the new Assistant Secretary and
the Environmental Management (EM) program are:
(1) Ensuring the completion of the EM projects on schedule
and within costs, with emphasis on our first-of-a-kind
construction projects to address highly-radioactive waste in
underground tanks; and
(2) Delivering better value to the American taxpayer through
decreasing the projected life-cycle cost of conducting the EM
cleanup.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. The Environmental Management (EM) program must strengthen
the Federal and contractor project management capability and improve
the skill set of the project management teams. Aggressive efforts are
underway in EM, in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
to identify and implement the necessary enhancements in personnel
capabilities and systems to transform EM into a ``best-in-class''
project management organization. EM is also developing and implementing
processes and procedures for quality assurance and for identifying and
managing project risks.
If confirmed, under my leadership, EM will identify and minimize
the programmatic risks associated with start of construction during the
early stages of the design phase. EM is incorporating technology
readiness assessment and maturity planning into construction and
cleanup projects at all stages, along with DOE Standard 1189,
Integration of Safety into the Design Process, which requires safety to
be integrated early in the design phases of projects.
In addition, if confirmed, I intend to look within the Department
to the Office of Science, which has had an excellent record of
completing their construction projects on time and within cost. The
Secretary has made their lead project management expert available to
advise us, and we have developed a review process modeled after the DOE
Office of Science project reviews, tailored for the EM projects. These
construction project reviews determine if project performance is
consistent with agreed upon mission and project requirements; has
reached the appropriate level of maturity; and can be completed
successfully as planned, budgeted, and scheduled. These reviews are
scheduled approximately every 6 months, and are intended to reduce the
risk of project failure by identifying existing and potential problems
in a timely manner so that adequate resolution is possible.
These independent reviews will examine in detail all aspects of a
construction project, including: project management; technology,
design, and engineering; safety; environmental compliance; security;
and quality assurance. The process will rely on expert knowledge and
experience of world-class engineers, scientists, and managers sourced
from Federal staff, DOE contractors, engineering firms, national
laboratories, and the academic community.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) continues to include DOE
contract and project management on its list of government programs at
high risk, the GAO believes ``that DOE as a whole has met three of the
five criteria necessary for removal from the high risk list.'' The two
criteria that remain before we can be removed entirely from the list
require having the capacity (people and resources) to resolve the
problems, as well as monitoring and independently validating the
effectiveness and sustainability of corrective measures. I am committed
to completing the actions in DOE's Corrective Action Plan, which will
address these two criteria. If I am confirmed, my personal goal will be
to see that we are removed from the GAO high-risk list during my
tenure.
We have taken a number of other specific steps to ensure superior
project performance:
Initiated a thorough review of the contract type and
fee structure for all construction projects in order to ensure
that the contract type and fee structure will result in
maximizing improved performance in the EM projects.
Required the parent companies carrying out the major
EM projects (including all construction projects) to justify
and improve the composition of the contractor management teams
in charge of executing the EM projects.
Increased the EM on-board count during the past 2
years by approximately 300 Federal employees (from 1370 to
1680) in the areas of project and contract management, safety,
engineering, and quality assurance. The EM program is poised to
increase its Federal staff to 1,800 to further strengthen our
oversight capability. While EM hires Federal personnel,
continued use of staff augmentation through the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers will be employed to fill the gaps.
Established an Office of Quality Assurance at
Headquarters, and required Federal and contractor quality
assurance professionals at every field site. This is needed to
assure quality is incorporated into EM projects, thus avoiding
cost increases and schedule delays. Federal quality assurance
resources now account for almost 6 percent of the total number
of EM employees, which is within the industry range of 4 to 7
percent.
Continued training sessions and supplier workshops
attended by hundreds of large and small businesses alike, in
order to increase the cadre of suppliers qualified to the high
standards of nuclear quality assurance.
Implemented the Department of Defense and National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Technology Readiness
Levels to judge the relative maturity of new technologies prior
to approving full-scale development.
Established a cost-estimating group at the EM
Consolidated Business Center, in order to improve the quality
of the EM program's independent government estimates for
construction and cleanup projects.
Initiated the process of implementing a project
management software tool to further increase transparency of
the health of EM projects not only to EM management but also to
the DOE's Office of Engineering and Construction Management.
Increased the frequency of the EM headquarters and
field project management reviews from quarterly to monthly to
increase management attention and accountability at all levels.
These reviews are attended regularly by DOE's Office of
Engineering and Construction Management and often times by the
Office of Management and Budget.
We will address life-cycle costs by continuing our strategic
planning efforts to identify and evaluate alternative approaches for
radioactive waste in tanks, spent nuclear fuel, and special nuclear
materials. Strategic planning efforts are underway in these areas that
have the highest overall life-cycle costs of the program. We are
looking for both incremental improvements to optimize waste operations,
and transformational approaches, which could involve alternate
technologies and other approaches.
Coincident with these planning efforts, we are also proposing to
focus additional resources towards technology development, particularly
for tank waste and groundwater remediation. We are looking to make
investments in new technologies and computer modeling.
In summary, if confirmed, I will assure that EM uses science and
technology, robust project management, and our intergovernmental
partnerships to reduce the cost and schedule of the program.
management issues
Question. The Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management is
responsible for cleanup activities occurring at Department of Energy
(DOE) sites across the country.
What are your views on the roles and responsibilities of field
managers relative to those of Environmental Management (EM)
headquarters managers?
Answer. The roles and responsibilities of field managers include
the management and direction of the safe, secure, compliant, and
effective execution of the Environmental Management (EM) projects. The
field managers and the field staff manage the contracts and oversee the
contractors' performance in order to deliver the EM projects on time
and within cost. The roles and responsibilities of EM headquarters
managers include overseeing the performance of the field sites as well
as policy development, budget formulation, and addressing the field
offices' needs in order to accomplish the objectives of the EM mission.
Question. What is your view of EM's organizational structure? Is
there a well-delineated and consistent chain of command and reporting
structure from the field staff to headquarters staff, from the
contractors to DOE officials, and from the Office of Environmental
Management to the Secretary of Energy and other DOE officials?
Answer. I believe that our current chain of command and reporting
structure are adequate to perform the EM program mission. Improving the
efficiency of EM is always of critical importance. The National Academy
of Public Administration (NAPA) completed a detailed review of several
aspects of the EM program between April 2006 and December 2007. One
area that was carefully analyzed was organizational efficiency. NAPA
provided 20 recommendations in this area and EM implemented 18 of them.
However the former Assistant Secretary for EM deferred implementation
of the remaining two: establishment of a Chief Business Officer
position and realignment of two Deputy Assistant Secretary offices
between the Chief Business Office and the Chief Operations Office. I
believe that these recommendations have merit and I will carefully
review those recommendations to identify improved organizational
efficiency.
Question. Do the field offices have enough autonomy and flexibility
to work with the contractors at the sites to get the cleanup finished
in a safe and efficient manner?
Answer. It is my philosophy to delegate as much authority as
possible and appropriate to the field offices and their managers. If
the field managers had more authority than they do now, the EM program
might be more efficient.
Question. In your opinion, should the field offices have more
autonomy than they currently have?
Answer. Yes. The additional authority would come with the
responsibility to deliver excellent performance. Performance is
measured by the results obtained, and the manner in which they are
achieved. Therefore, we will be seeking to align authority with
performance at each site to deliver projects on time and within cost.
Question. The EM program has used a variety of contracting methods,
including management and operating contracts, cost plus award fee
contracts, cost plus incentive fee contracts, performance-based, fixed-
priced contracts, and closure contracts, among others.
What is your view of the utility and appropriate role of these, or
other, contracting methods, and what principles do you believe DOE
should follow when entering into EM contracts in the future?
Answer. Each contracting method has a ``sweet-spot'' for its
application. During the acquisition planning phase, there is continuing
improvement to appropriately match the type of work and program
requirements with the contract approach. For the following types of EM
work, the successful contract approaches generally are:
(1) Cleanup Work
For well defined and repetitious activities--fixed
unit rate contracts are optimal (for instance, mill tailing
relocations at past closure sites such as Grand Junction and
Monticello);
For work with relatively high confidence in the scope
definition, clear end-state, most regulatory decisions have
been made, stable and predictable funding, and it will take 5
to 7 years to complete--closure or completion contracts, which
are typically cost plus incentive fee contracts are optimal
(for instance, Rocky Flats, Mound, and Fernald);
For work with relatively high confidence in the scope
definition, discrete portions with clear end-states, regulatory
decisions have been made, fluctuating funding, and 10 years or
less to complete cleanup--the optimal contract type is cost
plus incentive fee (for instance, Hanford River Corridor and
Idaho Cleanup);
For work with various levels of scope definition,
discrete portions have clear end-states and regulatory
decisions made, fluctuating funding and more than 10 years to
complete--the successful contracts are cost plus award fee
contracts with performance-based incentives (for instance, main
site cleanup contracts, such as Hanford, Oak Ridge; operations
of individual processing facilities, such as Idaho Advanced
Mixed Waste Treatment and Oak Ridge Transuranic Waste
facilities); and
For work with continual operations of nuclear
facilities and disposal facilities for more than 10 years--the
successful contracts are management and operating contracts
(Savannah River Site and Carlsbad).
(2) Construction Projects
For storage of high-level waste or spent nuclear fuel
canisters, storage approach used in previous applications,
minimal technology issues, typically $100-200 million or less,
and 3 years or less to completion--the optimal contract type is
fixed price (for instance, Savannah River Site Glass Storage
Facility, Hanford Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Facility);
For packaging or disposal of low-level or transuranic
waste, well-understood technology, technology used in previous
applications, typically $100-200 million but could be up to
$500 million, and 4 to 7 years to completion--the optimal
contracts are fixed unit rate contracts (Oak Ridge Disposal
Cell, Idaho Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project, WIPP
Transportation, Oak Ridge Transuranic Waste Treatment Project);
and
For treating and stabilizing high-level waste or
complex low-level waste, first of a kind technology,
significant technical issues, nuclear facilities, $500 million
and greater, 5 years and greater to completion--the successful
contracts are cost plus award fee contracts with multiple
incentives, such as performance-based incentives, award fee,
operational fee, and schedule fee.
mission
Question. DOE has offered changing views, over the lifetime of the
EM program, as to whether the program should focus on cleaning up the
sites within its purview as of a date certain or whether the program
should have an ongoing mission of cleaning up all surplus DOE
facilities, as the facilities become excess, over time.
Do you believe there is a point at which the EM program should stop
taking surplus buildings, facilities, or waste streams from other
components of the DOE into the EM program for decommissioning,
decontamination, and disposal?
Answer. No. I don't believe that the EM program should cease
accepting surplus facilities from other DOE programs, but continue to
accept them. From a technical standpoint, placing DOE's excess
facilities under EM makes business sense because EM possesses both the
experience and expertise to move these assets to ultimate disposition
or demolition, more so than other DOE programs. There is a consensus
within DOE that placing all surplus assets under the purview of one
program leads to management efficiencies and produces long-term cost
savings. Finally, by continuing the transfer of surplus assets to EM,
the decontamination and demolition of excess facilities will result in
the reduction of the legacy footprint. This allows other DOE programs
to expand their current missions or launch important new ones, such as
those in science, energy, and national security, or use the lands for
beneficial reuse.
Question. If confirmed, what requirements would you place on the
other DOE programs before you would take additional buildings,
facilities or waste into the EM program?
Answer. The EM program does have existing stringent requirements it
applies to surplus assets, prior to accepting them from other DOE
programs. These established criteria, based on formal DOE orders and
technical policies for facilities and wastes, are applied to each
individual asset nominated for transfer to EM. Furthermore, in concert
with the criteria, EM implements a rigorous in-person assessment
process, in which EM technical experts walk down and inspect nominated
assets to determine if they meet the transfer criteria. This process
ensures that any asset deemed surplus by other DOE programs is truly
``transfer ready,'' and complies with EM's standards for acceptance.
Question. Do you believe it is an appropriate policy for the EM
program to ``go out of business'' at some point and leave the remainder
of newly-generated waste as the responsibility of existing DOE
programs? If not, in your view, how should newly-generated wastes be
managed and which program (EM or the program generating the waste)
should budget for these activities?
Answer. I believe that it is appropriate for the generating
programs to be responsible for and budget for newly-generated waste.
Currently, the Department's policy is that EM is responsible for the
final disposition of legacy waste, while requiring landlord programs to
manage newly-generated waste at their sites. However, in specific
instances when EM is recognized as having unique experience and
expertise with certain waste types such as transuranic waste,
exceptions may be necessary on a case-by-case basis. Newly-generated
waste responsibility was transferred to landlord programs in order to
encourage waste minimization and proper ``ownership'' for wastes. I
believe this is a good concept.
Question. Do you believe that making the program responsible for
newly-generated waste would incentivize the program to minimize the
amount of waste created or, conversely, would it result in the program
storing waste, perhaps indefinitely?
Answer. EM and the rest of the Department comply with DOE Order
435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, which defines the requirements for
the management and minimization of radioactive waste within DOE. The
Order provides specific requirements for the management and timely
disposition of each radioactive waste type, such as high-level waste,
transuranic waste, low-level waste, and mixed wastes. The Order also
defines the responsibilities of each headquarters element, particularly
those programs that generate these waste types as part of their
operations mission.
Question. In drafting the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006, this committee did not adopt the proposal in the
President's budget request to transfer certain activities from the EM
program into the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).
To your knowledge, are there any plans to make a similar proposal
in the fiscal year 2010 budget request?
Answer. There are no plans to make a similar proposal in the fiscal
year 2010 budget request.
Question. The EM program demonstrated that accelerating cleanup at
specific sites could result in a more cost effective approach to
cleanup over the long term. After the Rocky Flats and the Fernald Sites
were completed, the accelerated approach was abandoned.
If confirmed would you look at renewing an accelerated approach for
specific sites if significant long-term cost savings could be achieved?
Answer. Over the past year and a half, the EM program has conducted
strategic planning analysis, which indicates that substantial benefit
in terms of life cycle cost savings and cleanup completion can be
achieved with additional investments in the areas of decontamination
and decommissioning of facilities, remediation of contaminated soils
and groundwater, and disposition of solid waste (low-level and
transuranic) to achieve footprint reduction. These results were
discussed in the EM progress report that the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 required, and was submitted to
Congress in January 2009.
We are renewing the accelerated approach with implementation of the
footprint reduction initiative with the $6 billion from the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act).
Question. Do you believe this promise of accelerated cleanup has
yet been realized, and if not, why not?
Answer. We are renewing the accelerated approach with the Recovery
Act funding. Our strategic planning analysis was based on achieving a
90 percent footprint reduction by 2015. The Recovery Act funding will
allow 40-50 percent footprint reduction by 2011, and will go a long way
in achieving this goal.
end states
Question. A previous Assistant Secretary sought to develop ``end
states'' documents for each major site in the EM program depicting the
residual contamination levels remaining at each site after the
completion of cleanup.
What is the status of these ``end states'' for each major site?
Answer. The end-state documents were intended as a tool to help
focus discussions with the Department's regulators and stakeholders on
the likely future land uses of contaminated lands as a means to
facilitate the early identification of remedial action objectives and
appropriate response actions. The Department's field office personnel,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and State regulators have
incorporated these end-state documents in their discussions and
negotiations.
Question. If confirmed, would you continue efforts to reach an
agreed upon ``end state'' with the State and Federal environmental
regulators at each site, or in your view is there a different way to
approach the issue of what is clean enough?
Answer. The Department will continue to work with our regulators on
identifying and attaining, whenever possible, those land uses and end
states we agree represent both a desirable and viable outcome. We are
doing this, and will continue to do so, in accordance with the
applicable Federal and State requirements governing our cleanup
activities. This process ultimately determines the scope of the cleanup
and viable future land uses, and therefore is critical to our mission.
technology development
Question. Do you believe that the EM program has conducted
sufficient technology development so that a treatment and disposition
pathway exists for all identified waste streams under the program?
Answer. The treatment and disposal of DOE low-level and mixed low-
level waste is not dependent on additional technology development.
While there may be small volumes of challenging waste streams
identified through future cleanup activities, it is expected that
existing technologies will enable treatment and disposal of the
remaining waste.
Currently, we do not foresee any technology development necessary
to support disposal of transuranic wastes. While there are some
innovative packaging and characterization techniques that still require
regulatory approval prior to implementation, the research and
development of these techniques have been completed, and is now being
demonstrated through the regulatory process.
In the area of highly-radioactive waste in underground tanks
retrieval and processing, there continues to be technology development
needs, and they have been identified and planned within the EM
program's Engineering and Technology Roadmap.
Question. If any orphan waste streams--those for which there is no
identified disposition pathway--exist within the EM program, what
technology development or other efforts would you undertake, if
confirmed, to address them?
Answer. The orphan waste streams challenges that currently exist
within EM are programmatic in nature. For example, EM has a small
quantity of low-level and transuranic waste (greater-than-Class C low-
level waste), which does not meet the current waste acceptance criteria
for existing disposal facilities. EM needs to complete the process for
siting a facility for greater-than-Class C low-level waste, which could
accommodate those particular wastes.
Question. What, in your view, are the continuing requirements for
developing and fielding new technologies, and what are the highest
priorities?
Answer. Continuing technology development and deployment is a key
element of the EM program's strategy to reduce the technical risk and
uncertainty of EM projects. The highest priority for EM is to develop
new technologies for tank waste systems and for groundwater
remediation.
Tank waste is by far the Department of Energy's most significant
environmental, safety, and health risk. EM plans to retrieve this
highly-radioactive waste from storage tanks and convert it into stable
waste forms (such as glass) using treatment facilities. Because of the
unique and hazardous nature of this radioactive waste, new technologies
are needed to:
(1) Retrieve waste to the maximum extent possible in an
efficient manner;
(2) Improve glass formulations that can increase the amount
of waste in each glass canister, which will reduce operating
costs;
(3) Improve glass melters which will increase production
throughput and decrease costs; and
(4) Improve processes to remove non-radioactive components,
such as aluminum, from the tank waste in order to increase
glass waste loading and production throughput.
Innovative groundwater remediation technologies are also needed to:
(1) Treat subsurface contamination through bioremediation or
reactive sorptive barriers that can be more effective and
efficient than current methods, and
(2) More effectively predict contaminant migration resulting
in better remediation methods.
The National Academy of Sciences supports a significant and ongoing
research and development program, as delineated in the EM program's
Engineering and Technology Roadmap to address these unique technical
challenges.
workforce restructuring
Question. If confirmed, your duties could involve the review and
approval of workforce restructuring plans at sites under the EM
program.
Please describe your general approach and philosophy in reviewing
workforce restructuring plans.
Answer. The EM program complies with DOE Order 350.1, Contractor
Human Resource Management Programs, as well as all other applicable
requirements, and we direct our contractors to do the same as they plan
and execute workforce restructuring actions.
Question. Given the nature of their work, cleanup workers are
fundamentally in a position of ``working themselves out of a job.''
How do you believe this particular challenge is best handled from
both a corporate perspective and as a manager of these workers?
Answer. At most of our remaining sites, the cleanup mission has
many more years until completion. To manage work effectively at our
sites, there is a broad life-cycle to perform characterization, plan,
decontaminate and decommission, and then beneficially re-use. We need
workers with different skills and specializations at each phase of that
life-cycle. The specialized skills and certifications our workers
acquire doing EM work is highly marketable.
The Department of Energy resources, in partnership with tribal
nations, the States, industry and other regional stakeholders, can be
leveraged for beneficial reuse at our sites. As part of DOE's footprint
reduction effort, designated tracts of land would be transferred to
other government programs, communities, or the private sector for rapid
development of large scale facilities for any number of uses. The
outcomes of transforming the Department's sites for beneficial reuse
could include: (1) industrial uses sited on ``brownfields'' with
existing infrastructure and a trained workforce; (2) transition of the
current workforce and recruit the future workforce to take advantage of
the wealth of technical knowledge and operational experience; and (3)
potential to create new jobs for the long term.
waste incidental to reprocessing (wir)
Question. One of the biggest challenges of the EM program is
emptying the large tanks of highly radioactive waste that exist at
defense nuclear sites in South Carolina, Washington, and Idaho. In the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Congress
granted DOE, in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), the authority to determine that portions of this waste are not
high level radioactive waste and thus DOE may leave residue that meets
the requirements of the provision at the bottom of the tanks in South
Carolina and Idaho after these tanks are otherwise emptied.
How is DOE using this new authority?
Answer. The Department has used this authority successfully at both
the Savannah River Site and at the Idaho National Laboratory. At
Savannah River Site, we use that authority to dispose of the low-
activity fraction of tank waste in onsite ``saltstone'' vaults, which
is facilitating the emptying of the highly-radioactive waste tanks.
Savannah River Site is in the process of removing residuals from
several tanks, and is working closely with Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), the State, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, using the 2005 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
authority, to ultimately close these and the other highly-radioactive
waste tanks. At Idaho, in November 2006, the former Secretary of Energy
determined that the residual wastes in the 15 tanks were no longer
high-level waste, and 11 of those tanks were filled with cement. In
undertaking these actions, the Department consulted with the NRC, in
accordance with the 2005 NDAA authority, and will continue to do so in
the future.
Question. If confirmed will you ensure that the NRC has full access
to documents and information at these sites that the NRC determines is
needed to allow them to conduct their responsibilities?
Answer. Yes. The NRC has had, and will continue to have full access
to documents and information at these sites that the NRC determines is
needed to allow them to conduct their responsibilities.
waste disposal
Question. Completion of cleanup at a number of EM sites depends on
the timely shipment of quantities of transuranic waste to the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico for disposal. In some cases,
DOE is under regulatory deadlines for completing shipments to WIPP.
What regulatory deadlines do the EM program currently face related
to WIPP shipments and what is the current progress against those
deadlines?
Answer. At the Idaho National Laboratory, the Idaho Settlement
Agreement (Settlement Agreement) requires DOE to maintain a running
average of 2,000 m3 of transuranic (TRU) waste shipped offsite yearly.
DOE is well ahead of this milestone. The Settlement Agreement also
includes milestones for completing shipment of 65,000 m3 TRU (target
completion date of 12/31/2015, but no later than 12/31/2018). DOE is on
track to complete this milestone ahead of schedule. The Idaho Site
Treatment Plan requires a more aggressive shipping rate of 4,500 m3 of
TRU per year. DOE continues to ship TRU waste from Idaho at a rate that
exceeds this requirement.
At Oak Ridge, the Site Treatment Plan defines specific volume goals
for contact handled (CH) and remote handled (RH) TRU waste each year.
While DOE has met its CH milestones to date and met the first RH
milestone for start of RH shipments, DOE recently requested an
extension to the 4/30/2009 milestone to have processed 35 m3 of RH TRU
waste. This extension was required due to unexpected technical issues
encountered during waste processing (water was found to be present in
many of the TRU canisters retrieved for processing and shipping). DOE
anticipates that these issues will be addressed and future milestones
will be met.
At Nevada, the Site Treatment Plan requires the completion of the
legacy TRU project by the end of April 2009. DOE is on track to meet
this milestone. Three shipments remain to be completed and are
scheduled to occur before 4/30/2009.
At Los Alamos, the Consent Order requires the cleanup of Area G to
be completed by the end of 2015. While there are no specific deadlines
related to shipment of TRU, the TRU within Area G must be processed and
shipped offsite in time to support Area G closure in 2015.
Regarding Hanford, DOE and the regulators have reached agreement on
revised milestones for TRU waste in the Tri-Party Agreement. These
milestone revisions are currently out for public review.
Question. Are you aware of any issues that jeopardize DOE's ability
to meet these deadlines? If so, what is DOE doing to address these
issues?
Answer. We are not aware of any specific issues at this time.
However, given that much of the transuranic waste has been buried for
many decades at some of our sites, it is likely that DOE may encounter
challenges regarding the condition of the waste as it is retrieved. DOE
has carefully developed a detailed waste processing and
characterization strategy and is working closely with the regulators.
Question. What, if any, additional permits or permit modifications
are needed for WIPP in order to meet these deadlines?
Answer. There are no additional permits or permit changes needed to
support these milestones.
waste treatment plant
Question. Maintaining the steady state funding commitment, not
changing requirements, and not changing the design of the facility, are
all necessary actions to ensure that the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) is
completed within its current baseline cost and schedule.
If confirmed would you plan to make any changes to WTP funding,
requirements, or design?
Answer. The stable funding level of $690 million a year has
provided the WTP project with stability and predictability, which
affords the contractor the ability to plan the work, make commitments
to subcontractors and suppliers, and minimize turnover of the
workforce. The requirements are appropriate to build a functioning
plant, although there are still certain opportunities to refine the
requirements for a more cost effective plant. There are several
technical issues, which are on schedule to be resolved by the end of
December 2009, which should permit the finalizing of the design.
enduring sites
Question. Cleanup under the EM program occurs not only at closure
sites, but at DOE national laboratories and other sites with ongoing
missions. These locations are sometimes distinguished from sites that
will be closed by use of the term ``enduring sites.''
Does the EM program approach cleanup differently at closure sites
than at enduring sites?
Answer. No. Cleanup work across the entire complex is conducted in
accordance with the applicable requirements from Federal environmental
laws, primarily the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The
Department consistently applies these requirements in accordance with
site-specific conditions, and has entered into agreements with the
States in which cleanup sites are located and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to come into compliance with these laws.
Question. How should the EM program best manage the interfaces
between its cleanup operations and other ongoing missions at the
enduring sites?
Answer. The EM program works closely with senior managers and staff
of the landlord programs and those programs' sites in planning for and
executing the cleanup. This includes their active involvement in
developing scope, cost, and schedule baselines, formulating budgets,
and overseeing execution. With these close interactions, the Department
can develop an overall approach that appropriately prioritizes cleanup
in support of and recognizing the enduring sites' ongoing and future
missions.
Question. Does the EM program prioritize work differently at
enduring sites, and if so, in what way?
Answer. In planning its program, EM develops an integrated priority
list for all its cleanup activities across the entire DOE complex at
both closure and enduring sites based on risk categories. These
categories, in descending order of risk, are: (1) highly-radioactive
liquid waste in underground tanks; (2) nuclear materials (e.g., uranium
and plutonium) and spent nuclear fuel; (3) transuranic and low-level
radioactive waste; (4) soil and groundwater remediation; and (5)
decontamination and decommissioning of surplus contaminated facilities.
The EM program overlays site-specific regulatory compliance milestones
and the need to support ongoing and future missions at enduring sites
to the overall program priorities in order to prioritize its work at
each site.
design basis threat
Question. Some of the DOE sites including EM sites will not achieve
compliance with the current design basis threat and do not plan to
achieve compliance.
Given the seriousness of the need to secure nuclear materials, both
abroad and at home, do you believe that this is a sufficiently rapid
response to the threats currently outlined by the intelligence
community and against which DOE has agreed it must defend at its
nuclear sites?
Answer. The EM program is in compliance with the Department's 2005
Design Basis Threat (DBT) policy and is transitioning to the
requirements of the Graded Safeguards Protection (GSP) policy issued in
August 2008. This policy provides a robust framework considering the
broad spectrum of threats.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you undertake to
consolidate and more rapidly secure any special nuclear material
existing within the EM program?
Answer. The EM program has been aggressively consolidating special
nuclear materials and will continue to do so:
At Savannah River Site, surplus plutonium has been
consolidated from Rocky Flats, and will continue to be
consolidated from Hanford and the National Nuclear Security
Administration sites, such as Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos
National Laboratory.
At Oak Ridge and Portsmouth, surplus uranium has been
consolidated from Rocky Flats and Fernald.
At Savannah River Site and Idaho, spent nuclear fuel
has been consolidated from West Valley, and will continue to be
consolidated from U.S. university research reactors, and
foreign research reactors.
At Hanford, onsite spent nuclear fuel has been
consolidated into a single location.
Question. Do you agree that, even with a primary focus on
accelerating cleanup, it is still an essential responsibility of the EM
program to secure these materials against the threats existing now?
Answer. Yes. The EM program is committed to protect its special
nuclear materials against the prevailing threat level while expediting
the cleanup progress. EM has successfully reduced the number of
facilities and sites that possess special nuclear materials from 13 to
2, and will continue to protect these facilities in accordance with DOE
policy.
yucca mountain
Question. In the EM 5-year plan published in early 2007, a number
of program-specific uncertainties that could impact the overall cleanup
scope, schedule, and cost are identified. Among those uncertainties
identified is the possibility of a delay in the availability of Yucca
Mountain. EM has indicated that a delay in Yucca Mountain would lead to
the delay in site completion and increase storage costs for high-level
waste and spent nuclear fuel.
What increases in storage costs for high-level waste and spent
nuclear fuel and in the length of the delay can be expected if Yucca
Mountain is closed?
Answer. Over the period of the next two decades, the delay in the
establishment of a permanent high-level waste repository will in no way
impact the current scope, schedule, and cost for treatment and storage
of defense spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. The Secretary of
Energy is in the process of establishing a Blue Ribbon Commission/Panel
to provide recommendations to the Department on spent nuclear fuel and
high-level waste. The panel needs to provide those recommendations and
the Department needs to determine the path forward for that waste prior
to being able to assess the length of potential delays or additional
storage costs. The EM program manages its life cycle cost in a
detailed, rigorous manner and, therefore, will be able to ascertain any
impacts of the selected path forward. EM will work diligently with the
committee to provide any required information on the impacts to EM's
life cycle cost.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes. I agree that, if I am confirmed as Assistant Secretary
for Environmental Management, I will appear before this 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 Assistant Secretary of
Energy for Environmental Management?
Answer. Yes. I agree that if I am confirmed, I will appear before
this committee or to a designated member of this committee, and provide
information subject to appropriate and necessary security protection
with respect to my responsibilities as Assistant Secretary of
Environmental Management.
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. If confirmed, I agree to ensure that testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information will be provided to
this committee and its staff and other appropriate committees.
Question. 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?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I agree to provide documents, including
copies of electronic forms of communication, in a timely manner when
requested by a duly constituted committee, or consult with the
committee regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in
providing such documents.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. Ines R. Triay follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
March 31, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Ines R. Triay, of New Mexico, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Energy (Environmental Management), vice James A. Rispoli, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. Ines R. Triay which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. Ines R. Triay
Dr. Ines R. Triay is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
the U.S. Department of Energy's Environmental Management Program and
has been acting as the Assistant Secretary since November 2008. She has
devoted her career to the safe cleanup of the environmental legacy of
the Nation's Cold War nuclear weapon production and research
activities. This is the largest, most diverse, and technically complex
environmental cleanup program in the world, originally involving more
than 100 geographic sites located in more than 30 States.
Prior to her current position, she served as the cleanup program's
Chief Operations Officer and Deputy Chief Operations Officer. During
her tenure in these positions, the program completed the cleanup of the
Department's Rocky Flats site in Colorado and the Fernald site in Ohio.
She also played an instrumental role in the commencement of remote-
handled transuranic waste disposal operations at the Department's Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico.
Prior to her executive positions in Washington, DC, she served as
Manager of the Department's Carlsbad Field Office in New Mexico. During
her tenure there, the number of transuranic waste shipments to the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant increased from 1 or 2 per week to 25 per
week. She also spearheaded a national effort to significantly
accelerate cleanup of transuranic waste sites, culminating in a plan
that completes the disposal of all legacy transuranic waste about 20
years early. Before managing the Carlsbad Field Office, she spent 14
years at Los Alamos National Laboratory leading efforts in subsurface
radionuclide migration, waste characterization and disposal, and
environmental remediation.
Her honors include the 2007 Wendell D. Weart Lifetime Achievement
Award, the 2007 Presidential Rank Award, the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers' 2003 Dixy Lee Ray Award for Environmental
Protection, the National Atomic Museum's 2003 National Award of Nuclear
Science, and numerous awards from the Department and Los Alamos
National Laboratory recognizing her for excellence in performance.
Dr. Triay received her bachelor degree in chemistry, magna cum
laude, and her doctorate degree in physical chemistry from the
University of Miami in Florida. She is a member of the American
Chemical Society and has produced more than 100 papers, reports, and
presentations for professional conferences and workshops, as well as
major trade publications.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. Ines R.
Triay 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.)
Ines Ramona Triay.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, U.S. Department
of Enery.
3. Date of nomination:
March 31, 2009.
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 30, 1958; Havana, Cuba.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to John Harvey Hall.
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 Miami, Coral Gables, FL; 1976-1985; B.S. Chemistry
Major, 1980; Ph.D. in Chemistry, 1985;
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates of Employment Title/Job Description Employer City/State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/2007 to Present................... Principal Deputy U.S. Department of Washington, DC.
Assistant Secretary Energy.
for Environmental
Management.
05/2005 to 10/2007................... Chief Operating Officer U.S. Department of Washington, DC.
for Environmental Energy.
Management.
01/2005 to 05/2005................... Acting Carlsbad Field U.S. Department of Carlsbad, NM.
Office Manager. Energy.
01/2004 to 05/2005................... Deputy Chief Operating U.S. Department of Washington, DC.
Officer for Energy.
Environmental
Management.
05/1999 to 01/2004................... Carlsbad Field Office U.S. Department of Carlsbad, NM.
Manager Waste Energy.
Isolation Pilot Plant.
02/1994 to 05/1999................... Group Leader, Chemical Los Alamos National Los Alamos, NM.
Science and Technology Laboratory, University
Carlsbad Field Office of California.
Manager Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant.
11/1985 to 02/1994................... Staff member, Isotope Los Alamos National Los Alamos, NM.
and Nuclear Chemistry Laboratory, University
Division. of California.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member, American Chemical Society (27 years).
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.
On March 25, 2007, I made a $2,300 contribution to New Mexico
Governor Bill Richardson while he was running in the Presidential
Democratic primary.
On November 16, 2005, I made a $1,000 contribution to New Mexico
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D).
On October 13, 2005, I made a $500 contribution to New Mexico
Senator Pete Domenici (R).
14. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
2009, Department of Energy Secretary's Achievement Award.
2007, Presidential Rank Award.
2007, Wendell D. Weart Lifetime Achievement Award.
2004, National Award for Nuclear Science from the Einstein Society
of the National Atomic Museum.
2003, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Dixy Lee Ray Award
for significant achievements and contributions in the field of
environmental protection,
2003, Woman of Achievement Award from the Radiochemistry Society.
1999, Albuquerque Operations Office Manager's Performance
Excellence Award for ``Ship to WIPP.''
1998, Los Alamos National Laboratory Distinguished Performance
Award for Nonmixed Waste Sampling/Chemical Analysis for Transuranic
Waste Characterization/Certification Project.
1997, Los Alamos National Laboratory Outstanding Mentor Award.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Attached.
[Nominee responded and the information is retained 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.
Attached are the last two presentations that I have given: one in
the Energy Communities Alliance Annual Conference (2/12/2009) and the
other in the Waste Management Symposium (3/2/2009).
[Nominee responded and the information is retained in the
committee's executive files.]
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Ines Ramona Triay.
This 7th day of April, 2009.
[The nomination of Dr. Ines R. Triay was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on May 6, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 20, 2009.]
NOMINATIONS OF ANDREW C. WEBER TO BE ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR NUCLEAR AND CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAMS; DR.
PAUL N. STOCKTON TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR HOMELAND
DEFENSE AND AMERICAS' SECURITY AFFAIRS; THOMAS R. LAMONT TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS; AND
CHARLES A. BLANCHARD TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR
FORCE
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Webb, Hagan,
Begich, and McCain.
Other Senators present: Senators Durbin and Lugar.
Also present: Representative Sam Farr.
Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Joseph M. Bryan,
professional staff member; Jonathan D. Clark, counsel; Madelyn
R. Creedon, counsel; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff
member; Michael J. Kuiken, professional staff member; and
Gerald J. Leeling, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Joseph W. Bowab, Republican
staff director; Adam J. Barker, professional staff member;
Daniel A. Lerner, professional staff member; David M. Morriss,
minority counsel; Diana G. Tabler, professional staff member;
and Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Kevin A. Cronin, Mary C.
Holloway, and Jessica L. Kingston.
Committee members' assistants present: Gordon I. Peterson,
assistant to Senator Webb; Roger Pena, assistant to Senator
Hagan; Gerald Thomas, assistant to Senator Burris; and Lenwood
Landrum and Sandra Luff, assistants to Senator Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody. Today the
committee considers the nominations of Andrew Weber to be
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical
and Biological Defense Programs; Paul Stockton to be Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas'
Security Affairs; Thomas Lamont to be Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs; and Charles
Blanchard to be General Counsel of the Air Force.
We welcome our nominees and their families to today's
hearing. Senior Defense Department officials put in long hours
every day. We appreciate the sacrifices that our nominees, but
frankly even more importantly that their families are willing
to make to serve their country.
Each of our nominees has a distinguished background. Mr.
Weber spent 24 years in public service, serving most recently
as Adviser for Threat Reduction Policy in the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, a position in which he has helped to run
the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. Dr.
Stockton has been a senior member of the faculty at the Naval
Postgraduate School and Stanford University's Center for
International Security and Cooperation for almost 20 years. Mr.
Lamont served in the Illinois National Guard for over 25 years
while working as a partner in two Illinois law firms and
holding a succession of positions in State government. Mr.
Blanchard served as General Counsel of the Army from 1999 to
2001 before joining the Phoenix office of a major law firm.
If confirmed, our nominees will play a critical role in
helping the Department of Defense (DOD) address any number of
critical challenges and difficult issues. These challenges
range from ensuring that our nuclear stockpile remains safe,
secure, and reliable to determining the appropriate role of our
Armed Forces in securing the border with Mexico at a time of
unprecedented drug violence and a potential pandemic outbreak
of swine flu, and from addressing the burdens and stress
imposed on our soldiers and their families by repeated
deployment in two wars, to ascertaining the appropriate legal
status of individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
We look forward to the testimony of our nominees on these
important issues, and I now turn it over to Senator McCain.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN
Senator McCain. Thank you, Senator Levin.
I want to thank our colleagues from the Senate for being
here this morning, and from the House, to introduce our
nominees. I'll be brief except to say welcome to the nominees.
I thank them and their families for their willingness to serve
in the new administration.
At the outset, I join you in expressing our sorrow over the
deaths of five soldiers and wounding of three others at Camp
Liberty at the hands of another soldier and extend our
condolences and sympathy to the families of all who are
involved.
Mr. Chairman, in August 1999, I had the pleasure of
introducing Mr. Blanchard to the committee at the hearing on
his nomination to be General Counsel of the Army. I applaud his
willingness to once again depart his law practice in Phoenix
and return as the nominee to be the General Counsel of the
United States Air Force.
Mr. Blanchard is extraordinarily well qualified to assume
these duties. His academic credentials include outstanding
achievement at the Lewis and Clark College and at Harvard Law
School, where he graduated first in his class. He completed a
master's degree at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and
subsequently clerked for one of Arizona's greatest jurists,
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
In addition to his prior service as General Counsel of the
Army, Mr. Blanchard's contributions in the public sector are
particularly noteworthy. He was chief counsel to General Barry
McCaffrey in his role as drug czar in the White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy from 1997 to 1999. In 2003, Mr.
Blanchard acted as interim Homeland Security Director in the
office of Governor Janet Napolitano, crafted a homeland
security plan and helped establish an Arizona Office of
Homeland Security. From 1991 to 1995, Mr. Blanchard served as
an Arizona State senator, where he chaired the judiciary
committee.
It's gratifying that Mr. Blanchard has again stepped
forward to serve his country and I know he will be heavily
relied on by Secretary of the Air Force Donley and General
Schwartz.
Mr. Andrew Weber, the nominee for the position of Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological
Defense Programs, as I noted, will be introduced by our
esteemed colleague Senator Lugar. However, I am aware he has
worked in DOD since 1996 as the Adviser for Threat Reduction
Policy. He has over 24 years of Government service, most of
which has been dedicated to reducing the threat of weapons of
mass destruction.
Thomas Lamont, the nominee for Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, is an accomplished
attorney. He'll be introduced by Senator Durbin. He recently
completed a 25-year career of service as a judge advocate with
the Illinois Army National Guard.
The Army is severely stressed today and we know that its
leaders at every level are working hard to craft programs and
policies that will enable soldiers and their families to meet
the great demands being placed on them. Mr. Lamont, I know you
will be a positive influence in assisting Army leaders in
addressing these critically important problems.
Yesterday I met with wounded warriors at Walter Reed Army
Medical Center. I learned from them that the staff is stressed,
case managers have very high case loads, and that high turnover
of these managers is a negative factor in achieving continuity
and smooth transition for these young heroes. This indicates to
me that more work needs to be done to improve execution of the
Warrior Transition Unit concept.
Dr. Stockton, you have an impressive record of academic
scholarship in homeland defense and homeland security policy,
including leadership positions at the Naval Postgraduate School
and most recently at Stanford University. I have to say that
your qualifications for the equally important Americas'
Security Affairs portion of the portfolio you've been nominated
for appears to be lacking. Your responses to the committee's
advance policy questions relating to Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela,
Bolivia, Panama, U.S. Southern Command, and others were
completely unresponsive and raise serious questions which must
be clarified before any action should be taken on your
nomination. I understand the committee staff intends to follow
up with you in this regard.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome our nominees and our
colleagues.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator McCain.
First we'll call on an old friend, Senator Lugar, to make
his introduction. Then we'll call on Senator Durbin to make
your introduction. Representative Sam Farr, you would then
become next. Senator McCain has already introduced Mr.
Blanchard. Then once each of you make your introductions, you
can either stay or leave as you need to. We know you all have
heavy schedules.
Senator Lugar, it's always great to see you here. I made
reference to Nunn-Lugar in my introduction and you're well
known for many wonderful advances, but that surely is one of
them; and we now call on you.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF INDIANA
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
McCain. It's a real privilege to be here to introduce my friend
Andy Weber.
President Obama has nominated Andy to be Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological
Defense Programs. I've worked closely with Andy for more than a
decade. I believe the President could not have made a better
choice. Andy Weber has played an instrumental role in the
success of the Nunn-Lugar program. He's been at the forefront
of our Government's efforts to meet the threat posed by weapons
of mass destruction. I've seen Andy's decisionmaking, energy,
personal diplomacy firsthand during many Nunn-Lugar inspection
visits to the former Soviet Union.
He has served his country with honor and courage, most
recently as a long-time adviser on the Nunn-Lugar program in
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and I am confident he
will continue to do so in his new position.
Mr. Chairman, because of Andy's work we live in a safer
world. He has led the program's efforts to address the threat
posed by biological weapons. Under his leadership, the program
has secured toxic pathogens that could have fallen into
terrorist hands, and because of his efforts pathogen strain
samples that might some day lead to cures and treatments are
being studied in United States laboratories and public health
professionals are developing important assessment tools to
understand and to prevent the outbreak of deadly diseases that
directly threaten the well-being and stability of the world.
In addition to securing biological weapons, Andy has been
the point man for our nonproliferation operations in a number
of countries. He led the American team that traveled to Moldova
to remove 21 MIG-29 fighter aircraft and personally oversaw the
transportation of the planes back to the United States. The
jets were capable of launching nuclear weapons and would have
been extremely dangerous had they been transferred to rogue
states.
Andy also led the United States efforts in a once-
classified operation known as Project Sapphire. In the winter
of 1994, the Kazakh Government discovered nearly 600 kilograms
of highly enriched uranium, enough to make several nuclear
weapons. The material was highly vulnerable. We know that a
number of governments and organizations had a strong interest
in acquiring it. Andy's efforts ensured that these materials
were transported to the United States for safekeeping.
He also played a crucial role in razing the largest anthrax
production facility in the world. The plant, known as
Stepnogorsk, was built by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Each piece of equipment involved in the production and
weaponization of biological weapons was destroyed and the
structure was bulldozed to the ground.
Andy's operational successes are matched by his diplomatic
skills. With an innovative negotiating style all his own, he
has built relationships that led to unprecedented
nonproliferation breakthroughs. With little fanfare, he has
served in remote locations negotiating, monitoring, and
implementing the elimination of the most deadly substances ever
created.
The position for which Andy has been nominated will be
different than the role he played in the Nunn-Lugar program.
But I am confident that in a few years we will be reflecting on
another long list of his accomplishments. I am proud to offer
my strongest endorsement of Andy Weber's nomination. I urge the
committee to act favorably. I urge my colleagues in the Senate
to confirm him promptly. I thank very much the committee for
inviting me to appear today.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator Lugar. We're
delighted to hear from you. We know that you have another
commitment, as do our other introducers.
Now a great favorite of all of ours, Senator Dick Durbin.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD DURBIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS
Senator Durbin. Thanks a lot, Senator Levin, chairman of
the committee, and Senator McCain. Thank you very much for your
hospitality today.
It's my honor to introduce Tom Lamont to support his
confirmation as Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower
and Reserve Affairs. President Obama made the right choice when
he nominated Tom for this position. Tom is a dedicated public
servant who's spent a lifetime dedicating himself to public
life. He is also a good friend and neighbor in Springfield. I
know him and his family very well.
Unfortunately, his wife Bridget and family could not join
him today as Bridget's father passed away Saturday evening. He
was 90 years old. That's why Tom is here by himself, but they
are with him in spirit and totally supportive of this
nomination. I know that Bridget is proud of Tom's service, 25
years of experience as a Judge Advocate General (JAG) with the
Illinois Army National Guard. He was the State staff JAG before
retiring at the rank of colonel in 2007.
Tom's public service goes beyond the Guard. In 1990 he was
elected to the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.
He also served in the highest capacities with the Office of
State's Attorney as appellate prosecutor, civil litigation in
the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, and the Illinois
Board of Higher Education. He has a private law practice in
Springfield and most recently has served as Special Counsel for
the University of Illinois.
If confirmed, this broad array of service and experience
will serve him well. The Army needs leaders like Tom right now.
The Army has soldiers deployed around the world. The wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan create tremendous strain on the soldiers
and their families, as we saw with this morning's tragic
headline.
Of the 178,000 troops serving today in Iraq and
Afghanistan, roughly 138,600 are Army soldiers. Of those,
88,000 to 90,000 are members of the Guard and Reserve. That
includes, incidentally, 2,700 members of the Illinois Army
National Guard's 33rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team. Many of
these soldiers have served extended deployments and often
multiple deployments.
As the Assistant Secretary for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs, Tom will supervise the essential manpower and
personnel issues facing the Army, no small task, but one that
he is certainly up to. He will be responsible for championing
the Army's Reserve components. With his years of experience in
the Illinois Guard, he has a strong understanding of the needs
of the Reserves as well. He will make sure the Army Reserve has
the resources and capabilities it needs to be an operational
force.
I strongly support his nomination. I urge the committee to
favorably report this nomination for full consideration by the
Senate.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator Durbin.
Now we will call on Congressman Farr. We're delighted that
you could join us today, Sam.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAM FARR, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member McCain.
I'm very pleased to introduce to you Paul Stockton, who I
have known for more than a decade as a friend and a mentor.
Paul and I became acquainted when he became the Director for
the Center of Civil-Military Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate
School in Monterey, CA. From my background as a former Peace
Corps volunteer in Colombia, I was interested in how the United
States could assist foreign nations in resolving civil-military
affairs and Paul was the leading expert in this area.
Paul was interested in and knowledgeable about Latin
American affairs and developed the DOD programs in Colombia
that helped build the effective security partnerships with
important democracies, including assisting the Colombian Armed
Forces with programs to reinforce the rule of law and respect
for human rights. That program involved officers from
throughout Central America, El Salvador, and Latin America.
His expertise in international affairs led him to establish
the School of International Graduate Studies, where he served
as the acting dean until he was appointed provost of the Naval
Postgraduate school in 2001. The tragedy of September 11 drove
Dr. Stockton to create the Center for Homeland Defense and
Security at the Naval Postgraduate School. Dr. Stockton
developed the Nation's premier master's degree curriculum that
educates our Nation's first responders in critical homeland
security issues.
Again, recognizing the need to integrate DOD and the
Department of Homeland Security, Paul brought the DOD officers
together with their civilian counterparts at the local, State,
and Federal level. As the first Director of the Nation's only
Department of Homeland Security-supported master's degree
program, at the Center for Homeland Defense and Security, Dr.
Stockton developed education modules to support the homeland
security efforts of governors and mayors all across the
country.
Dr. Paul Stockton is among the Nation's top experts in
homeland security issues and will lead the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and
Americas' Security Affairs with honor and distinction.
In closing, Senators, I'd like to mention that Paul's
beautiful wife Missy and his two adorable sons William and
Henry cannot be here today, but his in-laws are present and I
would like to recognize Bill and Carol Engler, who are sitting
right behind me.
Thank you for allowing me this time to pay tribute to my
good friend and mentor Dr. Paul Stockton.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Congressman. Say hello
to my brother, would you? I haven't seen him for a few days.
We'll now turn to our nominees. We're going to ask you all
first our standard questions. First, have you adhered to
applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of
interest?
Mr. Weber. Yes.
Dr. Stockton. Yes.
Mr. Lamont. Yes.
Mr. Blanchard. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Mr. Weber. No.
Dr. Stockton. No.
Mr. Lamont. No.
Mr. Blanchard. No.
Chairman Levin. Will you ensure that your staff complies
with deadlines established for requested communications,
including questions for the record, in hearings?
Mr. Weber. Yes.
Dr. Stockton. Yes.
Mr. Lamont. Yes.
Mr. Blanchard. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Mr. Weber. Yes.
Dr. Stockton. Yes.
Mr. Lamont. Yes.
Mr. Blanchard. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
Mr. Weber. Yes.
Dr. Stockton. Yes.
Mr. Lamont. Yes.
Mr. Blanchard. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify upon request before this committee?
Mr. Weber. Yes.
Dr. Stockton. Yes.
Mr. Lamont. Yes.
Mr. Blanchard. Yes.
Chairman Levin. 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?
Mr. Weber. Yes.
Dr. Stockton. Yes.
Mr. Lamont. Yes.
Mr. Blanchard. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Now, as I call upon each of you, you should feel free to
introduce members of your families if they're with you or
friends who are with you. We'll start with Mr. Weber, and we'll
go from Mr. Weber, to Dr. Stockton, Mr. Lamont, and then Mr.
Blanchard. Mr. Weber, do you have an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF ANDREW C. WEBER, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT TO THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR NUCLEAR AND CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL
DEFENSE PROGRAMS
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I do. Chairman
Levin, Senator McCain: It is an honor and a privilege to appear
before you today as the nominee for Assistant to the Secretary
of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense
Programs. I am grateful to President Obama and Secretary Gates
for their confidence in nominating me to this important
position.
I would like to thank Senator Lugar for the generous
introduction and note that he has been an inspiration to me and
countless other people around the world, and that his vision
and leadership of the Nunn-Lugar programs have made us all
safer.
I especially want to thank my loving family. Let me
introduce my wife Julie, my daughter Eleanor Jane, and my
mother Pat. I would also like to thank my father, James Weber,
an Army Air Corps veteran, resting in peace across the Potomac
River in Arlington National Cemetery. Finally, I would like to
thank my friends and colleagues who are here today to support
me.
By nominating a career public servant to this important
position, President Obama has demonstrated his faith in the
professionals, civilian and military, whose greatest calling is
to serve the American people. I have had the privilege of
serving under every President since Ronald Reagan these last 24
years. I am truly humbled by the opportunity President Obama
has given me, and if confirmed I pledge to work closely with
you and this committee to strengthen the Nation's security
against weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, I thank you for your
consideration and welcome any questions you may have.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
Next, Dr. Stockton.
STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL N. STOCKTON, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR HOMELAND DEFENSE AND AMERICAS'
SECURITY AFFAIRS
Dr. Stockton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator McCain,
for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. I'm
honored that the President has nominated me to be the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas'
Security Affairs. This day would not have been possible without
the love and support of my wife Missy, who had to stay back in
California with my two wonderful boys, William and Henry, and
with my parents, to whom I owe so much.
I want to acknowledge two special debts of gratitude. The
first is to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who gave me my
real education in government. Second, I want to acknowledge
Lacy Suiter, who helped me understand the importance of
building effective partnerships between DOD and local, State,
and Federal civil authorities.
Should I be confirmed by the Senate, I would welcome the
opportunity to strengthen those partnerships in support of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the Deputy Secretary,
and the Secretary of Defense. I would also do everything
possible to strengthen the homeland defense of the United
States and to build security in the western hemisphere with our
regional partners.
Finally, if confirmed by the Senate I would commit myself
to respecting the vital role played by this committee and the
Senate as a whole, and would welcome any questions you might
have for me this morning.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Dr. Stockton.
Mr. Lamont.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS R. LAMONT, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS
Mr. Lamont. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Levin,
Senator McCain: I am 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 thank the President and the Secretary of Defense for
the trust and confidence shown me by nominating me to serve in
this position. I'd like to also thank Senator Durbin for
introducing me here today and for his support and guidance
through this process.
If I am confirmed, as a former National Guardsman I look
forward to the opportunity to serve my country again at a time
when our national security environment is as challenging as it
has been at any other time in our Nation's history. If
confirmed, it would be my distinct honor to help them
accomplish the complex and challenging missions our Nation asks
the Army to perform.
I'd like also to thank my family for their support and
encouragement to undertake this new challenge. Unfortunately,
my wife of 37 years cannot be here today. Her father passed
away this past weekend and the funeral is today. Our son
Michael is the oldest grandchild and he is serving as a
pallbearer. His duty is with his mother. While I would have
liked to have joined the family today, we decided family trials
such as this can and do arise at any time for our soldiers and
they persevere and soldier on. They should not expect any less
from me.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to any questions you and other
members of this committee may have. Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Mr. Lamont. If you would extend
our condolences to your family. Their separation from you on a
day like this I'm afraid is standard for families.
Mr. Lamont. Absolutely.
Chairman Levin. They come through a lot of trials
supporting their member who is in public service, and here we
have a very dramatic example on the very day that you have your
confirmation hearing. Thank them for their understanding and
tell them that we miss them. We understand why they're not here
and we very much appreciate their support.
Mr. Lamont. Thank you for your remarks.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Blanchard.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. BLANCHARD, NOMINEE TO BE GENERAL
COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
Mr. Blanchard. Yes, Mr. Chairman and Senator McCain. It's a
great honor to be before this committee as a nominee for
General Counsel of the Air Force. I especially want to thank
Senator John McCain for his kind introduction. This is twice
he's done this for me and I deeply appreciate it.
I would also like to thank President Obama and Secretaries
Gates and Donley for the trust they have placed in me. Finally,
I want to thank the staff and the members of this committee for
the great courtesy that they've shown during this process. I
realize this is a very busy time and I appreciate the hard work
it took to do this hearing so quickly.
My wife Allison wanted to be here today, but obligations
have required her to remain in Arizona. I'm very proud of my
wife. In addition to being the best possible mother to our very
active 4-year-old boy, she also has a long history of public
service, including many years in the Pentagon.
I am deeply humbled and honored by this nomination. The
most fulfilling job I've had in my career to date was as
General Counsel of the Army and I'm excited by the prospect, if
confirmed, of serving as General Counsel of the Air Force.
The challenges facing the Department of the Air Force are
many and I look forward to helping Secretary Donley and the
rest of the Air Force team as they grapple with these
challenges. But most of all, I'm especially happy to be
nominated for a position that will allow me to improve the
lives of the dedicated Air Force personnel who work to protect
America and, when called upon, put themselves in harm's way for
our country.
I am committed to a close and productive working
relationship and partnership with the Air Force JAG and the
other military lawyers in the department. I am proud that I had
a great relationship with the Army JAG leadership during my
tenure as General Counsel of the Army and General Walt Huffman
was not merely a great colleague, he became a close friend. I
am firmly convinced that the leadership of the Air Force is
best served when the civilian and military lawyers work
together as a team to offer the best possible legal advice to
our mutual clients.
Should I be confirmed, I look forward to working with this
committee in addressing any legal issues that may arise during
my tenure, and I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and
would be happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much.
Let's try an 8-minute round for our first round of
questions.
Mr. Lamont, family support programs are more important than
ever in light of continued deployments and the related stress,
both on members of the armed services, as probably was the
cause of yesterday's tragedy, but also on their families. Can
you give us your view of the importance of family support
programs? Where would you put greater focus?
Mr. Lamont. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, the family
support program is extremely important. When a soldier deploys,
his family goes to war in many respects themselves. They are
confronted with many of the same concerns, housing and
education, financial issues, of our society, but yet it's
exacerbated with the loss of a loved one.
If I am confirmed, I think it behooves us to do everything
in our power to ensure the strength of our family support
program, because if we are to sustain the volunteer Army we
need to sustain that family support group.
Chairman Levin. We've seen a significant increase in
suicides. Can you give us your thoughts on prevention?
Mr. Lamont. I'm aware that it seems to be a significant
increase in suicides. This is a terrible tragedy. Again, it
somewhat mirrors society, and again exacerbated by the long
deployments and the lack of a family support group. We think
much more needs to be done in recognizing behavioral and risk
factors, and the Army I'm aware has initiated a great deal of
new training regimens just in order to try to recognize those
risk factors among our troubled soldiers. It's something that
we must have constant vigilance on.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Weber, you've spent many years working
in the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, particularly
in the implementation of the biological threat reduction
programs. The National Academy of Science recently released a
report which set forth recommendations on future opportunities
for the CTR program, particularly within the area of biological
threat reduction initiatives. Can you give us your view of the
report and the recommendations and which of those
recommendations would you follow or try to follow for expansion
of the CTR program?
Mr. Weber. Mr. Chairman, my friends Ron Lehman and Dave
Franz did an excellent job co-chairing that National Academy
report. As required by law, the Secretary will soon be
reporting to you with his assessment of that report. But I have
studied it closely. It's an excellent report and I personally
endorse all of the recommendations.
The most important one is that we take the lessons learned
from our threat reduction programs in the former Soviet Union
and expand them geographically to other areas of the world. The
Secretary is working on a determination to allow us to use the
new authorities given by this committee in Pakistan and
Afghanistan, and the initial focus of that will be on
biological threat reduction programs. Later perhaps we could
expand these programs into other parts of the world, like
Southeast Asia and Africa.
Another recommendation which I fully endorse is the need
for less bureaucracy and more agility and flexibility as we
implement these programs. If confirmed for this position, I
will oversee the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and will work
with that agency on improving the flexibility. Secretary Gates
has said that a 75 percent solution in months is better than a
100 percent solution in years, and I think that will be sort of
our guiding mandate as we move forward with these programs.
Finally, the report criticized the Government for not
having more high-level attention on these programs. The fact
that I am being considered for this senior leadership position
in DOD will position me personally to give these programs the
attention that you and Senator Lugar have given them and
Senator McCain by traveling to the countries, meeting with our
partners, and visiting some of these weapons of mass
destruction sites where the day-to-day work goes on.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Dr. Stockton, the Commission on National Guard and Reserves
made a number of findings and recommendations in their final
report on increasing the capabilities and responsibilities of
the National Guard and Reserves in the homeland. The commission
concluded that: ``DOD must improve its capabilities and
readiness to play a primary role in the response to major
catastrophes that incapacitate civilian government over a wide
geographic area.'' This is a responsibility, in their words,
that is ``equal in priority to its combat responsibilities.''
In response to a request from this committee, Admiral
Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, wrote in April 2008
that: ``I have some concerns with the Commission's ideas on
enhancing the Defense Department's role in the homeland. While
Reserve component civil support requirements are important,
they should not be of equal importance to DOD's combat
responsibilities.''
Can you give us your view on that issue? Do you agree with
Admiral Mullen or do you agree with the finding of the
Commission on the National Guard and Reserves?
Dr. Stockton. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. I
agree with Admiral Mullen. I believe that the current national
defense strategy specifies that the core mission of DOD is the
defense of U.S. homeland from attack and the securing of U.S.
interests abroad. The civil support mission and support of
civil authorities is absolutely vital and if confirmed I would
work to strengthen U.S. capacity for that. But the core
missions are as stated in the national defense strategy.
Chairman Levin. Dr. Stockton, State Governors have
authority to activate their National Guard in State status to
respond to major disasters and emergencies. However, much of
the equipment and many of the specialties needed to respond to
these disasters and emergencies are in the Reserves of the
Armed Forces and the President is precluded from mobilizing
these Federal forces for that purpose.
Governors have opposed DOD's efforts to authorize the
President to mobilize the Reserves to respond to insurrections
and manmade disasters, accidents, or catastrophes because the
Reserves would not be under State command and control.
My question is whether you believe that Congress should
authorize the President to order the Army Reserve, Navy
Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast
Guard Reserve to Active Duty to respond to an insurrection or a
serious natural or manmade disaster, accident, or catastrophe
even though they would not be under the Governors' command and
control?
Dr. Stockton. Thank you, Senator. My view is that the
current statutory authorities of the President are adequate and
that the Insurrection Act as in law today spells out the very
limited circumstances under which these kinds of uses of
Federal forces, National Guard forces under Federal control,
might be used. I do not see at this time the need for further
legislation on that subject.
Chairman Levin. Thank you all.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Weber, do you believe that any ratification of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) should be preceded by
plans for a new redesign and more reliable warhead? Secretary
Gates recently stated that without future testing it will
become impossible to keep extending the life of our nuclear
arsenal.
Mr. Weber. Senator McCain, I believe that the President's
desire to have ratification of the CTBT needs to be backed up
by increased attention of the Nuclear Weapons Council of the
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy on ensuring
that we have a safe, secure, reliable, and credible deterrent.
We have an aging stockpile and over time it becomes more
difficult to certify the reliability of those weapons without
testing. I believe one of the safeguards that we need to have
is a supreme national interest clause that would allow testing
if it were in the supreme national interest, and we also need
to maintain our nuclear weapons testing readiness if one of
those situations arose.
But if I am confirmed, making sure that the Department of
Energy and DOD dedicate the resources as outlined by the recent
Perry-Schlesinger Commission on the U.S. Strategic Posture,
that will help us continue into the future to be able to
certify the safety, security, reliability, and most
importantly, credibility of our nuclear deterrent.
Thank you.
Senator McCain. Dr. Stockton, recently the Senate Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee had a hearing on
the increasing violence on the border with Mexico. Do you think
that the United States is doing enough to assist the Calderon
Government in combating these cartels?
Dr. Stockton. Thank you, Senator McCain, for the question.
I believe that under the Merida Initiative and other
opportunities for the United States to be in support of
President Calderon's Government, that we have some ongoing
programs of support that are very valuable, and should I be
confirmed in this position I would welcome the chance to hear
your insights and those of your staff as to how those programs
could be further strengthened.
Senator McCain. Let me suggest that you take a trip down to
the U.S.-Mexican border and get an assessment. The level of
violence is dramatically increasing, the atrocities that are
being committed between the cartels and the government to an
unprecedented level.
I don't know if you're aware, but the Governors of
California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas have requested the
National Guard to be deployed on the border because of their
concerns of the spillover of violence into our country. Do you
think that the deployment of National Guard along the southern
border would be helpful?
Dr. Stockton. Sir, any such deployment would be in support
of the local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies that
have primary responsibility for dealing with violence spilling
over from the activities of the drug cartels. Should I be
confirmed by the Senate for this position, I again would look
forward to opportunities for DOD to play that support role
consistent with law, as appropriate and as approved by the
President of the United States.
Senator McCain. General Michael Hayden, former Director of
Central Intelligence, recently said: ``Escalating violence
along the U.S.-Mexico border will pose the second greatest
threat to U.S. security this year, second only to al Qaeda.''
If General Hayden is correct--and from my own experience I
believe he is--I would suggest that you pay attention to that
issue and make a recommendation to the President accordingly,
because right now the governors, who have to deal with this
issue every single day along the border, are strongly in favor
of deploying our Guard troops, at least until we have
sufficient security along the border.
Mr. Lamont, I think it's important to note that the
retention and recruiting in the Army has increased rather
dramatically. We know that part of that is the economy, part of
it is willingness to serve and a desire to serve, part of it is
the fact that we've achieved success in Iraq, and it has had a
very significant impact on morale.
I was out at Walter Reed Army Medical Center yesterday and
I had the opportunity of having lunch with some of our wounded
warriors. They overall are satisfied with a lot of the
treatment they're receiving and the improvements that have been
made since the scandal out there. But they also think that
there are some needed improvements, particularly in the
transition area, from discharge from hospital care to civilian
life.
I would suggest that maybe a trip out to Walter Reed and
Bethesda Naval Medical Center, where there are some Army
personnel as well, and to Brook Army Hospital would be one of
your top priorities so that you can get a firsthand
understanding of the challenges that these brave warriors are
facing. You will be astounded by the morale and the
rehabilitation that's taking place, but there are still areas
that need to be addressed if we're going to provide them with
the care and attention that they have obviously earned.
I hope you'll take the time to go to Walter Reed, Bethesda,
Brook, and other facilities that are providing care for our
wounded warriors.
Mr. Lamont. Absolutely.
Senator McCain. Mr. Blanchard, there's been a couple of
scandals in the Air Force. One of them had to do with Boeing.
Another one had to do with the former Chief of Staff of the Air
Force. I urge you to make sure that the performance of all,
both civilian and uniformed, in the United States Air Force
comports themselves with the highest standards of public
service that we expect of them. I would imagine that your
previous experience will qualify you to hit the ground running
on this issue.
Dr. Stockton, again, our hemisphere is important. It's an
important part of your portfolio. We have individuals such as
President Chavez in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Ecuador,
where we have significant challenges. I hope you'll clarify
your answers to the committee and make sure that they are full
and comprehensive.
I congratulate you all and your families, and we look
forward to an early confirmation so that you can get to work.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses and their
families for their willingness to serve the country.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Senator Begich.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
To all of you, congratulations on being here at this point
and I look forward to being one of those that vote for
confirmation for you all. I think you're a great group of folks
and President Obama has once again selected some good
individuals, especially in the armed services area. Again,
congratulations to the families that are here. I wish you all
the best because I know their hours now will be longer than you
had anticipated and what you were told. So be patient with
them, but thank you for your support for them. It's very
important when they have to do their duty late in the evenings.
It's the family that makes the difference. So thank you all for
doing that.
I just have questions for two of you, and that could be
good and bad; good for the two that don't have to answer
questions, bad that you have to wait for the other two to
finish. But one is for Dr. Stockton and a couple for Mr.
Lamont.
First, Dr. Stockton, in regards to Arctic policy, how do
you see your role or how do you see long-term impacts with
regards to Arctic policy on homeland security and defense in
general as it continues to have more activity and will
obviously in the future have a lot of activity, based on the
climate change issues? Do you have any general comments you'd
like to make on that or specifics, if you could?
Dr. Stockton. Thank you for the question, Senator. There
are a lot of priorities competing for funding and programmatic
support across the Federal Government now. I think in this
realm of homeland defense and homeland security there are also
terrific opportunities for more effective collaboration between
DOD and the civilian agencies, Federal, State, and local, that
DOD can support.
In addition to continuing to strengthen capacity to deal
with the challenges that our Nation faces, I will look for
efficiencies and ways to make sure that these agencies are a
more effective mutual support as we go forward.
Senator Begich. Do you see, as you look at the different
agencies and working with them, as Congress and the White House
are developing how we're going to deal with the issues up in
the Arctic, how--let me put it another way. Do you think we
have enough resources to deal with the future of the Arctic? Is
that an area that, as again the Departments of Defense and
Homeland Security work together on, which is probably very
critical, do you think we have enough resources, or do you
think that's an area that we need more engagement?
Dr. Stockton. I think we need more engagement, sir. The
position for which I have been nominated is responsible for
western hemisphere affairs. There are new challenges emerging
due to climate change. In the polar region, new passages are
opening up for ship traffic. New opportunities for exploitation
of minerals, oil for example, in the seabed; and unresolved
issues now that have been raised by this.
Should I be confirmed by the Senate, I would pay special
attention to these emerging western hemisphere security issues
that would fall under my policy purview.
Senator Begich. Very good. Thank you very much for that. As
a Senator from Alaska, that's obviously an area of concern. We
are an Arctic Nation because of the State of Alaska. I truly
believe we are totally underresourced up there for what is
going to be necessary, not only today but into the future. I
appreciate your comments in that regard.
Dr. Stockton. Thank you, sir.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lamont, I have a couple questions and I do want to
follow up on the chairman's questions in regards to family
support, and something that I know--in Alaska we have lots of
folks that have been deployed as well as rotated back. As a
former mayor of Anchorage, we've done a lot of work with family
support and the necessity of it. I want to echo that I think
families and spouses are under great stress at this time based
on the deployments and the amount of deployments.
I want to echo the question and have you expand on it, if
you could. Do you think we have enough resources focused on
family support, not only here in country, but also on service,
outside of the country, in the sense of folks that have been
deployed in making sure that the families are well taken care
of? Again, not just the large picture, but at the battalion and
company level. Can you give me some comment on that?
Mr. Lamont. I share your concern with that issue. It's
absolutely vital that we have an extremely strong family
support group. As I mentioned to Chairman Levin, soldiers don't
deploy by themselves. All families share in the sacrifices that
their loved ones are going through.
I am not totally familiar with all the resources available
at this present time to suggest that we need more or less.
Clearly, I think we're always open to doing whatever we can to
support our families.
I will mention a new program entitled the Army Family
Covenant, in which there is great stress and great emphasis on
how we can serve the families, no matter where they're
situated. Yes, we do have our share of thorns.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. Actually, I was one of
the first mayors when I served as mayor to sign the covenant
with the Army, because it was an important message and mayors
have capacity, especially because they're so local in the sense
of connection to the bases, to do whatever they can to serve.
We had our superintendent, myself, and others sign that. So I
agree with you.
Mr. Lamont. We need that cooperative effort.
Senator Begich. That's a great program.
The other issue is also in regards to families: Do you
think within the leadership at your level and other levels that
people have made the psychological adjustment that the
families--or the Army--the military of today--let me broaden
it--the military of today versus 30, 40 years ago--it used to
be 75 percent, basically single men enlisted, and now it is 75
percent families instead of single individuals.
Do you think that the folks have adjusted and
psychologically changed in the sense of how they deal with the
operations of the military, and the Army specifically? Because
it has changed dramatically in the last 40-plus years, from 75
percent single males to 75 percent family, give or take a
percent there. Do you think that's occurred or do you think
there's a lot more work or some work to be done?
Mr. Lamont. It certainly is a changing environment,
although I'm led to believe that the Army has absorbed and
reprogrammed to the extent they believe, to move to that
psychology of a much larger number of female soldiers now, with
families. In fact, I'm told we have over 700,000 children in
our Army families right now. I do think there's a lot to be
done in that regard. Have we done enough?
Senator Begich. Hard to say.
Mr. Lamont. I don't know that.
Senator Begich. That would be an area to look at, because I
know when you shift like this you have to get the leadership to
also recognize the change that's occurred. It's a tough change
because some have been in the system so long, they've been
there a long time, but some of the new challenges of families
are pretty dramatic. But I appreciate that.
One other question, I think I'm getting close on time. Let
me ask you about some of the recruitment and what's been
happening in somewhat of a positive way, because the economy
has been flat and in some cases, in some communities, very
dramatically hit in the sense of unemployment and so forth.
Some of the recent reports that I have seen, at least in
the Army, they have curtailed the waiver policies, reduced
recruitment bonuses, and been a lot more selective in
admittance, because they have a lot more choices now, which is
a good thing in a lot of ways. But on the flip side, in this
economy that's flat also the National Guard has had to cut
personnel and recruitment budgets have also been reduced. So
it's going to have an impact in the economy.
I guess the question is, do you think we have the right
level of strength cap, the right levels here, and this is the
right move to start reducing in some areas at this time, where
we're in somewhat of a transition?
Mr. Lamont. I think the end strength issues are very
important. I share with you the concern of how we reach that
end strength. Our recruiting and retention successes have been
noted. I also note, frankly in today's paper, that there is a
potential budget recommendation of a reduction in recruitment
budget.
Senator Begich. Yes.
Mr. Lamont. I would suggest that was not done without full
and deliberate consultation with our senior defense leaders,
and I look forward to realizing what those discussions were.
Senator Begich. Very good. I appreciate it. My time is up
and I do thank you for your answers to the questions.
Again, to all four of you, thank you for your willingness
to serve your country in this manner. Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Begich.
Senator Webb.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, I apologize for having stepped out. I'm on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee as well and we have
Ambassador Holbrooke two floors away. So it's a typical mil
drill up here in the Senate.
Chairman Levin. We cannot hear him.
Senator Webb. Excuse me?
Chairman Levin. Usually we can hear him two floors away.
[Laughter.]
Senator Webb. You'll hear about him, I'm sure, in the next
hour or 2.
Mr. Lamont, I wanted to take some time today and talk to
you about my concerns with respect to the approach that's been
taken on manpower issues in recent years. A good place to start
and a follow-on to what Senator Begich was saying, I grew up in
the military. I grew up in a military family. I know that part
of it very well, the stress on the spouse and on the kids.
At one point there was a 3\1/2\ year period where my father
was either deployed or assigned to bases where there wasn't
family housing. When you go through the numbers that you and
Senator Begich were trading about the transition of the
percentage of married personnel, it really occurred principally
in the 1980s, when I was Assistant Secretary of Defense
responsible for the Guard and Reserve programs.
We saw huge jumps in the percentage of people who were
married. In fact, we did a through-line study. I had asked the
question, what percentage of sergeants, E-5, in the Army were
married in 1971 as compared to 1986, and I think it was 14
percent up to 73 percent. We did a lot of funding during those
periods, put a lot of quality of life programs on line.
As someone who had grown up in a different era, it was just
remarkable to see the way that DOD stepped forward, and it has
continued. I don't think that really is the main impediment
today. There are two issues and I want to talk to you about
both of them. One is the deployment obligations right now; and
the second, it's a little bit of a different question, but I
have great concern about this and I've been raising it ever
since I've been here in the Senate, and I want to lay this down
because I hope you will do something about it in your own
position. When people from the Pentagon come over here to this
committee and start talking about our Active Duty people, they
tend to forget that a great percentage of them are citizen-
soldiers. We tend to talk about, oh, you enlist the soldier,
you reenlist the family, retain the family.
But it took me a year to get this data when I was pushing
the GI Bill, which I wrote and introduced my first day in
office, that 75 percent of the soldiers in the Army leave the
military on or before the end of their first enlistment and 70
percent of United States marines do the same thing. They leave
on or before the end of their first enlistment.
That is healthy for the country. We are a citizen soldiery.
But at the same time, I'm not seeing from the leadership in the
military today that same tone, at least over here in these
hearings, of stewardship, a lifetime of stewardship toward the
people who are not career people. We do very well in terms of
identifying the needs and the requirements of the career force.
I would urge you to, whenever you're looking at any of these
issues, to consider the long-term impacts of service in this
type of environment.
That's why I introduced the GI Bill. There are so many
people who were leaving the military with the Montgomery GI
Bill that couldn't even get into basic community college
programs, when they had carried the load that very few other
people in this country have been carrying since September 11.
It's also, by the way, why I introduced the dwell time
amendment twice in 2007, basically saying, however long you've
been gone, you deserve that much time back at home before you
have to deploy again.
I will say here that--I'm not saying anything that I
haven't said directly to General Casey--I was stunned when
General Casey called me 2 years ago and said that the Army was
going to 15-month deployments with only 12 months at home. The
historical ratio on deployments has been 2 to 1. In the Navy,
the Marine Corps, in the Army--in the Navy, when I was
Secretary of the Navy, their deployment cycle was 6 months at
sea, 12 months back at home. The deployment cycle was a year
away in the Marine Corps, 2 years at home.
We've gone down to .75 on the rotational cycle. I expressed
my concerns very seriously more than 2 years ago about the
emotional impact long-term on good people that could
potentially come out of that. I'm not going to simply put the
suicide issue on that.
But having spent 4 years as a counsel on the House Veterans
Affairs Committee right after the Vietnam War and working on
these issues of post-traumatic stress and these sorts of
things, it's very clear that a lot of the long-term emotional
difficulties come from your best people, people who have given
the most, and then need the right sort of stewardship, whether
they stay in or not.
My strong request to you is that in the policy discussions
that you have in your position that you will keep both of those
on the table, because they tend to fall off the table when
we're talking about effective deployment strategies or
maintaining the size of the force and those sorts of things.
Mr. Lamont. Certainly I'll take your comments to heart.
First let me applaud you for your efforts on the GI Bill.
In my previous capacity, one of the first calls I got right
after that took place was from our chancellor at the University
of Illinois: How can we do this? How can we bring these people
in? We want to encourage these people to take their ability to
come in and accept that bill and work with it. We want them to
use that bill. So we appreciate that.
I am also very aware of the concerns with dwell time. We've
seen it with our Reserve component. Secretary Gates has
suggested a goal of 1 to 5 years. We're not there yet. I'm
aware that the goal for our Active component, we are not able
to accomplish yet either. These are serious concerns, and they
go to some of the other questions that have been raised here
today with our family support. They all tie in together. I will
certainly take your comments to heart.
Senator Webb. I would say, one of the real surprises for me
as we move forward on the GI Bill and the dwell time amendment
was that the previous administration opposed both of them. They
said that it was going to affect retention or that there were
political overtones in terms of dwell time. I'm here to tell
you, we have a stewardship toward these people and if we, the
civilian leadership, don't articulate this stewardship, in a
lot of cases it's not going to happen.
Another piece of that, by the way, when you're looking at
issues like recruitment, there's two pieces on this GI Bill.
One is the best way to make sure that individuals have the
proper transition out of a combat environment is to have an
affirmation of their service. They go back in that community
and say: You know what, I just got a 4-year scholarship for
serving my country, and there's only one way you can get it.
The other piece of that is, in all the work that I've done
over my lifetime, on the committee, I have 5 years in the
Pentagon, the best recruiter is a former military person who
has had a positive experience who's back in the community.
Someone who has had a good experience and is back on the GI
Bill is going to help you selfishly as well.
I wish you the best. For all of you, our door is open and I
hope that if you have any questions with respect to issues that
you're working on or if you want to ever take the temperature
of our office, we are there.
Mr. Lamont. Thank you.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Webb.
Mr. Lamont, I can assure you that Senator Webb's sentiments
reflect the sentiments probably of every member of this
committee.
Senator Hagan.
Senator Hagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, want to congratulate all of you on your nominations
to these very important positions. I want to welcome the family
members here because you are definitely crucial to the fact
that these individuals are going to be doing an outstanding
job. I just want to thank you too for your commitment and in
particular your support.
My first question is for Mr. Weber. Transnational
terrorism, I think, is among the most important threats that
the United States must be capable of combating and deterring.
Key to this is preventing the terrorists from obtaining the
nuclear fissile materials, to include highly enriched uranium.
My question is how do you propose that the United States can
achieve this objective in not allowing this fissile material to
get into the wrong hands?
Mr. Weber. Senator, I agree with you. I have had personal
experience in this area. In Kazakhstan I helped lead an
operation to remove highly enriched uranium for safekeeping at
the Y-12 plant in Tennessee.
President Obama in his Prague speech has announced that
locking up loose nuclear materials around the globe during his
first administration will be a very high priority. He's asked
Vice President Biden to help with that. I believe that DOD can
play a role, working together with the Departments of State and
Energy and other allies, in expediting this effort, because
there is no greater threat to our national security than, God
forbid, a group like al Qaeda getting its hands on an
improvised nuclear weapon.
Senator Hagan. Do you have any area that you would target
first?
Mr. Weber. DOD under the guidance of the National Security
Council, together with the Department of Energy, is working on
developing a campaign plan. There are a number of countries
that have weapons-usable materials. Some are more cooperative
than others. A lot of work has been done in this area over the
past 10 or 15 years.
We're left with some of the more difficult countries. It's
going to take a lot of effort. But as I tell my colleagues,
when Senators Nunn and Lugar created the Nunn-Lugar program
they didn't tell anybody it was going to be easy. There's a lot
of work to do, but we have a great team in the U.S. Government,
and with presidential interest and support I think we will
accomplish that objective in the next 4 years.
Senator Hagan. Last week we had the chairman and the vice
chairman of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic
Posture of the United States testify before this committee.
They suggested the importance of obtaining Russian cooperation
on air and missile defense as a strategic message aimed to
curtail the Iranian aspirations of developing nuclear weapons.
Once again a question for you: How do you think such an
objective can be obtained?
Mr. Weber. It's clear that we need Russian cooperation in
this global effort to lock down loose nuclear material. We also
need more Russian support of the international objective of
preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and
mating that to their current ballistic missile capability.
I think President Obama has made this a personal priority.
He's traveling this summer to Moscow to continue discussions
with President Medvedev on this issue. But clearly we need more
active Russian involvement in joining the international
community to pressure the Government of Iran to forego its
nuclear weapons and related enrichment programs.
Senator Hagan. Dr. Stockton, key to protecting the United
States is to ensure that critical energy infrastructure in
strategic parts of the world, such as Saudi Arabia, are
protected from asymmetric and unconventional attack, most
notably from Iranian ballistic missile surrogates and proxies,
as well as al Qaeda hubs in Yemen. These factors can affect the
world's oil supply and affect our military capabilities to
conduct operations in theater.
What are your thoughts in countering this threat and what
types of capabilities do you foresee that we need?
Dr. Stockton. Thank you for the question, Senator. My
office, the one for which I've been nominated, has some very
important support functions. The Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict has primary
responsibility for global counterterrorism, and some of that
would involve protection of these very important energy
facilities.
But my organization, the one which I'm proposed to head up,
also has very significant responsibilities. Let me talk a
little bit about those responsibilities and then what I'd do to
help strengthen them.
First of all, this position is responsible for global anti-
terrorism. That is, the protection of U.S. bases and other
facilities abroad from terrorist attacks so they can execute
their missions. I would ensure that I did everything possible
to strengthen the ability of our forward-deployed forces to
accomplish their responsibilities in protecting these critical
energy resources.
Second, within the United States the position of Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas'
Security Affairs is responsible for defense-critical
infrastructure protection. To the degree that DOD is dependent
on sources of energy in order to execute its missions, both at
home and abroad, again I would treat this responsibility very
seriously, especially, as you note, the risk that our
adversaries will attack us asymmetrically in ways in which we
are not well prepared today as we should be.
Senator Hagan. Thank you.
Mr. Lamont, a question for you, and this follows up a
little bit on what Senator Webb was talking about. The United
States Army Reserve Command will transition to Fort Bragg by
2011. I represent North Carolina and I've been to Fort Bragg a
number of times recently, and they are doing an incredible job
in a lot of the housing, in particular for the married
families. I think that's also attributed to the fact that when
many of the people are deploying their spouses and families
actually stay on base now, instead of returning home to their
families in other States and other communities, which I think
is very positive, in particular for the community of
Fayetteville.
But one of the things that people are concerned about is
the number of new people coming into that area and whether or
not the infrastructure and the standards and requirements will
be ready for this influx of new people.
Mr. Lamont. I certainly share with you those concerns.
Clearly, adequate housing for those new people will be
paramount, and I would like to believe that in the
deliberations concerning the transition there that they are
making efforts to resource them adequately and address those
family needs. I think in my new role it'll be very obvious that
I will have to be involved in that situation.
Senator Hagan. Another key component is education. I think
we talked about the number of families with students involved,
and I know the State government is doing a lot to help prepare,
but I think that there will be such a large number of children
going to the schools in the community also, that a lot of
attention needs to be addressed to that issue.
Mr. Lamont. The Army is aware of the large number of
children in our Army families and we have to address that
situation. Beyond housing, there is nothing more important than
education in the minds of the family support groups at home.
It's educating the children. We must do whatever we can to
provide them with, not just an adequate education, but a good
education.
Senator Hagan. I really encourage you to spend a lot of
time and energy being sure that does take place, because it is
of crucial importance to those young children, but obviously to
their parents, too.
Once again, congratulations to all of you and I look
forward to working closely with you.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Hagan.
I just have a few additional questions for Mr. Blanchard
and then, Senator Hagan, do you have any additional ones that
you want to ask now? You can do that now if you'd like, because
then you will be able to leave if you need to.
Senator Hagan. I had another one for Dr. Stockton. Last
week I had the opportunity to meet with the Ambassador from
Mexico. He emphasized that drug trafficking violence in Mexico
obviously has been affected by the availability of the assault
rifles and extensive flow of cash emanating from the U.S.
border in numerous places. In particular he was talking about
El Paso, TX, while we were talking.
I was just wondering, what steps can we take in working
with the Mexican Government and security officials to curb the
flow of cash and these assault rifles across the border?
Dr. Stockton. Senator Hagan, I haven't been briefed in
detail yet on the policy opportunities that exist. But in
general, I'm aware that Secretary Napolitano has expressed
strong interest in ensuring that the border is treated from a
two-way perspective. That is, just as we are concerned about
ensuring that we do whatever possible to prevent drugs and
violence from coming north from Mexico, that the United States
has a responsibility to do whatever is possible within the law
to prevent the illicit flow of weapons and cash going down to
Mexico.
Senator Hagan. I think it's something that obviously is of
a concern.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Hagan.
Mr. Blanchard, we just received a devastating report on the
Air Force acquisition system that was prepared by the Center
for Naval Analysis at the request of the Secretary of the Air
Force. The report says in part that: ``Today the Air Force
acquisition community is a mere shell of its former self. Since
the mid-1990s, not only has cost growth for Air Force programs
been rising at an ever-increasing rate, but it seems worse than
the cost performance of its system services. Every day it seems
there's a new story in the public media suggesting Air Force
acquisition incompetence.''
Some of the well-publicized Air Force problems include the
presidential helicopter, the tanker lease program, and the
improper sole source contracts awarded in the so-called Thunder
Vision case. Now, I'd like to ask you about what role you
expect to play in the acquisition system? More particularly,
will you be limited to defending the Air Force in bid protests
and other legal actions, or are you going to be able to play a
more proactive role in making sure that the Department complies
with law and regulation from the outset?
Mr. Blanchard. Mr. Chairman, Secretary Donley has made it
very clear that acquisition reform and improving the
acquisition workforce in the Air Force is one of his top
priorities and that I need to play a major role; and that, if
confirmed for this position, I would expect acquisition issues
to be one of the top priorities. That includes not coming in at
the end of the process, and making sure that I, if confirmed,
and other lawyers are involved early on in the process.
Chairman Levin. Which means proactively?
Mr. Blanchard. Absolutely.
Chairman Levin. This committee has always valued the
important role that's been played by judge advocates general of
the military departments in providing independent legal advice
to the chiefs of staff. Now, there were a number of attempts to
subordinate the legal functions and authorities of the judge
advocates general to the general counsels of the Air Force and
the other military departments, and we in response to that
enacted legislation prohibiting any officer or employee of DOD
from interfering with the ability of The Judge Advocates
General of the Military Services to provide their independent
advice to the respective service chiefs.
Will you comply fully with that legislation if you're
confirmed?
Mr. Blanchard. Absolutely.
Chairman Levin. Can you describe your relationship which
you expect to have with the JAG of the Air Force?
Mr. Blanchard. In my view, the best relationship is a
partnership. It's where you recognize the special expertise
that comes from years of service in the Air Force. They know
the Air Force better than I could possibly learn the Air Force,
so I need to have that understanding. They know law of war
issues and they also obviously know military justice issues,
which is why they have the special role for military justice.
I expect to have a collegial, cooperative relationship,
much as I had when I was General Counsel of the Army. I
understand that our aim is to have concurrence in our legal
opinions, but if there comes a day when we have a different
point of view I think our client, the Air Force, is best served
when both legal views are expressed.
Chairman Levin. So you're going to respect and defend that
independence?
Mr. Blanchard. Absolutely.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Blanchard, during the last few years
there has been a number of issues regarding religious practices
in the military that have gained some attention. They've
required some revision of Air Force policies. Some of those
issues involved some senior officers who used their position to
proselytize other military personnel. They've also involved on
the other side military chaplains who expressed concern that
they're constrained in their ability to offer public prayer in
accordance with their beliefs.
Can you give us some views on the authority of the Air
Force relative to the rights of military personnel who have
different religious beliefs or no religious beliefs, for that
matter, not to be proselytized?
Mr. Blanchard. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I believe it's really
important that we recognize that there are two parts of the
First Amendment that deal with religion, the Establishment
Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, and they both come into
play. The Establishment Clause really requires that we be very
careful that our leaders don't inject religion into areas where
it's inappropriate to interject religion, and that's the
experience I understand the Air Force had at the Air Force
Academy and other areas, where there was a concern that
subordinates felt that if they didn't have a particular
religious view that would not be respected. It's very important
that we be very careful in those settings.
On the other hand, we also need to respect the free
exercise of religion by our airmen, which means that we need to
help facilitate their religious beliefs. So I think the current
policies the Air Force has adopted in light of recent events
are appropriate, but I also understand that you can't just say,
problem solved, put it away, and go on to the next problem.
This is an area by its very nature that has some tension and
has to be watched very carefully by senior leaders.
Chairman Levin. Will you keep an eye on that issue, and
particularly the policy clarification which resulted from some
excesses where people were confronted with religious views and
put in a position where they were forced to listen, in effect,
to religious views which they felt reflected one particular
segment of our religious community?
Mr. Blanchard. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Senator Hagan, are you all set?
Senator Hagan. Yes.
Chairman Levin. I just have one additional question of Mr.
Weber. How old is your daughter Eleanor Jane? Is that her name,
Eleanor Jane?
Mr. Weber. Yes, Senator, her name is Eleanor Jane.
Chairman Levin. How old is she? Because she's amazing.
Mr. Weber. She's been very good. It's been a help to have
my family behind me. She's 5 years old, Senator. She's at the
Tuckahoe Elementary School in Arlington, VA.
Chairman Levin. Well, I have three daughters, all of whom
at one point were 5 years old. I have five grandchildren, four
of whom are granddaughters, three of whom have been 5 years
old. I can only tell you your young daughter is truly amazing.
She has sat there looking absolutely enthralled and entranced
with every question we asked, and she doesn't have the vaguest
idea I'm talking to her, but some day you can just tell her
what a big hit she was. Would you do that for all of us?
Mr. Weber. I will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Dr. Stockton, you're going to get your
answers in quickly for the record that Senator McCain asked.
It's important that those prehearing questions be answered
fulsomely.
We congratulate you all and look forward to a speedy
confirmation, and we'll stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Andrew C. Weber by
Chairman Levin 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 a need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions?
Answer. At this point I do not. However, if confirmed I will remain
sensitive to the goals that Goldwater-Nichols set forth to facilitate
jointness in operations, command and control, and acquisition.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. If confirmed and in the exercise of my duties I became
convinced of the desirability of a modification of a Goldwater-Nichols
Act provision, I would consult closely with the Department of Defense
(DOD) leadership and Congress.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and
Biological Defense Programs?
Answer. The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and
Chemical and Biological Defense Programs (ATSD(NCB)) advises the
Secretary of Defense on nuclear and radiological matters and chemical
and biological defense, to support strategic direction, oversight, and
integration of DOD Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
activities, and to ensure that resources and the development of
Countering WMD operational capabilities are aligned with national
policy, strategy and the requirements of combatant commanders.
Question. The primary function of the Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs is to
ensure that the nuclear stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable.
If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that the Secretary
receives full and complete technical advice on the nuclear stockpile?
Answer. If confirmed, I will place a very high priority on working
closely with the Secretary and the Members of the Nuclear Weapons
Council (NWC) in overseeing the Nation's nuclear stockpile and ensuring
the Secretary receives comprehensive, excellent quality technical
advice on all aspects of the stockpile.
Question. The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and
Chemical and Biological Defense Programs serves as the Executive
Director of the NWC.
If confirmed what steps will you take to ensure that the NWC duties
are effectively executed?
Answer. At this time, it would be premature to identify specific
steps. If confirmed, I intend to work energetically with the NWC to
ensure that it effectively carries out its statutorily mandated duties.
Reporting to and consulting closely with Congress is an important
component of the execution of the Board's duties.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what additional duties and
functions do you expect that the Secretary of Defense would prescribe
for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect the Secretary to direct me to
support his emphasis on re-establishing the professionalism,
dedication, and attention to detail necessary to maintain the
Department's nuclear weapons in a safe and secure manner. In addition,
I expect he will ask me to oversee the Cooperative Threat Reduction
Program, the Chemical Weapons Demilitarization Program, the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), and the Chemical and Biological Defense
Programs.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, how will you work with the following
officials in carrying out your duties:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to report directly to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
(USD(AT&L)), and through him and the Deputy Secretary and Secretary. On
matters directly affecting my technical responsibilities (safety,
security, and reliability of the stockpile), I expect to have direct
access to the Secretary as needed.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. If confirmed, I would report through the USD(AT&L) to the
Deputy Secretary of Defense. I would also have direct access to the
Deputy Secretary in my role as the Executive Secretary of the NSPD-28
Committee of Principals, which the Deputy Secretary chairs.
Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. If confirmed, I would report directly to the USD(AT&L). I
would also work closely with Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
(USD(P)) to insure the Secretary's nuclear, chemical and biological
defense policies, both home and abroad, are understood and implemented.
I would work closely with the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller
(USD(C)) and Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
(USD(P&R)) to ensure nuclear, chemical and biological defense, and
chemical demilitarization programs are adequately resourced and
staffed.
Question. The Service Secretaries.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Service Secretaries to
ensure that nuclear, chemical and biological defense, and chemical
demilitarization programs are given the high priority they deserve.
Question. The commanders of the combatant commands, particularly
U.S. Strategic Command, U.S. Special Operations Command, and U.S.
Northern Command.
Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with the combatant
commanders to ensure that they have the appropriate systems needed to
execute their chemical, nuclear, and biological defense mission.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense (ASD) for Homeland
Defense and America's Security.
Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with the ASD for
Homeland Security to ensure that Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological
Defense programs and DTRA meet his requirements.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic
Affairs.
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with the ASD for Global
Strategic Affairs to ensure that the policy requirements for Nuclear,
Chemical and Biological Defense Programs are met. I would also expect
to work closely on programs to counter WMD, including the Cooperative
Threat Reduction Program.
Question. The ASD for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict
(SOLIC) and Independent Capabilities.
Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with ASD(SOLIC) to
insure the Secretary's nuclear, chemical and biological defense
policies are consistent, understood by our forces and allies, and are
being properly implemented.
Question. The Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
Answer. If confirmed, the Director of DTRA would report to me
regarding his responsibilities in combat support, the Cooperative
Threat Reduction Program, counter proliferation, on-site inspection,
research and development, and chemical and biological defense programs.
Question. The Secretary of Energy.
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with the Secretary of Energy and
his staff on issues related to the nuclear stockpile, nonproliferation
and counterterrorism.
Question. The Administrator and Deputy Administrators of the
National Nuclear Security Administration.
Answer. As partners in the nuclear weapons program, if confirmed, I
would work closely with both the Administrator and Deputy Administrator
to ensure there are sufficient reliable, safe, and secure weapons to
support deterrence, and the Nation has the capability to maintain them.
Question. Officials in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
with responsibilities for nuclear, chemical, and biological homeland
defense matters.
Answer. ATSD(NCB) and DHS are partners in a number of areas such as
nuclear detection, nuclear forensics, chemical and biological defense,
and counterproliferation. I will work closely with DHS to ensure
programs in these areas are mutually supportive.
qualifications
Question. What background and experience do you have that you
believe qualifies you for this position?
Answer. I have been privileged to dedicate 24 years of continuous
public service to strengthening U.S. national security and countering
the threat of WMD. My experience leading sensitive projects to reduce
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons threats will serve me well if
I am confirmed in the position of Assistant to the Secretary of Defense
for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense
Programs?
Answer. As with every new position I have taken during my long
career in public service, if confirmed I will expend considerable
effort studying those areas of the portfolio for which I do not have in
depth experience. In addition to extensive briefings and meetings with
counterparts and subject matter experts, I would early on visit the
facilities where important work on nuclear, chemical and biological
defense programs takes place. If confirmed, I would also focus on
ensuring that I have the best possible team in place to successfully
execute the duties of the office.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and
Chemical and Biological Defense Programs?
Answer. First, making sure that a high priority is placed ensuring
that Department's nuclear weapons are safe, secure and reliable.
Second, to improve our Nation's defensive preparations for an enemy's
potential use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Third,
promoting the rapid and safe demilitarization of our chemical weapons
stockpile. Fourth, continuing and expanding the Cooperative Threat
Reduction program beyond the Former Soviet Union to help prevent the
proliferation of WMD.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. To meet the first challenge, I intend to focus on the
actions taken to date, review the DTRA conducted inspection reports to
ensure the follow-up actions are effective and work with each
stakeholder to ensure the proper focus on nuclear policies and
procedures. For the second challenge, I would work with stakeholders to
enhance the nation's ability to defend against potential WMD attacks.
For the third challenge, I intend to closely monitor the execution of
the Chemical Demilitarization Program. For the fourth challenge, I
intend to work with OSD Policy and DTRA to ensure that there is strong
acquisition oversight of the CTR program as it expands.
Question. What do you anticipate will be the most serious problems
in the performance of the functions of the Assistant to the Secretary
of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs?
Answer. The most serious problem will be enabling the nuclear
enterprise to meet the challenges of an aging stockpile and
infrastructure in order to maintain a safe, secure, reliable, and
credible deterrent.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. I would consult closely with the NWC and Congress regarding
the findings of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture
of the United States and the ongoing Nuclear Posture Review.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense
Programs?
Answer. First, placing a high priority on a safe, secure, reliable
and credible deterrent. Second, furthering the acceleration of our
national capability to respond to new and emerging nuclear, biological
and chemical threats. Third, continuing and expanding the CTR program
to prevent proliferation of WMD. Fourth, continue to maintain a strong
NWC.
reporting chain
Question. Section 142 of title 10, U.S.C., requires that the
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and
Biological Defense Programs advise the Secretary of Defense on nuclear
energy, nuclear weapons, and chemical and biological defense programs.
The responsibilities for chemical and biological defense were added to
the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and
Biological Defense Programs in 1996. The position was originally
created as the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense to ensure direct
and timely access to the Secretary of Defense in the event that any
matter implicating the safety, security, or reliability of the nuclear
weapons stockpile needed to be immediately provided to the Secretary.
What is your understanding of to whom you would report, if
confirmed, within DOD, and who would report to you?
Answer. If confirmed, I would report to USD(AT&L), and through him
and the Deputy Secretary and Secretary of Defense.
Question. If confirmed, would you expect to have direct and timely
access to the Secretary of Defense for matters pertaining to the
safety, security, and reliability of nuclear weapons?
Answer. Yes.
nuclear weapons council
Question. Section 179 of title 10 of the U.S.C. designates the
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and
Biological Defense Programs as the Executive Director of the NWC. The
Chairman of the NWC is the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics.
Would it be your expectation, if confirmed, to have direct
responsibility, authority, direction, and control of all the assets,
resources, and personnel needed to fulfill the responsibilities of
Executive Director of the NWC?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed as Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for
Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs, how frequently
would you expect the NWC to meet and, in your view, would that be
sufficient to meet the obligations of the Council?
Given the large number of critical issues that are on the agenda of
the NWC, I would expect the NWC to meet more frequently than the
statutory minimum of four times per year.
If confirmed as Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear
and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs, how would you ensure that
the NWC carries out its statutorily mandated duties?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work personally with each of the
members of the Council to ensure it effectively carries out its
statutorily mandated duties.
Question. Are there any changes that you would recommend to the
membership, organization, or structure of the NWC?
Answer. Based on my current knowledge, I do not see the need to
recommend structural changes to the NWC at this time. If confirmed, I
would evaluate this issue.
Question. What do you see as the challenges that face the NWC in
the next 4 years and what would you do to address these challenges?
Answer. The foremost challenges I see are the need to support the
Nuclear Posture Review and implement its findings; address mounting
concerns in the aging stockpile; and ensure that we have the human
capital and resources required to maintain a safe, secure, reliable,
and credible stockpile.
organizational structure of the office of the assistant to the
secretary
Question. What is your understanding of the organizational
structure of the office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense
for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs?
Answer. My understanding is that there is currently a Principal
Deputy who is also responsible for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological
Treaty Management, a Nuclear Matters Deputy, a Chemical and Biological
Defense Programs and Chem Demil Deputy, and the Director of DTRA, who
reports to the ATSD(NCB). In addition, there are supporting staff to
enable the functions of the office.
Question. Do you believe this structure is adequate or would you
make any changes if confirmed?
Answer. If confirmed I plan to evaluate the structure and make
specific changes as appropriate.
nuclear weapons and the stockpile stewardship program
Question. Do you believe that there are any technical reasons to
resume nuclear weapons testing at the present time or at any
foreseeable time in the future?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you support the Stockpile Stewardship Program?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you believe that the Stockpile Stewardship Program is
capable for the foreseeable future of supporting the nuclear weapons
stockpile without nuclear weapons testing?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What are your views on the current moratorium on nuclear
weapons testing?
Answer. I support the moratorium.
Question. What are your views on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT)?
Answer. I support the President's position regarding ratification
of the CTBT.
Question. In your view, are there any additional capabilities that
the Stockpile Stewardship program should develop?
Answer. If confirmed I would consult with counterparts to determine
what, if any, additional capabilities should be developed to maintain a
safe, secure, reliable, and credible deterrent.
Question. What are your views on the feasibility and certifiability
(without nuclear testing) of the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW)?
Answer. My understanding is the RRW was technically feasible within
existing policy.
Question. What role would you play in establishing requirements to
ensure security of nuclear weapons in the custody of the Military
Services?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to review the current program and
make any necessary changes or recommendations to ensure the security of
our nuclear weapons.
Question. If confirmed, how quickly and under what circumstances
would you inform Congress in the event there is ever any problem with
any nuclear warhead?
Answer. As quickly as possible, and in accordance with statutory
requirements.
Question. If confirmed, what role, if any, do you anticipate you
will play in reviewing the size and makeup of the nuclear weapons
stockpile?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to be a major voice in
recommending to the Secretary the size and makeup of the nuclear
weapons stockpile.
Question. If confirmed, what role, if any do you anticipate you
will play in the annual certification process?
Answer. I would expect to support the annual certification process
in my role as Executive Director for the NWC.
Question. Do you believe the annual certification process is
adequate or would you recommend any changes?
Answer. At this time, I have no reason to doubt the adequacy of the
current process. It would be premature to recommend any changes.
security of the nuclear weapons stockpile
Question. If you are confirmed, what role would you have and do you
believe the NWC should have in developing, implementing, and overseeing
implementation of nuclear security orders and regulations?
Answer. Both the ATSD(NCB) and the NWC have responsibilities to
insure that our nuclear weapons are secure. Monitoring security
operations and implementation policies, reviewing inspection reports,
and insuring sufficient funding for Service security programs are some
of those responsibilities.
Question. If confirmed what role would you play in nuclear security
and nuclear operational inspections?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to review all DTRA conducted
inspections. Additionally, I would expect to review all Service
conducted inspections and of the results of the Mighty Guardian Force
on Force exercises.
degradation in nuclear expertise, technical rigor, and compliance with
regulations, rules, and orders
Question. Over the course of the last 18 months there have been a
number of instances within DOD of inattention, sloppiness, and
intentional disregard for nuclear rules, orders and regulations. The
reviews that have been conducted as a result of these incidents have
identified degradation in the attention to nuclear matters as one of
the root causes of the many incidents.
If confirmed, what role would you anticipate you would play and the
NWC would play in restoring discipline and credibility in the nuclear
enterprise within DOD and military Services?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to personally work with the
Secretary, Service Secretaries, and the NWC continuing to restore
discipline and credibility of the nuclear enterprise and continue to
implement necessary reforms to ensure the highest standards for
safeguarding our Nation's nuclear weapons.
implementation of the admiral donald report
Question. If confirmed, what role, if any, would you expect to play
in implementing corrective actions recommended by Admiral Donald in his
report on the security of nuclear weapons in the Air Force?
Answer. I have not been briefed on the Admiral Donald Report, and
it would not be appropriate to comment on it at this time. If
confirmed, I will review it carefully and evaluate the progress on
implementation of its recommendations.
Question. Are there any aspects of the report with which you
disagree?
Answer. I have not been briefed on the report and cannot comment at
this time.
implementation of the defense science board report
Question. At the end of 2008, the Defense Science Board (DSB) also
completed a review of the nuclear enterprise in DOD and made
recommendations. If confirmed, what role, if any, would you expect to
play in implementing corrective actions recommended by the DSB?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to meet with this DSB task
force and be briefed on their findings. If confirmed, I expect to work
with the Secretary and the NWC on any necessary corrective actions
identified in the Defense Science Board review.
Question. Are there any aspects of the report with which you
disagree?
Answer. As stated above, I have not yet read the report. If
confirmed, I intend to work with the Secretary and the NWC in
overseeing implementation of appropriate recommendations.
chemical and biological defense program
Question. Section 142 of title 10, U.S.C., states that the
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and
Biological Defense Programs shall advise the Secretary of Defense on
chemical and biological defense, as well as on nuclear matters. Your
background is primarily in biological threat reduction and related
issues.
If confirmed, how would you plan to become familiar with the issues
and technology associated with chemical and biological defense matters?
Answer. I am familiar with the issues and technology associated
with chemical and biological defense matters based upon my prior
experience in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. If confirmed, I
will increase my knowledge of the current programs and issues in the
NCB portfolio. I believe that to fully understand the NCB Defense
Programs for which I would have oversight I will engage the elements of
the Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP), the CDP, and DTRA
at their locations. I will visit early on the demilitarization sites
and the CBDP research laboratories.
chemical and biological defense matters
Question. If you are confirmed, what do you expect your roles and
responsibilities would be with respect to chemical and biological
defense matters?
Answer. The ATSD(NCB) is the principal staff advisor to the
Secretary on Chemical and Biological Defense matters. The ATSD(NCB) is
responsible for oversight, coordination, and integration of the
Chemical and Biological Defense Program. If confirmed, I would expect
to work closely with the Services, Joint Program Executive Office for
Chemical and Biological Defense, and DTRA to meet those
responsibilities.
Question. If confirmed, would you review the chemical and
biological defense program and make any needed recommendations to
Congress for improving the program?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What are your general priorities with respect to the
Chemical and Biological Defense Program?
Answer. The general priorities for the Chemical and Biological
Defense Program are: contamination avoidance, protection, and enhancing
the Department's ability to respond to emerging biological and chemical
threats.
interaction with other federal agencies on chemical and biological
matters
Question. DHS and the Department of Health and Human Services play
important roles in planning and implementing U.S. policy and programs
for protecting the United States against biological and chemical
threats, including the development and stockpiling of vaccines and
therapeutic products.
If confirmed, how would you work with these agencies to ensure the
effective coordination and collaboration of efforts to improve U.S.
security against biological and chemical threats?
Answer. If confirmed I would work with each of these Agencies to
insure that programs are mutually supportive, avoid duplication, and
share results.
wmd commission view on biological threats
Question. The Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and
Terrorism concluded that ``terrorists are more likely to be able to
obtain and use a biological weapon than a nuclear weapon,'' and also
that ``the U.S. Government needs to move more aggressively to limit the
proliferation of biological weapons and reduce the prospect of a
bioterror attack.''
If confirmed, what approach would you take to reducing the risks
and consequences of a biological terror attack against the United
States?
Answer. I would continue the current Departmental emphasis to
protect military forces from current and/or emerging biological threats
through aggressive research and development, and proactive coordination
and integration with the Departments of Homeland Security and Health
and Human Services. I would also work to strengthen the Department's
Nunn-Lugar Biological Threat Reduction Program to prevent such threats.
transformational medical technology initiative
Question. DOD has undertaken a Transformational Medical Technology
Initiative (TMTI) for chemical and biological defense. The purpose of
this initiative is to pursue broad spectrum approaches to protecting
our military forces against a wide variety of threats, including
genetically engineered biological threats. One of the objectives of the
program is to develop advanced means of rapid and affordable vaccine
production.
What are your views on the value of this initiative, and would you
support it if confirmed?
Answer. Yes, I would support TMTI as a high value initiative within
the Department. I understand it has developed a preliminary end-to-end
capability for response to emerging and engineered biological threats.
I am aware TMTI is a vital part of the National Biodefense Strategy and
the Integrated National Biodefense Medical Countermeasures Portfolio,
which is coordinated with Executive Office of the President, DOD, and
the Department of Health and Human Services.
vaccine development and acquisition
Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in
ensuring that vaccines and therapeutic products needed to ensure
protection and medical treatment of military and civilian employees of
DOD are developed and acquired in a timely and effective manner?
Answer. If confirmed I would work closely with the ASD for Health
Affairs to ensure medical treatment and protection of deployed U.S.
servicemembers and civilian employees are developed and acquired. As
the ATSD(NCB) I will work through our Joint Program Executive Office
for Chemical and Biological Defense which is responsible for the
development, procurement, fielding, and sustaining of premier medical
protection and treatment capabilities against chemical and biological
warfare agents.
chemical demilitarization issues
Question. Since 2001, responsibility and oversight for the chemical
demilitarization program within DOD have been under the Assistant to
the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological
Defense Programs.
If confirmed, would responsibility for and oversight of the
chemical demilitarization program remain within your office?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The United States is a party to the Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC) and, under the terms of the treaty, is obligated to
destroy its chemical weapons stockpile by no later than the extended
deadline of April 2012.
Do you agree that the United States should take all necessary steps
to meet its obligations under the CWC?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure
adequate funding is requested to permit the most expeditious
destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile, consistent with the
legal requirement to protect public health, safety, and the
environment?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the current program to ensure
that priorities, funding, and operations are consistent with its
objectives. If additional funding is needed, I will support those
requests.
Question. On April 10, 2006, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld notified
Congress that the United States would not meet the extended deadline
under the CWC for destruction of the United States chemical weapons
stockpile, but would ``continue working diligently to minimize the time
to complete destruction without sacrificing safety and security,'' and
would also ``continue requesting resources needed to complete
destruction as close to April 2012 as practicable.''
If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure the full
implementation of those commitments?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the program against those
commitments and make any necessary changes or recommendations needed to
ensure full implementation.
consequence management of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear,
or high-yield explosive incidents
Question. DOD has a mission of providing support to civil
authorities for consequence management of domestic chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive (CBRNE)
incidents, if directed by the President or the Secretary of Defense.
Since 2002, the ASD for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs
and the Commander of U.S. Northern Command have had responsibilities
for planning and executing that mission.
If confirmed, how would you expect to work with the ASD for
Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs and the Commander of
U.S. Northern Command on issues related to the Department's
capabilities to provide support to civil authorities for CBRNE
consequence management, as well their homeland defense missions related
to nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or materials?
Answer. ATSD(NCB) oversees a number of programs designed to provide
DOD CBRNE responders with equipment, training, command and control
support, logistical planning, and technical support. If confirmed I
will insure that these programs are responsive to the needs of ASD (HD)
and combatant commands.
Question. DHS is the lead Federal agency for planning,
coordinating, and implementing consequence management of CBRNE
incidents in the United States, in conjunction with the States and
territories.
If confirmed, what relationship would you expect to have with DHS
and its component entities?
Answer. If confirmed I would expect to coordinate closely with DHS
for planning, coordinating, and implementing consequence management of
CBRNE incidents.
Question. What do you believe is the appropriate role for DOD in
providing support to civil authorities for CBRNE consequence
management?
Answer. A CBRNE event would most likely constitute a national
emergency. DOD's role should be to provide whatever support and assets
that the President requested in order to save lives, minimize damage,
and facilitate recovery.
Question. If confirmed, what role would you expect to have in
regard to the oversight of DOD capabilities related to consequence
management of CBRNE incidents?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect my role to be a senior advisor
to the Secretary of Defense on consequence management capabilities.
This would include the states use of Title 32 assets including their
WMD Civil Support Teams and CBRNE Enhanced Response Force Packages.
cooperative threat reduction programs (nunn-lugar programs)
Question. Do you support the Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, would you support joint research programs
between Russia and the United States in the areas of chemical or
biological weapons defense?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What is your understanding as to your responsibilities
with respect to the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs?
Answer. The ATSD(NCB) has oversight responsibility for the
implementation of the CTR program.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant to the Secretary
of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
Question. 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?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Question for the record with answer supplied follows:]
Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
emergency preparedness
1. Senator Collins. Mr. Weber, one of the most disturbing
conclusions of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves report
was the assertion that there was ``an appalling gap'' in our Nation's
ability to respond to the use of a weapon of mass destruction on our
soil. Specifically, the Commission expressed concern that the forces
that would respond to such events had not been fully budgeted for,
sourced, manned, trained, or equipped. In a hearing earlier this year,
General Victor Renuart stated that he felt that gap no longer existed,
and he pointed lo the establishment of Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) Consequence Management
Response Forces (CCMRFs)--one already stood up with two more on the
way--as evidence of this. It is my understanding that Guard and Reserve
personnel will comprise a substantial amount of these units. However,
in the event of something as catastrophic as the detonation of a
nuclear weapon in an American city, it seems likely that Governors are
going to have a significant need for these troops. As has been
discussed in several hearings held by the Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee, such an event may necessitate closing
down interstate highways and major transportation hubs, handling
evacuees from other States, and maintaining civil order in the event
that people begin evacuating major cities out of a fear of other
nuclear weapons being detonated. Do you believe that the States that
will be required to provide these troops to the CCMRF units are going
to actually be prepared to release them in the event of a catastrophic
incident?
Mr. Weber. The release of Guard and Reserve personnel to support
the CBRNE CCMRFs is not under the purview of the Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense
Programs as I understand the functions of my office. However, the
employment of Guard and Reserve troops in response to something as
catastrophic as the detonation of a nuclear weapon in an American city
is a vital concern to the department and I am evaluating my office's
role in this matter.
______
[The nomination reference of Andrew C. Weber follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 29, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Andrew Charles Weber, of Virginia, to be Assistant to the Secretary
of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs,
vice Frederick S. Celec.
______
[The biographical sketch of Andrew C. Weber, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Andrew C. Weber
Andy Weber is currently Adviser for Threat Reduction Policy in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, where he has been serving since
1996. For the past 13 years his responsibilities have included the
Nunn-Lugar Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.
He played a key role in Nunn-Lugar operations to remove weapons grade
uranium from Kazakhstan and Georgia, and nuclear capable MiG-29
aircraft from Moldova. Mr. Weber developed and oversees the Department
of Defense Biological Threat Reduction Program, which prevents the
proliferation of pathogens, technology, and expertise. For his work at
the Department of Defense, Mr. Weber has twice been awarded the
Exceptional Civilian Service Medal.
Most of Mr. Weber's 24 years of public service have been dedicated
to reducing the threat of weapons of mass destruction. He served
previously as a United States Foreign Service Officer, and his
diplomatic assignments included Saudi Arabia, Germany, Kazakhstan, and
Hong Kong.
Since 2002 Mr. Weber has taught a course on Force and Diplomacy at
the Edmund A. Walsh Graduate School of Foreign Service of Georgetown
University.
He is a graduate of Cornell University, and has a Master's of
Science in Foreign Service from Georgetown University.
Mr. Weber speaks Russian and is a member of the Council on Foreign
relations. He lives in Arlington, VA, with his wife Julie and daughter
Eleanor.
______
[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 Andrew C.
Weber 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.)
Andrew Charles Weber.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and
Biological Defense Programs.
3. Date of nomination:
April 29, 2009.
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 28, 1960; New York City, NY.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Julie Powell Holt.
7. Names and ages of children:
Eleanor Jane Weber, age 5.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University,
Washington, DC, M.S.F.S. 1986 (1984-1986).
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, B.A. 1982 (1978-1982).
Scarsdale High School, Scarsdale, NY, 1978 (1974-1978).
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.
Adviser for Threat Reduction Policy, Office of the Secretary of
Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, July 1999-present.
Special Adviser for Threat Reduction Policy, Detailed from
Department of State to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, December
1996-July 1999.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
U.S. Department of State, Analyst, 1985-1986.
U.S. Foreign Service Officer, U.S. Department of State, 1986-1999:
Training Assignment (1986-1987)
Vice Consul, U.S. Consulate Jeddah (1987-1989)
Political Officer, U.S. Embassy Bonn (1990-1992)
Russian Language Training, Middlebury, VT, and Arlington, VA
(1992-1993)
Political Officer, U.S. Embassy Almaty (1993-1995)
Political Officer, U.S. Consulate Hong Kong (1995-1996)
Detail from the Department of State to the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, Special Adviser for Threat Reduction
Policy, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Threat Reduction Policy (December 1996-July 1999)
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Edmund A. Walsh Graduate School of Foreign Service, Adjunct Faculty
(2002-present).
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Council on Foreign Relations, member.
The Textile Museum, Advisory Council member.
International Hajji Baba Society (rugs and textiles), board member.
Overlee Association, swimming pool membership.
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.
Obama for America, volunteer (2008).
(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.
Obama for America, $4,600 ($2,300 primary, $2,300 general).
14. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Nunn-Lugar Award for Outstanding Contribution to Global Security
(2006).
U.S. Department of Defense Medal for Exceptional Civilian Service
(2001, 2003).
Edward Weintal Fellowship, Edmund A. Walsh Graduate School of
Foreign Service, Georgetown University (1985).
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.
Andrew C. Weber.
This 11th day of May, 2009.
[The nomination of Andrew C. Weber was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on May 14, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 18, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Dr. Paul N. Stockton by
Chairman Levin 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. Goldwater-Nichols was landmark legislation that led to
dramatic improvements in operational effectiveness, unity of effort,
and civilian oversight. We now have a generation of military leaders
for whom operating in a coordinated and joint, multi-Service
environment is the norm. Given these successes, I do not see an
immediate need to change the provisions of this legislation. If
confirmed, I would hope to be in a position to help strengthen the U.S.
Government's ability to craft effective whole-of-government approaches
to the national security challenges we face.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. See my previous answer.
relationships
Question. What do you see as the relationship between the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security
Affairs and each of the following:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. Pursuant to the authority, direction, and control of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs serves as
the principal civilian advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy on Homeland Defense activities,
Defense Support of Civil Authorities, and Western Hemisphere security
matters.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and
Americas' Security Affairs provides support to the Deputy Secretary
similar to that provided to the Secretary, as described above.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and
Americas' Security Affairs functions under the authority, direction and
control of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and provides
advice, counsel, and support to the Under Secretary on Homeland
Defense, Defense Support of Civil Authorities, and Western Hemisphere
security matters in interagency for a (such as National Security
Council and Homeland Security Council deliberations), engagement with
interagency and Western Hemisphere interlocutors, and in the Planning,
Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) processes inside the
Department, including the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Quadrennial
Roles and Missions Review, and annual program and budget reviews.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
Answer. Pursuant to the authority, direction, and control of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs works
closely with, and provide homeland defense, Defense Support of Civil
Authorities, and Western Hemisphere policy inputs to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to achieve the Secretary of
Defense's objectives, particularly the defense of the United States
from attack upon its territory at home and to secure its interests
abroad in the Western Hemisphere.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations
and Low-Intensity Conflict.
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and
Americas' Security Affairs works closely with the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict and
Interdependent Capabilities to provide the Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy and the Secretary of Defense with advice and recommendations
on policy issues regarding combating terrorism within the United States
and policy oversight to ensure that the Secretary's guidance and
decisions are implemented properly.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Affairs.
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and
Americas' Security Affairs works closely with the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for International Security Affairs to provide the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Secretary of Defense with
advice and recommendations on policy issues regarding emerging threats
to the United States and policy oversight to ensure that the
Secretary's guidance and decisions are implemented properly.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs
and the civilian officials of the military departments in charge of
Reserve affairs.
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and
Americas' Security Affairs works closely with the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Reserve Affairs and the civilian officials of the
military departments in charge of Reserve affairs on Department of
Defense policy regarding the development, readiness, and employment of
National Guard and Federal Reserve component forces within the United
States and policy oversight to ensure that the Secretary of Defense's
guidance and decisions are implemented properly.
Question. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau, and the Directors
of the Army and Air National Guard.
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and
Americas' Security Affairs works closely with the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau, and the Directors of the Army and Air National Guard,
particularly regarding the roles, capabilities, and readiness of the
National Guard to support the homeland defense and civil support
priorities and objectives of the Secretary of Defense.
Question. The Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Answer. Pursuant to the authority, direction, and control of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs works
closely with, and provide homeland defense, Defense Support of Civil
Authorities, and Western Hemisphere policy inputs to, the Director of
the Defense Intelligence Agency to achieve the Secretary of Defense's
objectives, particularly the defense of the United States from attack
upon its territory at home and to secure its interests abroad in the
Western Hemisphere.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs.
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and
Americas' Security Affairs works closely with the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Health Affairs on Department of Defense policy,
particularly regarding health force protection, the threat of
biological terrorism, the medical aspects of domestic consequence
management, and Defense Support of Civil Authorities.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and
Information Integration.
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and
Americas' Security Affairs works closely with the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Networks and Information Integration on programs,
processes, and supporting infrastructures to provide for mission
assurance, crisis management, and information sharing with DOD's
Federal, State, local, and international partners.
Question. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and the Joint Staff.
Answer. As the principal military advisor to the Secretary of
Defense, the President, the National Security Council, and the Homeland
Security Council, the Chairman has a unique and critical military role.
If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense
and Americas' Security Affairs, I will work closely with the Chairman
and Vice Chairman to support the efforts of the Secretary and Deputy
Secretary, and to ensure that their military advice is taken into
account in an appropriate manner.
Question. The Commander of United States Northern Command and the
North American Aerospace Defense Command.
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and
Americas' Security Affairs works closely with the Commander of the
North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command to
support the efforts of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy,
Secretary and Deputy Secretary, particularly in the areas of homeland
defense, Defense Support of Civil Authorities, and Western Hemisphere
strategy and policy, contingency planning and policy oversight of
operations.
Question. The Commander of United States Southern Command.
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and
Americas' Security Affairs works closely with the Commander of the U.S.
Southern Command to support the efforts of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, Secretary and Deputy Secretary, particularly in the
areas of homeland defense, Defense Support of Civil Authorities, and
Western Hemisphere strategy and policy, contingency planning and policy
oversight of operations.
Question. The Commander of United States Pacific Command.
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and
Americas' Security Affairs works closely with the Commander of the U.S.
Pacific Command to support the efforts of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, Secretary and Deputy Secretary, particularly in the
areas of homeland defense and Defense Support of Civil Authorities
strategy and policy, contingency planning and policy oversight of
operations.
Question. The Commander of United States Strategic Command.
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and
Americas' Security Affairs works closely with the Commander of the U.S.
Strategic Command to support the efforts of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, Secretary and Deputy Secretary, particularly in the
areas of homeland defense and Defense Support of Civil Authorities
strategy and policy, contingency planning and policy oversight of
operations.
Question. The Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and
Americas' Security Affairs, in coordination with the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, works closely with
the Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, particularly
regarding efforts in domestic chemical, biological, radiological, and
nuclear threat reduction and defense, counterproliferation, and
emergency response support and training.
Question. The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear,
Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs.
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and
Americas' Security Affairs works closely with the Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense
Programs, particularly regarding DOD chemical, biological, and nuclear
defense programs as they relate to homeland defense, antiterrorism/
force protection, and Defense Support of Civil Authorities.
Question. The State Governors.
Answer. In accordance with title 50, U.S.C., the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security
Affairs is responsible for coordinating DOD assistance to Federal,
State, and local officials. Governors play a critical role in Homeland
Security. If confirmed, I look forward to becoming more familiar with
my responsibilities to support state governors and to take carefully
into account their perspective on the role of DOD in this process.
duties and qualifications
Question. DOD Directive 5111.13 of January 16, 2009, states that
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas'
Security Affairs (ASD(HD&ASA)), ``under the authority, direction, and
control of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)), serves
as the principal civilian advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the
USD(P) on homeland defense activities, Defense Support of Civil
Authorities (DSCA), and Western Hemisphere security matters.'' It
further elaborates that the ASD(HD&ASA) shall provide overall
supervision of homeland defense activities of the Department of Defense
(DOD) which include ``Defense Critical Infrastructure Program (DCIP);
domestic antiterrorism; the Defense Continuity Program; other homeland
defense-related activities; and alignment of homeland defense policies
and programs with DOD policies for counterterrorism and
counternarcotics.''
What is your understanding of the duties and functions of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense (ASD) for Homeland Defense and Americas'
Security Affairs position to which you have been nominated, and do they
differ from those described in DOD Directive 5111.13?
Answer. My understanding of the duties and functions of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas'
Security Affairs is consistent with those described in DOD Directive
5111.13, as well as other applicable DOD directives.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. As the founding director of the Center for Homeland Defense
and Security at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California,
I have led a wide range of graduate education and research programs in
direct support of the Department of Defense the Department of Homeland
Security, other Federal departments, and state and local agencies and
elected officials across the United States. That position gave me an
opportunity to closely listen to and learn from those on the front
lines of strengthening homeland defense and security. My subsequent
position as senior research scholar at Stanford University has enabled
me to examine these issues in still greater detail.
My background and experience in Western Hemispheric Affairs
security issues stemmed initially from staffing those regional issues
for Senator D.P. Moynihan as his PRM in the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. Building on that expertise, I helped found and then directed
the Center for Civil Military Relations (CCMR) at the Naval
Postgraduate School. Sponsored by the Defense Security Assistance
Agency, CCMR has conducted dozens of seminars in the Western Hemisphere
to help partner nations strengthen democratic control over their
security forces. I have served on the seminar faculty teams in seminars
in Colombia and El Salvador, and in many more seminars at NPS conducted
for participants from our Western Hemisphere partners. I also helped
build the Masters Degree curriculum in International Security and
Civil-Military Relations at NPS that has enrolled hundreds of students
from the region, and addresses issues of defense planning, strategy
development, and related topics designed to build partner defense
capacity and collaboration with their U.S. military counterparts. I
subsequently supervised these curricula as the Dean of the NPS School
of International Graduate Studies, and have continued to keep up with
developments in the region at Stanford University.
Question. What additional actions do you believe you need to take,
if any, to prepare yourself to fulfill these duties?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with the
members of this committee in carrying out the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas'
Security Affairs.
combating terrorism roles and responsibilities
Question. The Department of Defense's combating terrorism
activities are currently divided into four categories: Antiterrorism/
Force Protection, Counterterrorism, Terrorism Consequence Management,
and Intelligence. Section 902 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2003, which established the position of Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense, also transferred the
responsibility for the overall direction and supervision for policy,
program planning and execution, and allocation of resources for the
Department's combating terrorism activities to the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy.
Please specify what activities within each of the four combating
terrorism categories will be under the jurisdiction of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security
Affairs.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict and
Interdependent Capabilities, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Global Strategic Affairs, and the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence to achieve the Secretary of Defense's objectives with
respect to proper alignment of DOD combating terrorism activities.
After review and consultation with these individuals, I will make any
recommendations with respect to the overall direction and supervision
for policy, program planning and execution, and allocation of resources
for the Department's role in support of combating terrorism activities
to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Question. What DOD official or officials will be responsible for
DOD combating terrorism activities not under your jurisdiction?
Answer. See my previous answer.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure that the Department's
efforts are focused and well coordinated in this critical area of
homeland defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict and
Interdependent Capabilities, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Global Strategic Affairs, and the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence to achieve the Secretary of Defense's objectives in this
critical area of homeland defense.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the ASD for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs?
Answer. If confirmed, my office would likely play an important role
within the Department and the interagency process in developing policy
for a number of key issues, including among others: preventing
terrorist attacks against the United States, particularly attacks using
weapons of mass destructions; planning and preparing for the response
to catastrophic incidents in the United States; combating terrorism;
adapting the U.S. military for 21st century challenges to the homeland;
and strengthening our alliances with key partners and allies in the
Western Hemisphere. If confirmed, I look forward to ensuring that the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Secretary of Defense
receive the best possible policy input on these vital questions.
Question. If you are confirmed, what priorities and plans do you
have for addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to provide advice and counsel to the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and aid in the development of
policy advice to the Secretary of Defense. In this, I would give
priority to the major challenges identified by the Secretary of Defense
and the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and to strengthening the
organizational capacity of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs to address
them. I would also pay close attention to the development and
maintenance of effective working relationships with both military and
civilian counterparts in the Department and the interagency. I would
also participate in a number of processes, including the Quadrennial
Defense Review and the PPBE process, which will provide an opportunity
to assess these challenges and develop policy, plans, and investments
to address them.
Question. What do you anticipate will be the most serious problems
in the performance of the responsibilities of the ASD for Homeland
Defense and Americas' Security Affairs?
Answer. If confirmed, one of my greatest imperatives will be to
establish close, cooperative relations with DOD's Federal, State,
local, and Western Hemisphere partners. I believe that the serious
challenges to the security of the United States and that of its friends
and allies in the Western Hemisphere cannot be solved by any single
agency or country, but instead must be faced together cooperating
towards common goals.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and timelines would
you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in establishing appropriate
priorities, actions, and timelines to address these problems.
difference between homeland defense and homeland security
Question. The Department of Defense is responsible for homeland
defense, and the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for
Homeland security.
Please describe your understanding of the differences between the
two different missions.
Answer. The Department of Defense and Department of Homeland
Security have complementary and mutually supporting roles, missions,
and responsibilities. The Department of Defense is responsible for the
military defense of the United States from attack upon its territory at
home and securing its interests abroad; military missions aim to deter,
defend against, and defeat those who threaten the United States. For
its part, the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for
leading the Nation's efforts to prepare for, protect against, respond
to, recover from, and mitigate against the risk of natural disasters,
acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters; to secure the Nation's
borders, ports, and airports; and to ensure that the Federal Government
works with states, localities, and the private sector as a true partner
in prevention, mitigation, and response. As necessary, and consistent
with the law, the Department of Defense provides support to the
Department of Homeland Security in the execution of its missions.
Question. Do you agree that the Department of Defense should not be
responsible for Homeland security, but may serve in a supporting role
to assist civilian Federal agencies as directed by the President or
Secretary of Defense?
Answer. Congress, in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, assigned to
the Department of Homeland Security the responsibility for preventing
terrorist attacks within the United States; reducing the vulnerability
of the United States to terrorism; and minimizing the damage, and
assisting in the recovery from terrorist attacks that occur within the
United States. As necessary, and consistent with the law, the
Department of Defense provides support to the Department of Homeland
Security in the execution of its missions.
installation security
Question. The security of U.S. military installations--both at home
and abroad--has been a longstanding priority for the Senate Armed
Services Committee.
If confirmed, what would be your priorities for ensuring an
adequate level of security for military installations in the United
States?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work to ensure the effectiveness of
Department of Defense antiterrorism and protection policies in
detecting, deterring, and responding to threats directed at Department
of Defense installations, facilities, and personnel, including their
families. I would also work to ensure that adequate resources are
provided to execute these policies and that the Department of Defense
is working closely with its Federal, State, local, and tribal partners
in establishing a mutually supportive protective posture inside and
outside Department of Defense installations and facilities.
defense critical infrastructure program
Question. The ASD for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security
Affairs is responsible for overseeing DOD efforts and programs to
protect defense critical infrastructure.
If confirmed, what plans, approaches, and priorities would you have
for ensuring that the Defense Critical Infrastructure Program is
functioning properly?
Answer. While I am familiar with the importance of the Defense
Critical Infrastructure Program, I have not had the opportunity to
review the plans, approaches, and priorities for ensuring that the
program is functioning properly. If confirmed, I would review such
plans, approaches, and priorities, and make recommendations to the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to ensure that adequate measures
are taken for the protection of defense critical infrastructure against
current and emerging threats.
vulnerability of defense energy supplies
Question. In February 2008, the Defense Science Board Task Force on
DOD Energy Strategy issued a report that considered, among other
issues, the vulnerability of assured energy supply to military
installations, including those installations that host task critical
assets for high priority defense missions. The Task Force concluded
that relying on commercial electrical power is not adequate for the
Department to assure adequate power to its critical missions, and that
``critical national security and Homeland defense missions are at an
unacceptably high risk of extended outage from failure of the grid and
other critical national infrastructure.''
If confirmed, will you review the Task Force report and examine the
related issues of the vulnerability of the commercial power grid to
prolonged outages, and options and alternatives for assuring adequate
power to Department of Defense critical missions at installations in
the United States?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the Task Force report and
examine the related issues. I will make necessary recommendations to
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
weapons of mass destruction civil support teams
Question. There are now 54 National Guard Weapons of Mass
Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD-CSTs) established, at least one in
each State and territory.
If confirmed, what would be your role with regard to the oversight,
training, and employment of the WMD-CSTs?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to be responsible for
coordinating with other DOD Components regarding the readiness posture
of CBRNE forces, including the WMD-CSTs.
cberne enhanced response force packages (cerfps)
Question. The National Guard Bureau has established 17 Chemical,
Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and high-yield Explosive (CBRNE)
Enhanced Response Force Packages (CERFPs).
Please provide your understanding of the role and capabilities of
these units.
Answer. It is my understanding that the National Guard CERFPs, in
conjunction with WMD-CSTs, assist local, State, and Federal authorities
in CBRNE consequence management. If confirmed, I intend to improve my
understanding of these roles and capabilities and if necessary make
recommendations as appropriate to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy.
Question. If confirmed, what would be your role with regard to the
oversight, training, and employment of the CERFPs?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to be responsible for
coordinating with other DOD Components regarding the readiness posture
of CBRNE forces, including the CERFPs.
cbrne consequence management response forces
Question. The Secretary of Defense has issued guidance to establish
three CBRNE Consequence Management Response Forces (CCMRFs) by October
1, 2010.
Please provide your understanding of the roles and capabilities of
the CCMRFs.
Answer. It is my understanding that the CCMRFs are trained,
equipped, and prepared to assist (upon request) Federal, State, and
local civil authorities in the response to a CBRNE incident within the
United States. If confirmed, I intend to improve my understanding of
these roles and capabilities and if necessary make recommendations as
appropriate to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Question. Do you have any concerns about the ability of the
Department to implement the Secretary's direction to create the three
CCMRFs on the prescribed schedule?
Answer. I do not have a detailed understanding of current
implementation plans. If confirmed, I would monitor implementation of
the Secretary's direction closely.
Question. If confirmed, what would be your role with regard to the
oversight, training, and employment of the CCMRFs?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to be responsible for
coordinating with other DOD Components regarding the readiness posture
of CBRNE forces, including the CCMRFs.
Question. Concerns have been raised about CCMRFs having a possible
peacetime role that is inconsistent with other laws (such as Posse
Comitatus).
Do you agree that the purpose of CCMRFs is as a DOD support element
for CBRNE incidents, and not for peacetime or civil disturbance
missions?
Answer. It is my understanding that the purpose of the CCMRFs is to
assist (upon request) Federal, State, and local civil authorities in
the response to a CBRNE incident within the United States. It is also
my understanding that the CCMRFs' mission set does not include domestic
law enforcement, crowd control, peacekeeping activities, assistance to
civil authorities in instances of civil unrest, or activities to
suppress civil disturbances, insurrections, or rebellions.
dod cbrne consequence management capabilities
Question. Section 1082 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) required the Department to
establish an advisory panel to review the Department's capabilities to
provide defense support of civil authorities in the event of a
chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosives
(CBRNE) incident, and to recommend any changes it believes necessary.
The advisory panel has not yet been finalized or had its first meeting,
and it would likely take a year after the first meeting before it
reports its recommendations.
If confirmed, will you take the steps necessary to ensure that the
provisions of section 1082 are implemented, and that the advisory panel
undertakes its mission?
Answer. Yes.
mexico--violence from drug cartels
Question. Mexico has been wracked by high levels of violence
related to drug trafficking and drug cartels fighting among themselves
and against the Mexican authorities. This violence threatens to spill
over the southwestern border of the United States, and has led the
border Governors to call for increased National Guard troops along the
border. The ASD for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs has
responsibility for oversight of U.S.-Mexican military relations and
security cooperation between the two militaries.
What do you believe is the correct approach for the Department of
Defense in working with Mexico to help mitigate this drug-related
violence?
Answer. I believe that preventing and responding to drug-related
violence, in Mexico as in the United States, is primarily the
responsibility of civilian law enforcement agencies. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with my counterparts at the Department of State
and other relevant Federal agencies to strengthen programs to support
efforts to mitigate this drug-related violence, and make appropriate
recommendations on the DOD role to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy.
Question. What do you believe is the proper role for other civilian
agencies in protecting the U.S. border against drug-related violence
from Mexico, and what role do you believe the Department of Defense
should have, if any?
Answer. Protecting the U.S. border against drug-related violence
from Mexico is primarily the responsibility of Federal, State, and
local law enforcement agencies. DOD's role in the execution of this
responsibility is to provide appropriate lawful support when requested,
and subsequently approved, by the President or the Secretary of
Defense.
pandemic influenza
Question. The United States is currently facing a pandemic
influenza virus that appears to have originated in Mexico. The
Department of Defense has had a very limited role in this situation,
since other civilian agencies--particularly the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)--
have the primary responsibilities for such a public health challenge.
Do you agree that DHS and DHHS should have the primary
responsibilities for such a situation?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What role do you see for the Department of Defense in
responding to a pandemic influenza situation?
Answer. I believe DOD has a two-fold role. First, DOD should be
responsible for protecting the health of the Armed Forces and ensuring
their preparedness to execute military missions to protect the United
States and its interests. Second, DOD should be a supporting partner as
required in the implementation of U.S. Government plans concerning
influenza
national guard and reserve role in homeland defense
Question. There is currently considerable debate about the role the
National Guard should play in defending the Homeland and in providing
civil support assistance in Homeland security missions. The Commission
on the National Guard and the Reserves recommended that the National
Guard and Reserves be given ``the lead role in and form the backbone of
DOD operations in the homeland. Furthermore, DOD should assign the
National Guard and Reserves homeland defense and civil support as a
core competency consistent with their warfighting tasks and
capabilities.''
What role do you believe that the National Guard and Reserve should
have in homeland defense, as compared to the Active component?
Answer. Homeland defense is a Total Force responsibility. If
confirmed, I will update my understanding of the roles, missions and
capabilities of the National Guard and the Reserves and will work to
ensure that they have the equipment, training, and personnel to
accomplish their missions, both at home and abroad.
Question. What role do you believe the National Guard and Reserves
should have in providing civil support assistance to other Federal
agencies, as compared to the active component?
Answer. Civil support is a Total Force responsibility. If
confirmed, I look forward to helping to ensure that the National Guard
and Reserves are equipped, trained, and prepared to execute vital
missions in support of civil authorities in the United States.
relationship with u.s. northern command
Question. U.S. Northern Command was established in October 2002
with the mission of conducting operations to deter, prevent, and defeat
threats and aggression aimed at the United States, its territories, and
interests within the Command's assigned area of responsibility; and, as
directed by the President or Secretary of Defense, to provide military
assistance to civil authorities, including consequence management
operations.
If confirmed, how do you anticipate you would coordinate roles and
responsibilities with the Commander of U.S. Northern Command?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to be responsible for working
closely with the Commander of U.S. Northern Command to support the
efforts of the Secretary of Defense, particularly in the areas of
Homeland Defense, Defense Support of Civil Authorities, and Western
Hemisphere strategy and policy, contingency planning and policy
oversight of operations.
Question. How do you anticipate that the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs and the
Commander of U.S. Northern Command will coordinate with other Federal
and State entities in planning for response to catastrophic events that
might require Defense Department support?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with the
Commander of U.S. Northern Command to ensure that Defense Department
support to other Federal and state entities in response to catastrophic
events, if required, is provided in a timely and coordinated fashion.
relationship with the department of homeland security
Question. The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security
was one of the U.S. Government's largest cabinet-level reorganizations
in the last 50 years. Despite this reorganization, the Department of
Defense will continue to play an important role in providing Defense
Support to Civil Authorities for Federal response to certain domestic
incidents, as directed by the President or the Secretary of Defense.
If confirmed, what role do you expect to play in the coordination
of DOD activities with the Department of Homeland Security and its
component elements?
Answer. If confirmed, I would be responsible for coordinating the
integration of homeland defense policies, programs and activities with
DHS, as well as coordinating on the development, validation, and
execution of DOD support to civil authorities such as DHS.
use of active duty and reserve personnel for homeland defense/posse
comitatus
Question. The Department of Defense has a mission to provide
support to other Federal agencies in the event of a domestic incident
that requires a Federal response, if directed by the President or the
Secretary of Defense. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits military
personnel in a Federal status from engaging directly in domestic law
enforcement ``except in cases and under circumstances expressly
authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.'' Use of National
Guard personnel in a state status is not prohibited by this act, but
the use of military personnel, including the National Guard in a
Federal status, is prohibited.
What is your understanding of the legal issues and authority
associated with using National Guard and Reserve personnel in security
roles within the United States?
Answer. Under the authority of State Governors, in State Active
Duty status or duty status under title 32, U.S.C., the National Guard
is not subject to the restrictions imposed by the Posse Comitatus Act.
However, when ordered to Active Duty, the National Guard and the
Federal Reserve components are subject to the restrictions imposed by
the Posse Comitatus Act with certain exceptions specifically authorized
by Congress.
Question. In your opinion, does the Posse Comitatus Act (title 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1385) or chapter 18 of title 10, U.S.C. (which regulates
the use of the Armed Forces in support of civilian law enforcement and
related activities) require amendment to deal with the present homeland
security situation?
Answer. If confirmed, I would carefully review this issue and if
necessary make appropriate recommendations to the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy.
Question. Under what circumstances do you believe that it is
appropriate for the Department of Defense to provide assistance to law
enforcement authorities in response to a domestic terrorist event? What
about a non-terrorist event?
Answer. I do not yet have a detailed understanding of the legal and
policy issues at stake on this issue.
Question. If confirmed, what role do you expect to play in making
such determinations and making such assistance available?
Answer. If confirmed, I would be responsible for advising, through
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the Secretary of Defense on
requests for DOD assistance to law enforcement agencies.
modularity
Question. Modularity refers to the Army's fundamental
reconfiguration of the force from a large division-based to a brigade-
based structure. The new modular brigade combat team is supposed to
have an increased capability to operate independently based upon
increased and embedded combat support capabilities such as military
intelligence, reconnaissance, and logistics. Although somewhat smaller
in size, the new modular brigades are supposed to be just as or more
capable of full spectrum operations than the divisional brigades they
replace. Additionally, under the modular construct, combat, support,
and service support brigades would transform to standardized designs
that would be self contained with organic support and service support
units, full spectrum capable, networked, and compatible with any
division headquarters. This, the Army argues, provides increased
strategic flexibility and force availability. Modular units would share
common structure and equipment to allow complete interchangeability
across the spectrum of conflict. The plan also provides for the
transformation of the Total Army--Active and Reserve components--to
modular design and equipment.
What is your understanding and assessment of the Army's modular
design and implementation of this transformation strategy as it relates
to the Department's homeland defense and civil support missions?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to become familiar with the
Army's modular design and its implementation. If confirmed, I would
review this program and its implementation as it relates to DOD's
homeland defense and civil support missions and if necessary make any
necessary recommendations to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Question. In your view, what are the greatest challenges, if any,
for Department's homeland defense and civil support missions related to
the Army's transformation to the modular design?
Answer. See my previous answer.
Question. If confirmed, what actions or changes would you propose,
if any, relative to the Army's modular transformation strategy?
Answer. See my previous answer.
army force generation model (arforgen)
Question. The Army relies on a force generation model (ARFORGEN) in
which units are manned, equipped, and trained to levels of low to
higher readiness over time as they cycle through ``reset and train,''
``ready,'' and ``available for deployment'' force pools. This approach
will also apply to the Army's Reserve components.
What is your understanding and assessment of the Army's force
generation model and its implications for the Department's readiness
for homeland defense and civil support missions?
Answer. While I am generally not familiar with the ARFORGEN
concept, I have not had the opportunity to review in detail the
ARFORGEN implementation plan. If confirmed, I would review the force
generation models used by all of the Services and their implementation
as they relate to DOD's homeland defense and civil support missions and
make any necessary recommendations to the Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy.
Question. In your view, what are the greatest resource, readiness,
and operational challenges, if any, with respect to ARFORGEN model?
Answer. See my previous answer.
Question. If confirmed, what actions or changes would you propose,
if any, to the design, implementation, or management of ARFORGEN?
Answer. See my previous answer.
coordination of expertise between the departments of homeland security
and energy
Question. The personnel at the Department of Energy's (DOE)
national laboratories have expertise that may be useful to the
Department of Homeland Security and to the Department of Defense in the
execution of their respective homeland security and homeland defense
missions.
How do you believe the Department of Defense can help ensure
coordination and communication with the appropriate experts of the
national labs to help respond quickly in the event of a national
incident or emergency that would require their assistance?
Answer. While I understand the value of the expertise inherent in
the national laboratories, I have not had the opportunity to become
familiar with the full spectrum of capabilities offered by the national
laboratories. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about these
capabilities with respect to incident emergency management and making
any necessary recommendations to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy and the Department of Homeland Security.
western hemisphere institute for security cooperation
Question. Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation
(WHINSEC), which replaced the School of the Americas in 2001, has the
mission of contributing to theater cooperation activities and capacity
building efforts through the education and training of students in the
Western Hemisphere from Canada to Chile.
What is your view of WHINSEC and its mandate?
Answer. I agree with the sense of Congress provided in section 1257
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008: WHINSEC
``is an invaluable education and training facility which the Department
of Defense should continue to utilize in order to help foster a spirit
of partnership and interoperability among the United States military
and the militaries of participating nations.'' The training and
education provided by WHINSEC are absolutely vital to advancing
security cooperation in the Western Hemisphere. These missions promote
national security interests and support the strategic objective of
building lasting partnerships that will ensure security, enhance
stability, and enable prosperity throughout the Americas. Should I be
confirmed, I welcome detailed briefings on WHINSEC and look forward to
working with the committee and State Department to build lasting
partnerships throughout the region.
Question. In your view, does WHINSEC promote the national security
interests of the United States in the Western Hemisphere?
Answer. See the answer above.
role of u.s. southern command
Question. If confirmed, you will be responsible for overseeing
policy for defense security cooperation, the Department's
counternarcotics efforts in the source nations and transit zone,
security of the Panama Canal, implementation of security assistance
programs, and development of democratic values within the military
organizations of the region. To complicate matters, 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 for Western
hemisphere security?
Answer. If confirmed, I would recommend to the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy that our priorities for Western Hemisphere security
should be to strive to achieve the following goals:
The U.S. and its partners become more secure from
existing and potential threats;
Partners gain an increasing capacity to address
security challenges within their territories;
Partners are better able to help each other solve
security challenges; and
Partners have the leadership capacity to promote
security cooperation in the Americas and beyond.
Question. What actions would you propose to counter the growing
threat to democracy in the region?
Answer. I am concerned by recent trends in some parts of the
Hemisphere that seem to be weakening the health of democratic
institutions. DOD can and should play a supporting role to U.S.
Government efforts to keep democracy strong in the Hemisphere. DOD can
do this by supporting friends and allies, denying opportunities to
hostile influences, respecting differences of opinion, being good
listeners, and maximizing interaction. If confirmed, I look forward to
furthering this support role. Education exchanges also allow DOD to
help reinforce the ideals of democracy, civilian authority, and a well-
informed citizenry in our contacts with partners in the Hemisphere.
Question. What is your assessment of the strengths and weaknesses
of military-to-military exchange programs and contacts in the U.S.
Southern Command area of responsibility?
Answer. My view is that the U.S. Government derives great benefit
from our military-to-military exchange programs and conducts them with
most countries in the Hemisphere. The United States Southern Command
has performed this mission magnificently. U.S. relations with countries
in the Americas are strengthened significantly thanks to their efforts.
If there is a weakness, it may be that resources available to conduct
these activities are limited, and thus desires for engagement exceed
the amount of funding and personnel available to do all that the U.S.
and its partners would like to do together. If confirmed, I look
forward to supporting this program and ensuring that sufficient
resources are made available.
counternarcotics efforts
Question. Each year the Department of Defense spends several
hundred million dollars to counter the flow of illegal drugs into the
United States, yet the availability of drugs on the street has not been
significantly reduced, and some countries continue to face 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. While I believe that metrics to assess this program are
important, I have not had the opportunity to become familiar with the
details of DOD's counternarcotics programs. If confirmed, I will work
closely with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/
Low Intensity Conflict and Interdependent Capabilities, who I
understand is OSD's lead office for counternarcotics, to review DOD's
counternarcotics programs in the United States and the Western
Hemisphere.
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. See my previous answer.
Question. 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, as
compared to other missions for which you would be responsible?
Answer. The most recent National Defense Strategy states that the
core responsibility of the Department of Defense is to defend the
United States from attack upon its territory at home and to secure its
interests abroad. Nonetheless, the nexus between narcotics and
terrorism is a serious challenge to the United States and its interests
abroad. Countering this challenge requires an integrated interagency
approach, of which DOD is an integral part. DOD brings important tools
and global capabilities to interagency efforts to counter networks that
support both terrorist and international criminal organizations. If
confirmed, I would work closely with the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict and Interdependent
Capabilities to review the DOD role in combating this nexus in the
United States and Western Hemisphere and to coordinate with the other
elements of the U.S. Government to determine the best way ahead.
terrorism threat from caribbean and central america
Question. In your view, what is the extent of the current threat to
the homeland of terrorist extremists from the Caribbean and Central
America?
Answer. The threat to the United States from the Caribbean basin
and Central America stems primarily from the extensive and well-
developed illicit trafficking routes used by criminals and drug
trafficking organizations. If confirmed, I will pay particular
attention to other emerging threats.
Question. How would you broadly characterize that threat--low,
medium, or high?
Answer. Given the aforementioned illicit trafficking routes used by
criminals and drug trafficking organizations and the increasing nexus
between such trafficking and terrorism, I would broadly characterize
the threat level as medium. It would be in the best interest of the
U.S. for our Government to work closely with our Caribbean and Central
American partners to reduce the threats of drug trafficking and
terrorism in the Western Hemisphere. If confirmed, I look forward to
closely reviewing this area with the Intelligence Community and
developing a more refined assessment of the threat level.
haiti
Question. The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously on October
14, 2008, to extend the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Haiti for 1 year.
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.
peacekeeping force and the U.S. military?
Answer. As a direct result of U.N. peace operations, Haiti is more
secure and stable than 5 years ago. Many countries in the Hemisphere,
such as Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Peru and Guatemala,
contribute personnel to these peace operations and are directly
responsible for many of the successes. However, security continues to
be fragile as a result of weak institutions, underlying poverty, and a
history of political instability in Haiti. Significant improvements may
be hard to see within the next 6 months. In the longer term, economic
and political progress will be necessary before lasting stability can
be assured. One of the most important goals should be to assist the
Haitian police in assuming increased responsibility for security,
thereby allowing this peace operation to downsize its military
component, and ultimately, its civilian police component as well.
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. See my previous answer.
Question. What conditions or indicators do you consider important
in determining whether there will be another wave of Haitian
emigration?
Answer. Political instability, a natural disaster such as a
hurricane, or a new economic crisis could trigger another wave of
Haitian migration. Perceptions of an impending change to U.S.
immigration policy could also lead to an increase in Haitian migration.
Question. In your view, what is the cost and effectiveness of U.S.
assistance to Haiti?
Answer. It appears to me that U.S. assistance, coupled with the
ongoing U.N. peace operation, has contributed to making Haiti more
secure and stable over the last 5 years. As far as the cost of that
assistance, I would defer to the State Department on the question of
how much U.S. foreign assistance funds have been expended on Haiti. The
State Department is the lead Federal department for U.S. foreign
assistance; DOD plays an important but supporting role.
cuba
Question. What is your opinion about the need for, and pros and
cons of, military-to-military contact with Cuba?
Answer. Currently, my understanding is that the U.S. military
conducts regular ``fence-line'' talks with the Cuban military at the
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, to help ensure that there are no
misunderstandings between both sides. If confirmed, I will closely
examine whether additional military-to-military contact can play a
helpful role in supporting the President's policy of promoting
democracy and human rights in Cuba.
Question. What is your view of the need for review, and potentially
revision, of U.S. policies regarding Cuba?
Answer. I understand that President Obama has been reviewing U.S.
policies toward Cuba, and has already taken important steps to revise
some policies. If confirmed, I look forward to joining in that review.
As the President has said, ``Cuba needs to take steps to revise its
policies.''
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 situation in Bolivia is of great concern. President Evo
Morales expelled the U.S. Ambassador, all the officers of the U.S. Drug
Enforcement Agency, and another U.S. diplomat based on unsubstantiated,
incorrect allegations. He has also accused the U.S. Government of
plotting his assassination and conspiring with the political
opposition. It is my hope that the United States can reestablish
cooperation with the Bolivian Government to combat drug trafficking,
which threatens both our countries, and that the United States can work
positively with Bolivia's military. Ultimately, the choice is up to
President Morales. If confirmed, I will support efforts by the
Department of Defense to work with countries in the common fight
against international drug trafficking and other transnational threats.
venezuela
Question. U.S.-Venezuelan relations have continued to be strained
as President Chavez continues to propagate anti-American rhetoric to
anyone that will listen, import increasing amounts of military
armament, politicize the Venezuelan military forces, and export his
brand of populism to the region.
What is your view of President Chavez's intentions in the region?
Answer. I believe that President Chavez seeks to be a regional
player and expand his sphere of influence.
Question. How would you characterize the current state of military-
to-military relations between the United States and Venezuela?
Answer. It is my understanding that there are minimal military-to-
military relations with Venezuela. This has not always been the case.
In the past, the United States and Venezuela enjoyed a close military-
to-military relationship. It would be good for each nation's military
to have closer contact once again, but that would take a change in the
current policy of the Venezuelan Government.
Question. What role do you see President Chavez playing in national
elections throughout the Western Hemisphere area of operations?
Answer. I believe that is a question that the Department of State
is best qualified to address.
Question. How would you assess Venezuelan relations with Cuba and
China vis-a-vis the national security interests of the United States?
Answer. In my view, Venezuela and Cuba have a close relationship.
Venezuela and China have entered into economic cooperation agreements
that have led to a practical relationship. Venezuela's relationships
with Cuba and with China do not appear to pose a significant threat to
U.S. national security interests. If confirmed, I look forward to
carefully reviewing these complex relationships and the potential
threats that Cuba, China, and other countries may pose to national
security interests.
panama
Question. How do you assess the current political and economic
situation in Panama?
Answer. Panama held elections on May 3, 2009 and elected Ricardo
Martinelli as its next president. It is important for the United States
to continue working closely with Panama, which is an important
political and economic partner to the United States. I would defer to
the State Department to offer a more detailed assessment of Panama's
political and economic situation.
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 understanding is that Panama, which has suffered from
increased levels of violence tied to narcotics trafficking, has
recently approached the United States in an effort to expand and
improve its ability to interdict drug trafficking originating in South
America. If confirmed, I will support cooperation to assist Panama in
achieving that goal.
Question. What is your assessment of how Panama is protecting and
maintaining the Panama Canal?
Answer. My understanding is that Panama is doing a good job of
protecting and maintaining the Canal and investing resources to make
necessary infrastructure improvements. The Canal is vital to U.S.
commercial interests. Regarding protection, I understand that the Canal
Authority maintains a highly professional security force that is well
trained, funded, and equipped.
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. My understanding is that although the Canal is well
protected, Panama recognizes the challenge in safeguarding a large
infrastructure target such as the Canal. Panama and U.S. Southern
Command co-sponsor PANAMAX, a large-scale annual multinational exercise
focusing on protection of the Canal. The consequences to the U.S.
economy from a terrorist attack on the Canal, depending on the severity
and time needed for repairs, could range from mild to serious. Shutting
down the Canal, even for a few weeks, would raise the price of goods,
especially imports from Asia to the U.S. east coast.
forward operating locations
Question. One of the elements of the counternarcotics strategy in
the Western Hemisphere is the 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 in these facilities, the host nations will
restrict our use of these facilities. The Department is also losing one
of its strategic locations (i.e. Manta, Ecuador) on the Pacific coast
later this year.
In your view, what is the role that these FOLs play in the
Department's counterdrug efforts?
Answer. My understanding is that FOLs play a significant role in
the Department's counternarcotics mission. These FOLs support DOD
detection and monitoring flights, which are more effective due to their
proximity to the area of interest. If confirmed, I will continue to
support FOLs in strategic locations.
Question. In your view, does current use continue to justify the
costs of sustaining these locations?
Answer. It appears to me that the counternarcotics FOLs have more
than justified their initial cost and annual upkeep. Without these
FOLs, DOD would have to launch surveillance flights from U.S. soil,
which would reduce U.S. response capability.
colombia
Question. Under President Uribe's leadership, Colombia has improved
its military performance in pursuing the paramilitary groups and their
associated drug networks, and demonstrated an increased willingness and
commitment to address and defeat the 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 DOD programs,
including the effects of the caps on U.S. troops and contractor
personnel.
Answer. (1) In my view, Colombia is not the same country it was 10
years ago. With the support of Congress, the U.S., in partnership with
President Uribe, his administration, and Colombians at all levels, has
made considerable progress against the drug lords and terrorist
organizations. In Colombia, problems of every variety are linked to
drug trafficking and terrorism, including deep-seated political
conflicts, social exclusion, economic inequality, endemic violence, and
corruption. Through fiscal year 2009, United States assistance to the
Government of Colombia has helped achieve dramatic changes in
Colombia's political and military situation. Nevertheless, I believe
that to secure the progress Colombia has made will require sustained
commitment from the United States and the international community.
(2) Since 2002, President Alvaro Uribe has provided increased
resources to the military for the implementation of his ``Democratic
Security'' strategy, and increased their capacity to directly confront
illegal armed groups and protect the general public. Since then, with
U.S. support, the Colombian military has grown significantly, and is
now more capable of providing the security needed to protect Colombians
and control its territory. The Colombian operation that rescued 15
high-profile hostages, including three Americans, on July 2, 2008, was
a spectacular demonstration of the improving competence of the
Colombian military.
(3) Ongoing DOD Programs. Current U.S. security assistance provides
training, equipment, planning assistance, intelligence and funding for
Colombian military forces, in the areas of counternarcotics and
counterterrorism. Specifically, the United States currently supports
program areas such as: Air, ground and riverine operations to help the
Colombian Armed Forces defeat illegal armed groups; governance programs
to strengthen the Government of Colombia's presence in recovered areas;
joint intelligence and communications programs that support
coordination, and integration between the military services; and
institutional transformation initiatives of the Ministry of Defense and
the Colombian military to help them become more modern, efficient and
capable institutions.
I do not believe that the caps on U.S. troops and contractor
personnel have had a significant impact on our efforts to provide
support. I should note that the United States provides support and
training but does not conduct ``military operations'' and that U.S.
personnel are prohibited from engaging in combat.
Question. When the United States began providing increased support
through Plan Colombia for Colombia's efforts to significantly reduce or
eliminate paramilitary groups and their associated drug networks
operating in their country, much concern was expressed about human
rights abuses that the Colombian military forces had committed.
What is your assessment of the record of the Colombian military
with regard to respect for human rights over the past 3 years?
Answer. While challenges remain, the Colombian Ministry of Defense
and its military are making significant progress on promoting human
rights, preventing abuses, protecting vulnerable groups, and
prosecuting perpetrators of abuses; and I believe they are committed to
doing more. Work remains to be done to ensure no breakdowns in command
and control occur in the military and that all elements in the
Colombian military act within the law. If confirmed, I will work to
ensure that progress continues in this important area.
Question. What more remains to be done and how would you approach
the issue of respect for human rights in the Colombian military?
Answer. We should continue to encourage the transparency and
determination of the Government of Colombia in confronting this
situation. An especially positive action that the Colombian MOD has
taken to ensure human rights compliance is the publication of a Human
Rights and International Humanitarian Law policy that is being
implemented to internalize appropriate conduct at all levels of the
military.
My own view is that there can be no tolerance for those who commit
human rights abuses, and those who break the law must be held
accountable. The United States Government needs to be clear with the
Government of Colombia that any kind of complicity with drug
trafficking or illegal armed groups will not be tolerated. The
Colombian Government and its uniformed services must continue the
positive steps that have been taken and thoroughly investigate and
prosecute all such cases in a timely manner. It must be clear that
failure to do so could jeopardize further U.S. Government funding and
support.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information in a timely manner.
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 Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
Question. 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?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Mel Martinez
latin america
1. Senator Martinez. Dr. Stockton, when the Office of Western
Hemisphere Affairs was merged into the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Homeland Security, it signaled to Latin America that U.S. interest
in the region was little more than an adjunct to our own homeland
security. If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that
priority attention is given to Latin America?
Dr. Stockton. In my view, working with our Nation's partners in
Central America, the Caribbean, and South America is a top priority,
and not simply an adjunct to our own homeland security. If confirmed, I
hope to signal that view to our friends and allies in Latin America. I
expect Latin American issues to occupy an important part of my
portfolio and my attention. To help ensure that this region receives
sufficient attention, I would direct my staff to increase bilateral and
multilateral engagements with their foreign counterparts, and would
support requests from foreign defense officials to meet with senior
Department of Defense (DOD) officials at home and abroad to discuss the
full range of common security interests and challenges we share, not
just those associated with homeland defense. I also would advocate for
the allocation of sufficient funding and other resources to support
security cooperation activities with our partners.
2. Senator Martinez. Dr. Stockton, recognizing that you are still
getting acquainted with specific U.S. programs in Latin America, what
are the general principles by which you will make judgments regarding
ongoing DOD programs?
Dr. Stockton. I look forward to becoming more acquainted with
specific U.S. programs in Latin America; however, if confirmed, there
are certain general principles that I will follow regarding ongoing DOD
programs. First, it is important to maintain mutually effective defense
relationships with our allies and friends in the hemisphere. Second,
DOD programs focused on Central America, South America, and the
Caribbean must continue to support democracy, human rights,
cooperation, and the effort to secure the hemisphere from transnational
threats such as terrorism and illicit trafficking in arms and drugs. I
will use these general principles in considering the effectiveness of
existing programs, to identify opportunities for improvement, and to
make recommendations to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the
Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Defense.
3. Senator Martinez. Dr. Stockton, in your view, should there be
different principles for interaction with the militaries of countries
whose leaders are openly anti-American, such as exists in Venezuela,
Bolivia, and Nicaragua?
Dr. Stockton. I believe that it is in the best interest of the
United States to strive to maintain positive military-to-military
relationships with all countries in the Americas, even in cases where
countries' leaders criticize the United States. Transnational threats
affect all our countries, and it is important that our militaries be
able to work together to confront those threats where possible. In
addition, our contacts with other countries' militaries can serve to
reinforce the importance of principles such as democratic norms,
respect for human rights, and the need for Armed Forces to remain
apolitical and under civilian control. Finally, it is important to
maintain contacts with foreign nations' militaries to develop
relationships that may be important in the future, including under
future governments that may be friendlier to the United States. Of
course, there may be times when, despite our best efforts, cooperation
with another country's military is not possible.
u.s. southern command
4. Senator Martinez. Dr. Stockton, in your responses to the advance
policy questions on the role of U.S. Southern Command, you stated that
a priority is to ``continue to focus on making the United States and
its partners more secure from existing and potential threats.'' In your
view, what are those threats as you currently understand the situation?
Dr. Stockton. As I currently understand the situation, such threats
include illicit trafficking in drugs, arms, and persons; money
laundering; and criminal gangs. I also consider as potential
vulnerabilities for concern the inability of governments to exercise
effective sovereignty over their territory and the lack of preparedness
to respond adequately to natural disasters.
military-to-military relationships
5. Senator Martinez. Dr. Stockton, in your view, what is the role
of military-to-military relationships with those Latin American
militaries in countries where governments are closing political space
and dismantling democratic institutions?
Dr. Stockton. See the answer to question number 3.
6. Senator Martinez. Dr. Stockton, what role do you see military
educational institutions, such as the Western Hemisphere Institute for
Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) and the Center for Hemispheric Defense
Studies, having in building military-to-military relationships?
Dr. Stockton. I believe that educational institutions such as
WHINSEC and the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (CHDS) can play
a key role in promoting democracy and human rights in the Western
Hemisphere by providing professional education and training for
military, civilian, and law enforcement personnel from countries
throughout the Hemisphere. These institutions promote our Nation's
national security interests, support our Nation's strategic objective
of building lasting partnerships, and establish mutual relationships
and understanding, and, in turn, help ensure security, enhance
stability, and enable prosperity throughout the Americas. WHINSEC and
CHDS are dedicated to fostering mutual knowledge, transparency,
confidence, and cooperation among individual military participants and
participating nations, and to promoting democratic values, respect for
human rights, and knowledge and understanding of U.S. customs and
traditions.
cuba
7. Senator Martinez. Dr. Stockton, since a central element of U.S.
policy is to promote democratic institutions and respect for human
rights, to what extent will the Castro Government's treatment of the
Cuban people factor into your assessment of any military-to-military
contacts between U.S. military personnel and members of the Cuban
military and other elements of that government's repressive apparatus?
Dr. Stockton. It is my understanding that the U.S. military
currently conducts regular fence-line talks at the Guantanamo Naval
Base with Cuban military officials in order to help ensure there are no
misunderstandings on either side. President Obama has recently taken
steps to revise U.S. policy toward Cuba, and the United States is
seeking greater openness and respect for human rights and democratic
principles from the Cuban Government. In this, the U.S. military can be
of assistance in reaching out to the Government of Cuba through
existing diplomatic channels. Also, it is my understanding that the
Cuban military remains a highly respected institution within Cuba
because it has not participated in human rights abuses. Accordingly, an
avenue may be open for the U.S. military to help U.S. diplomatic
efforts by leveraging common military traditions to open new diplomatic
outreach opportunities, find common ground on which to pursue
productive dialogue, and promote respect for human rights.
bolivia
8. Senator Martinez. Dr. Stockton, President Evo Morales has
repeatedly attempted to mischaracterize the United States, including
the role of U.S. military and law enforcement personnel in Bolivia, as
engaging in activities against his government. Should Morales'
unfounded accusations continue, are you prepared to recommend to the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and, ultimately, the Secretary of
Defense that all U.S. military contact with Bolivia be suspended?
Dr. Stockton. Eliminating all U.S. military contact with the
Bolivian Government is an option that I would not recommend at this
time. I believe it is important to maintain U.S. military diplomatic
dialogue with the Bolivian military through our Defense Attache.
Nonetheless, if confirmed, I will consider all the possibilities and
make my recommendation on the option that would best advance our
interests in Bolivia and in South America.
venezuela
9. Senator Martinez. Dr. Stockton, in your responses to the advance
policy questions, you state the belief that ``President Chavez seeks to
be a regional player and expand his sphere of influence.'' In such a
situation, what is your view of the interaction the U.S. military
should have with the Venezuelan military?
Dr. Stockton. It is my understanding that currently our military-
to-military relations with Venezuela are minimal, largely due to
limitations imposed by President Chavez. This has not always been the
case. In the past, our countries enjoyed a close military-to-military
relationship. It would be good for our militaries to have closer
contact once again, but that would take a change in the current policy
of the Venezuelan government.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
civil support mission
10. Senator Collins. Dr. Stockton, last year, the Commission on the
National Guard and Reserves criticized DOD for not having made civil
support a primary mission of the Department, stating that this was a
contributing factor to the Nation being unprepared to respond
effectively to a catastrophic incident. While I do not agree that the
civil support mission should be of the same priority as the warfighting
mission of the Department, this is clearly an important responsibility.
As Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas'
Security Affairs, how will you ensure that the Department's civil
support mission is suitably prioritized?
Dr. Stockton. Both the 2007 National Strategy for Homeland Security
and the 2008 National Defense Strategy recognize that the core
responsibility of the Defense Department is to defend the homeland in
depth, and both documents reinforce the Department's responsibility to
maintain and enhance its capacity to support civil authorities in
preventing terrorist attacks and responding to catastrophic natural and
man-made disasters. If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs, I will be the
principal civilian advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy on homeland defense activities, Defense
Support of Civil Authorities, and Western Hemisphere security matters.
In this capacity, I will ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy and the Secretary of Defense receive the best possible policy
input on how the Department can meet the challenges of defending the
United States and assisting civil authorities in preventing terrorist
attacks and responding to disasters more effectively. An important
aspect of my approach will be to focus on ensuring development of
realistic, detailed, and coordinated plans for civil support. Such
plans can aid significantly in defining and validating the assistance
needed by Federal, State, and local civil authorities, eliminating
organizational, jurisdictional, and operational seams and gaps, and
ensuring a unity of effort.
emergency preparedness
11. Senator Collins. Dr. Stockton, your predecessor, Assistant
Secretary Paul McHale, was a proponent of the Task Force for Emergency
Readiness program, which facilitates State emergency planning by
teaming State civilian planners, National Guard planners, Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Federal Preparedness Coordinators, and DOD
Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers. The Federal Emergency
Management Administration is currently conducting a pilot program to
evaluate the effectiveness of this idea. Provided that the pilot
program proves successful, will you continue to support the
participation of DOD planners in this effort?
Dr. Stockton. Yes. Deliberate contingency planning improves
effectiveness by clearly defining what capabilities are needed, where
they are needed, and when they are needed. The coordinated State and
Federal contingency planning intended by the Task Force for Emergency
Readiness initiative also can reduce delays in necessary actions to
save and sustain lives, reduce seams and gaps in a response, and limit
shortfalls in critical resources needed for the response. Moreover,
contingency plans can provide an invaluable mechanism by which to
prepare potential responders through routine and rigorous training and
exercises.
12. Senator Collins. Dr. Stockton, one of the most effective ways
to ensure that our Nation is prepared to manage catastrophic incidents
is to conduct in-depth planning for those incidents before they occur.
DOD excels at contingency planning, and has spent decades developing
and refining an effective planning, budgeting, and evaluation system.
Over the past several years, DHS has attempted to develop their own
planning system and plans for dealing with various planning scenarios.
How well do you believe DHS and DOD have been working together toward
that end?
Dr. Stockton. I believe that DHS and DOD have worked quite well
together to develop both a planning system and specific plans. It is my
understanding that DHS, DOD, and other Federal departments and agencies
developed an Integrated Planning System, which was published in January
2009, that was intended to be the national planning system for
developing interagency and intergovernmental plans for domestic events.
It also is my understanding that DHS, DOD, and other Federal
departments and agencies have since December 2007 been developing
Federal plans addressing the 15 National Planning Scenarios. If
confirmed, I intend to work hard to ensure that DOD continues its
strong support of DHS in this interagency planning effort.
13. Senator Collins. Dr. Stockton, has DHS appropriately leveraged
DOD planning capabilities and expertise?
Dr. Stockton. There is always room for improvement, but I believe
that DHS has leveraged DOD's planning capabilities and expertise quite
appropriately. It is my understanding that: DOD planners are
permanently attached, along with planners from other Federal
departments and agencies, in the DHS office responsible for developing
interagency plans for the 15 National Planning Scenarios; DOD, at DHS's
request, frequently provides planners to augment DHS crisis planning
during such events as the recent H1N1 outbreak; and DHS personnel
routinely attend DOD contingency planning courses.
14. Senator Collins. Dr. Stockton, how can DOD better integrate
into Federal planning for catastrophic disasters?
Dr. Stockton. It is my understanding that DOD is very integrated
into and, in many ways, has provided substantial expertise and momentum
to Federal planning for catastrophic disasters. If confirmed, I intend
to review DOD's planning for catastrophic disasters and will work hard
to make DOD's integration into, and support of, Federal planning for
catastrophic disasters even more effective.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. Paul N. Stockton follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 28, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Paul N. Stockton of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense, vice Paul McHale, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. Paul N. Stockton, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. Paul N. Stockton
Paul Stockton is a Senior Research Scholar at Stanford University's
Center for International Security and Cooperation, where he conducts
research on the U.S. homeland security policymaking process. Prior to
joining Stanford, Dr. Stockton served as Associate Provost of the Naval
Postgraduate School (NPS) in Monterey, CA, and was the founder and
Director of its Center for Homeland Defense and Security.
Stockton received a B.A. summa cum laude from Dartmouth College in
1976 and a Ph.D. in Government from Harvard University in 1986. He is
co-editor of Homeland Security (forthcoming from Oxford University
Press). Stockton serves on the editorial board of Homeland Security
Affairs, the quarterly journal he helped found in 2005, and has
testified before Congress on a range of homeland security issues. His
research has appeared in Political Science Quarterly, International
Security, Washington Quarterly and other journals. He is Co-Editor of
Reconstituting America's Defense: America's New National Security
Strategy (1992). Stockton has also published an Adelphi Paper and has
contributed chapters to a number of books, including James Lindsay and
Randall Ripley, Eds., U.S. Foreign Policy After the Cold War (1997).
Dr. Stockton served from 1986-1989 as Legislative Assistant to U.S.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Dr. Stockton was awarded a
Postdoctoral Fellowship for 1989-1990 by the Center for International
Security and Arms Control at Stanford. In August 1990, Dr. Stockton
joined the faculty of the NPS. From 1995 until 2000, he served as
Director of the NPS Center for Civil-Military Relations. From 2000-
2001, Dr. Stockton founded and served as the acting Dean of the NPS
School of International Graduate Studies. He was appointed Associate
Provost in 2001.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. Paul N.
Stockton in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Paul Noble Stockton.
2. Position to which nominated:
Under preliminary consideration for Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs.
3. Date of nomination:
April 28, 2009.
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 10, 1954; Los Angeles, CA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Christin Anne Englert.
7. Names and ages of children:
William Noble Stockton, 11.
Henry Foster Stockton, 9.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA; Attended September 1978-November
1986, Received Ph.D. in Government in November 1986.
Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH; Attended September 1972-June 1976,
Received B.A in Government in June 1976.
Highland Park Senior High School, St. Paul, MN; Attended September
1971-June 1972, high school diploma awarded June 1972.
River Falls Senior High, River Falls, WI; Attended September 1969-
June 1971.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
August 2006-present, Senior Research Scholar, Center for
International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), Stanford University,
Stanford, CA. Performed research and taught undergraduate classes
related to Homeland Defense and Security issues.
2001-2006, Associate Provost for Institutional Development, Naval
Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. Oversaw development and execution of
programs to meet post-September 11 security challenges.
Served simultaneously during same period as Director, NPS Center
for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS). Supervised the staff and
directed the strategic planning for the graduate education and research
center which is sponsored by DHS.
2000-2001, Acting Dean, School of International Graduate Studies,
Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. Supervised the faculty and
support staff who provided graduate level education in the
international field.
1995-2000, Director, Center for Civil-Military Relations, Naval
Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA 1995-2000. Directed the faculty and
staff of this DOD sponsored center with focus on civil defense capacity
for U.S. security partners.
Associate Professor in NPS' Department of National Security
Affairs. Taught graduate level courses to U.S. and international
military officers.
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.
Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator D.P. Moynihan (D-NY), 1986-
1989.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Member, Board of Advisors, Homeland Security Management Institute
(HSMI), Long Island University, 121 Speonk-Riverhead Road, LIU Bldg.,
Riverhead, NY.
Member, DHS Training Grant Advisory Board, Center for Continuing
Studies, University of Connecticut, One Bishop Circle, Unit #4056,
Storrs, CT.
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.
Obama for America (2008) $100.
Obama for America (2008) $250.
Equality CA-Legal Action Committee (2008) $100.
Murtha for Congress (2008) $100.
2006 Vilsack for President (2006) $250.
14. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Naval Postgraduate School:
Hamming Award for Interdisciplinary Innovation, 2004
Certificate for Outstanding Instructional Contributions, November
1996
Certificate for Outstanding Instructional Contributions, October
1991
Stanford University:
Post-doctoral Fellowship, Center for International Security and
Arms Control, 1989
Harvard University:
Certificate of Distinction in Teaching, Committee on Undergraduate
Education, 1982
Earhart Foundation Fellowship, 1980-1982
Sloan Foundation Public Management Grant, 1980
RayAtherton Fellow, 1978-1979
Dartmouth College:
Phi Beta Kappa, 1976
Dartmouth College Citation, 1976
Chase Peace Prize, 1976
Bradley Scholarship, 1976
Reynolds Scholarship (honorary award), 1976
Public Affairs Fellowship, 1975
Rufus Choate Scholar, 1973
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Books and Monographs:
Paul Stockton and James Tritten, eds., Reconstituting Defense:
America's New National Security Strategy (New York: Praeger, 1992).
Strategic Stability Between the Superpowers: Adelphi Paper #213
(London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, Winter, 1986),
86 pp.
Journal Articles, Book Chapters and Book Reviews:
``Beyond the HSC/NSC Merger Integrating States and Localities into
Homeland Security Policymaking,'' Homeland Security Affairs. Vol. 5,
No. 1 (January 2009).
``Reform, Don't Merge, the Homeland Security Council,'' Washington
Quarterly. Vol. 32, No. 1 (January 2009).
``Homeland Security After the Bush Administration: Next Steps for
Building Unity of Effort,'' co-authored with Patrick Roberts, Homeland
Security Affairs. Vol. IV, No. 2 (June 2008).
``The Department of Defense and the Problem of Mega-Catastrophes,''
in Bert Tussing, Ed., Threats at Our Threshold (Carlisle. PA: U.S. Army
War College, 2007), pp. 65-87.
Review Essay: The Next Catastrophe: Reducing Our Vulnerabilities to
Natural, Industrial and Terror Disasters, Homeland Security Affairs.
Vol. 3, No. 3 (Fall 2007).
Review Essay: ``The Edge of Disaster,'' Homeland Security Affairs.
Vol. 3, No. 2 (Summer 2007).
``Department of Defense Reorganization in the Post-Cold War Era,''
in Randall B. Ripley and James M. Lindsay, eds., Change in U.S. Foreign
Policy After the Cold War Processes. Structures and Decisions
(University of Pittsburgh Press, 1997), pp. 106-131.
``Beyond Micromanagement: Congressional Budgeting for a Post-Cold
War Military,'' Political Science Quarterly. 110:2 (Summer 1995), pp.
233-260.
``Congress and U.S. Military Policy Beyond the Cold War,'' in
Randall Ripley and James Lindsay, eds., Congress Resurgent: Foreign and
Defense Policy on Capitol Hill (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 1993), pp. 235-260.
``Introduction'' and The Congressional Response,'' in Stockton and
Tritten, Reconstituting Defense. (1992) pp. 1-10 and 69-88.
``De-Escalatory Confidence-Building Measures and Strategic Arms
Reductions,'' in Joe Nation, ed., Back from the Brink: De-Escalation of
Nuclear Crises (London: St. Martin's Press, 1992), pp. 179-197.
``The New Game on the Hill: The Politics of Arms Control and
Strategic Force Modernization,'' International Security. Vol. 16, No. 2
(Fall 1991), pp. 146-171.
``New Factors in Surface Ship Survivability, Strategic Survey.
1982-3, pp. 128-132.
``Arms Developments and Arms Control: The Strange Case of the MX
Missile,'' in Alan P. Sindler, ed., American Politics and Public Policy
(Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1982), pp. 225-253.
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.
Testimony before the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Hearing on ``Readiness
in the Post Katrina and Post-September 11 World: An Evaluation of the
New National Response Framework,'' 11 September 2007.
Testimony before the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland
Security, U.S. House of Representatives, Hearing on ``5 and 10 Year
Homeland Security Goals: Where We Need to Be As a Nation and How We
Judge Progress?'' 30 January 2007.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Paul N. Stockton.
This 11th day of May, 2009.
[The nomination of Dr. Paul N. Stockton was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on May 14, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 18, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Thomas R. Lamont by
Chairman Levin 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
(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. I am currently
unaware of any reason to amend Goldwater-Nichols, but 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. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing this milestone
legislation and assessing whether any changes should be considered to
address the challenges posed by 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 ``as his principal duty the overall supervision of manpower and
Reserve component affairs of the Department of the Army.''
If confirmed, what duties do you expect that the Secretary of the
Army will prescribe for you?
Answer. Although the Secretary of the Army 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 Headquarters, Department of the Army General Orders
Number 3, which sets forth the duties of each principal office of the
Headquarters, Department of the 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, other Military Department Assistant
Secretaries for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, and the other Army
Assistant Secretaries. I anticipate that the Secretary 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.
Question. What actions will you take to enhance your ability to
perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower
and Reserve Affairs?
Answer. Although I look forward to assuming the duties of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), should
the Senate confirm me, I recognize that every new Assistant Secretary
has much to learn. If I am confirmed, I will work to further my
understanding and knowledge of the Army, its people and organizations,
the challenges it faces and the resources necessary to sustain and
transform it. I will work with and through the talented and dedicated
military and civilian personnel 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 the Members and staff of Congress.
Question. In carrying out these duties, what would be your
relationship with the following officials:
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 (AOR). I further
understand that the Under Secretary is the Chief Management Officer
(CMO) of the Department of the Army and, in that role, exercises
primary management responsibility for the business operations of the
Army. If confirmed, I would work closely with the Under Secretary in
his role as CMO, particularly to the extent those duties affect human
capital management and other ``business operations'' within the
functional purview of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and
Reserve Affairs).
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 Inspector General of the Army.
Answer. The Inspector General of the Army is charged with inquiring
into, and reporting on the discipline, efficiency, economy, morale, and
training, and readiness of the Army. If confirmed, I will establish and
maintain a close and professional relationship with The Inspector
General of the Army.
Question. The Chief of Legislative Liaison of the Department of the
Army.
Answer. The Chief of Legislative Liaison is responsible for all
Department of the Army Congressional affairs, to include formulating,
coordinating, and supervising policies and programs on the Army's
relations with Congress and the Department's legislative strategy. If
confirmed, I will establish and maintain a close and professional
relationship with the Chief of Legislative Liaison.
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 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 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 and in concert with the Chief of Staff to supervise the
implementation of the Secretary's decisions.
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, with
a particular focus on Wounded Warriors.
Question. The Chief, National Guard Bureau
Answer. The Chief, National Guard Bureau is a principal advisor to
the Secretary of Defense, through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, on matters involving non-Federalized National Guard forces and
on other matters as determined by the Secretary of Defense and is the
principal adviser to the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff
of the Army, and to the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of
Staff of the Air Force, on matters relating to the National Guard, the
Army National Guard of the United States, and the Air 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 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 men and women who serve in the Armed Forces are our
Nation's most valuable national security assets. The Army owes its
success to these versatile young Americans who answer its call to duty
and service. Caring for soldiers and their 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 very few can have in-depth
experience in them all. However, an Assistant Secretary of the Army
must possess the personal attributes of integrity, mature judgment, and
strong interpersonal and leadership abilities. I believe that my
diverse legal and managerial experiences in both the public and private
sectors have prepared me to meet the many challenges of this office.
I have 37 years of organizational experience in the public and
private sectors during which I have developed valuable executive
leadership and problem-solving skill-sets. In addition, I served as a
judge advocate in the National Guard for more than 25 years,
experiencing first-hand the life of a soldier. As an attorney in the
private sector, I concentrated my efforts in government, administrative
and regulatory matters, serving a broad spectrum of clients ranging
from individual entrepreneurs to Fortune 500 companies. In the public
arena, I had the privilege of serving in leadership roles with the
Illinois Attorney General's Office, the State's Attorney Appellate
Prosecutor Commission and, most recently, as executive director of the
Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE). As executive director of the
IBHE, I was responsible for budgeting and appropriations, curriculum
approval, degree granting authority, and the implementation of
gubernatorial and legislative policy in all Illinois public colleges
and universities. As Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the
University of Illinois, the Nation's fourth largest public university,
with some 70,000 students and 22,000 employees, I experienced, first-
hand, the challenges of leading and managing a large organization,
working with widely diverse cultural and geographic population groups,
and the myriad issues associated with an academic environment.
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next 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 the Active, Guard, and Reserve component military members and
civilians necessary to execute its complex and challenging missions,
both today, and in the future, presents unprecedented challenges. The
Army will continue to have a compelling need to garner support for
soldiers, to obtain sufficient funding to achieve critical recruiting
and retention goals, and to 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 engage actively in proactive
marketing 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--both military and civilian.
Second, I believe that the Army's ability to prevail in current
operations and to sustain global commitments is critical. The Army must
continue to maintain the momentum of transformation by adapting 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 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. If 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. I will build upon this and other recent successes in
holding the Department of the Army up as a model employer in both the
military and civilian contexts.
Question. In your view, what were the most critical shortcomings in
warrior care since 2001?
Answer. As I understand it, the Army was not prepared for the
increase in wounded, ill, and injured soldiers that resulted from
overseas contingency operations such as Operations Enduring Freedom and
Iraqi Freedom. One area that needed improvement was the management of
outpatient soldiers during their recovery period. If confirmed, it will
be my distinct honor and privilege to do all I can to continue to
promote a high standard of care for our Wounded Warriors.
Question. What is your assessment of the effectiveness of the
Army's response?
Answer. I am advised that the Army has increased Warrior Transition
Unit resources, established a proven approach to care management
through the triad of care concept, centralized support to Warriors in
Transition and their families by colocating support services in Soldier
Family Assistance Centers, implemented the Comprehensive Transition
Plan approach to helping soldiers plan and attain their recovery goals
and has begun the process of building Warrior Transition Complexes. If
confirmed, I will assess the effectiveness of the Army's response and
continue to work with Congress to ensure our warriors receive the
highest possible care and support.
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 duty or
to civilian life?
Answer. If confirmed, I will assess continuously the efficiency and
appropriateness of the Army's response. I will implement strategies and
seek additional resources as appropriate to ensure the Army meets the
needs of our wounded soldiers.
Question. Studies following the revelations at Walter Reed point to
the need to reform the Army's disability evaluation system.
What is your assessment of the need to streamline and improve the
Army's disability evaluation system?
Answer. I am informed that beginning November 26, 2007, the Army
started to test a revamped physical disability evaluation program at
Walter Reed Army Medical Center, streamlining the process used to
determined soldiers' fitness for service or eligibility for military
and veterans' benefits. I am advised that key features of this pilot
program include a single medical examination and a single-sourced
disability rating. It is my understanding that the Department of
Veterans Affairs (DVA) conducts a single comprehensive exam and will
rate all medical conditions. The Military Departments accept the DVA
rating for all medical conditions determined unfitting for continued
military Service unless the condition involves noncompliance,
misconduct, or a nonservice aggravated medical condition which existed
prior to service.
Based on the limited information I have so far, I believe the
process does need to be improved. If confirmed, I will work to this end
with stakeholders in the Army, as well as with experts in DOD and DVA.
Question. If confirmed, how will you address any need for change?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I will listen to the information
presented by the experts in this area and study the process myself.
After becoming fully briefed on the issues, I would work with the
stakeholders in the Army and appropriate personnel in both DOD and DVA
to determine what areas should be changed and how best to accomplish
those changes.
officer management issues
Question. As the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and
Reserve Affairs you would have significant responsibilities with regard
to officer management policies, the promotion system, and recommending
officers for nomination to positions of authority and responsibility.
If confirmed, what changes, if any, would you make to the officer
management system?
Answer. The Army has an exceptionally talented officer corps
spanning all three components of the Army. I have been informed that
the Army is in the process of initiating a comprehensive review of the
laws and policies that govern the management of the officer corps
across all components. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the
report and assessing whether changes might be appropriate. If
confirmed, I will not hesitate to seek your assistance should the
Army's review indicate that changes to law are needed in order to
optimize the development of the officer corps. The management and
development of these talented and skilled leaders should be supported
by systems, laws and policies that reflect the challenges the Army
faces today, and should not be constrained by outdated paradigms.
Question. Do you believe the current Army procedures and practices
for reviewing the records of officers pending nomination by the
President are sufficient to ensure the Secretary of the Army, the
Secretary of Defense, and the President can make informed decisions?
Answer. I have been assured that the current Army procedures for
case review of officer promotion nominations are sufficient and provide
Army leadership with accurate and timely information in order to make
informed decisions and recommendations. I believe these procedures must
be sufficiently rigorous to ensure officers meet the statutory
requirement of exemplary conduct both before and after the convening of
a promotion selection board.
Question. In your view, are these procedures and practices fair and
reasonable for the officers involved?
Answer. It is my understanding that if any adverse information is
discovered during the screening process, the officer is provided with
notice and an opportunity to respond, and that the officer's response
is provided to the promotion board. This appears to be reasonable;
however, if confirmed, I will have the opportunity to witness these
procedures in action and make a more fully informed assessment.
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. I have been advised that all officer promotions, including
general officer promotions, are provided to the Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) for review and coordination.
These actions will have received a thorough legal review by both the
Office of The Judge Advocate General and the Army General Counsel,
prior to Assistant Secretary review. If confirmed, I will ensure that
each Army general officer nomination receives my personal review and
approval prior to forwarding to the Secretary of the Army for further
processing. I will give special attention to any case of a nominee with
a report of adverse or reportable information in order to ensure that
the Army's support of the officer's nomination is appropriate, and that
adverse and reportable information is reported to the Senate Armed
Services Committee in a timely, accurate, and comprehensible manner.
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. While it is too early to make a true assessment, it is my
understanding that under current Department of the Army practice, the
adverse information presented to promotion selection boards is culled
from numerous Army organizations that maintain relevant data, and
generally has been found to be accurate and timely. A panel of senior
officials conducts a special screening of adverse information to ensure
that any credible information of an adverse nature is presented to
general officer promotion selection boards as required by title 10,
U.S.C., section 615. I understand that, if confirmed, I would be a
member of this panel.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that
only the best qualified officers are nominated for promotion to general
and flag officer rank?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army promotion board system
is fair and efficient and consistently produces promotion
recommendations of the best qualified officers for promotion at all
levels. As stated above, if confirmed, I will personally review each
general officer nomination, and I will give special attention to any
case of a nominee with a report of adverse or reportable information,
in order to ensure that the Army's support of the officer's nomination
is appropriate and that adverse and reportable information is reported
to the Senate Armed Services Committee in a timely, accurate, and
comprehensible manner.
technical training of general officers
Question. In your view, do a sufficient number of Army general
officers have advanced training and degrees in scientific and technical
disciplines?
Answer. I have been informed that the selection requirements for
one- and two-star promotion selection boards are developed based upon
the needs of the Army and necessarily include the scientific and
technical disciplines projected by Army requirements.
Question. Are the career paths for officers with technical skills
appropriate to ensure that the Army can execute complex acquisition
programs, adapt to a rapidly changing technological threat environment,
and make informed investment decisions on DOD and Army resources?
Answer. I have been informed that the Army carefully manages its
officer corps to ensure officers have the appropriate level of
adaptability and technical expertise relevant to each career field. I
have also been informed that the Army is presently growing its
Acquisition Corps. If I am confirmed, I will study whether career paths
for officers provide them with the technical skills and experiences to
take on the responsibilities of our complex acquisition programs.
Question. If not, what will you do to address this deficiency?
Answer. As stated above, the Army is in the process of shaping and
developing a more robust Acquisition Corps. If confirmed as the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), I will
have oversight of this process and will ensure that plans and
strategies remain suitable and viable.
mid-career officer shortfall
Question. The requirement stemming from Army modernization, in
addition to the high tempo of operations, has created the need for
significantly more officers in the grades of captain and major.
Do you agree that there is a significant shortfall of mid-career
officers in the Army?
Answer. I have been informed that the Army is currently
experiencing a shortfall of 4,000 captains and majors, which is a
critical issue for the Army. If confirmed, I will review the plans in
place to ensure that this shortfall is being appropriately addressed in
a timely manner.
Question. What is your understanding of the reasons for the
shortfall?
Answer. It is my understanding that there are three primary reasons
for this shortfall. First, during the post-Cold War drawn-down from an
end-strength of 770,000 to 480,000 resulted in lower accession rates
for officers in year groups in the 1990s. Second, the more recent
transformation to a modular force structure increased the officer-
enlisted ratio. Third, the increase in end strength to 547,400
increased the overall demand for officers.
Question. What is the Army doing to address this shortfall?
Answer. I have been informed that the Army has a number of
initiatives designed to address this critical issue, which includes
increasing accessions, incentives, and appropriate adjustments to the
time-in-grade requirements. As noted above, if confirmed, I will
carefully review all these initiatives.
Question. If confirmed, will you undertake a comprehensive review
of the medical support requirements for the Army and the sufficiency of
the plans to meet recruiting and retention goals in these specialties?
Answer. I appreciate the committee's concerns in this regard and,
if confirmed, pledge to consider this matter with the seriousness of
purpose it mandates. Medical support requirements are critical to the
success of our All-Volunteer Force and I intend to pay special
attention to health care requirements and needs. Recruiting and
retention of health care professionals is a challenge across the
country, and the Army is experiencing shortages in several specialties;
however, even during these challenging times, I am pleased to have
learned that Army medicine continues to attract and produce world-class
physicians, nurses, and medics.
Question. What legislative and policy initiatives, including
bonuses and special pays, do you think may be necessary to ensure that
the Army can continue to meet medical support requirements?
Answer. I am not familiar with the full scope of the Army's program
for recruiting and retaining military and civilian medical personnel;
however, if confirmed, I will work closely with The Surgeon General to
evaluate the Army's requirements and to support on-going programs and
develop initiatives to enhance the Army's ability to recruit and retain
care providers and support personnel with the requisite critical
skills. Should legislative or policy changes be required, I will work
with the Secretary of the Army, other Army leaders, the leadership of
DOD, and Congress, to bring them to fruition.
report of the dod task force on mental health
Question. The Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health
found that the stigma surrounding post-traumatic stress disorder and
other mental health issues acts as a barrier to many servicemembers
seeking the help that they need. Additionally, the Task Force found
that there are significant issues with accessibility and numbers of
mental health providers, stating that the ``military system does not
have enough fiscal or personnel resources to adequately support the
psychological health of servicemembers and their families.''
If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure that appropriate
numbers of mental health resources are available to soldiers in
theater, and to the soldiers and their families upon return to home
station?
Answer. It appears to me that the Army has made great strides in
improving the number and accessibility of mental health care providers.
If confirmed, I will continue this effort by reviewing the Army's
current force structure and its retention and recruitment programs
across all force components, military and civilian. I will endeavor to
ensure that the beneficiaries of the Army health care system have
access to mental health services of the highest possible quality.
Question. What actions should senior leaders take to erase the
stigma associated with seeking mental health care in the Army?
Answer. The stigma associated with seeking mental health care is
not unique to the military; it exists across the country. I perceive
that the Army is working diligently to eliminate the stigma associated
with seeking mental health care, although it appears that more needs to
be done. If confirmed, I would review carefully the factors that
contribute to the misperception that seeking mental health care is
evidence of personal weakness or that seeking care will derail one's
military career. I would continue to support broad-based positive
communication, training, and outreach programs, and promote access to
mental health services so as to minimize actual and perceived barriers
to care.
active-duty end strength
Question. The Army has increased its active-duty end strength to
meet current and future operational requirements. The Army had planned
to increase its end strength to 547,400 by 2010, but has already
achieved this goal in 2009.
In your view, what is the appropriate Army Active-Duty end strength
needed to meet the demand for deployed forces, increase nondeployed
readiness, build strategic depth, and relieve stress on soldiers and
their families?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the Army's projections in light
of the demands and ensure that any increases in end strength are well
analyzed, coordinated across the Department, and fully justified.
Question. If Army end strength is projected to be above the
authorized 547,000 in fiscal years 2009 or 2010, how would you propose,
if confirmed, to fund the additional end strength above current
authorized levels?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I would work closely with the Assistant
Secretary for Financial Management, the Under Secretary of the Army,
and the Secretary of the Army to identify appropriate funding sources.
Question. Do you believe that an end strength of 547,400 is
sustainable in the long term?
Answer. Yes, given the appropriate level of resourcing.
modularity
Question. Modularity refers to the Army's fundamental
reconfiguration of the force from a large division-based to a brigade-
based structure. The new modular brigade combat team is supposed to
have an increased capability to operate independently based upon
increased and embedded combat support capabilities such as military
intelligence, reconnaissance, and logistics. Although somewhat smaller
in size, the new modular brigades are supposed to be just as or more
capable of full spectrum operations than the divisional brigades they
replace.
What is your understanding and assessment of the manpower and
personnel management requirements of the Army's modular design and
implementation of this transformation strategy?
Answer. It is my understanding that the increased capabilities
resident in the modular brigade combat teams have greatly enhanced
their ability to meet current and projected Combatant Commander (COCOM)
requirements. This increased capability places additional requirements
on numerous skill sets, which are already in high demand. I believe it
may take years to mature the full complement of senior officers and
NCOs necessary to support these increased capabilities.
Question. In your view, what are the greatest personnel challenges,
if any, in realizing the transformation of the Army to the modular
design? If confirmed, what actions or changes would you propose, if
any, relative to the Army's modular transformation strategy?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army remains committed to
fielding the best trained, most capable forces possible, and that the
Army should not compromise on training to increase availability. The
longer train/educate/mature times required by the Army's modular
formations for the additional field grade officer and senior NCO
personnel requirements may take us years to generate. If I am
confirmed, I will assess whether any changes should be considered to
address these challenges, and after careful study and deliberation, I
will provide the Secretary with cogent advice regarding these changes.
army force generation model
Question. The Army relies on a force generation model (ARFORGEN) in
which units are manned, equipped, and trained to appropriate readiness
levels over time as they cycle through ``reset and train,'' ``ready,''
and ``available for deployment'' force pools.
What is your understanding and assessment of the manpower and
personnel management requirements of the Army's force generation
methodology?
Answer. ARFORGEN provides cyclic readiness for the force over a
given time period. The current manpower processes and procedures
support this cyclic readiness by providing the manpower required for
next deployers and other high priority missions. If confirmed, I will
work diligently to ensure that the Army's current manpower processes
and procedures continue to support the ARFORGEN model.
Question. In your view, what are the greatest manpower and
personnel management challenges, if any, in implementing ARFORGEN?
Answer. It is my understanding that the greatest challenge facing
manpower and personnel management is that ARFORGEN and the Army are
coping with shortfalls of high-demand grades and skills, which results
in a short dwell in the continental United States between deployments.
High demand personnel are arriving at next deploying units on a Just-
In-Time basis for training and deployment.
Question. If confirmed, what actions or changes would you propose,
if any, to the design, implementation, or management of ARFORGEN?
Answer. It is my understanding that ARFORGEN significantly changed
the way the Army generates forces to support Combatant Commanders'
requirements, moving from tiered readiness to cyclic readiness. At this
time I am unaware of any need to amend or modify the ARFORGEN model;
however, if confirmed, I will fully assess the manpower processes and
procedures that support ARFORGEN and make appropriate recommendations,
if required.
stop-loss
Question. How does the Army plan to implement the Secretary of
Defense's recent direction to end the use of stop-loss without eroding
unit manning and unit cohesion?
Answer. The Secretary of Defense has directed that the Army phase
out the use of Stop-Loss over time in order to mitigate manning issues
created by soldier separations and retirements. Further, I understand
that adjustments to manning mechanisms are underway that are designed
to replace separating soldiers in units scheduled to deploy; and that
incentive programs have been developed to encourage soldiers who do not
intend to reenlist to extend their service long enough to complete a
deployment with their units.
operational and personnel tempo
Question. Current DOD policy is that Active component personnel
will have 2 years of dwell time for each year of deployment and that
Reserve component members have 5 years of dwell time for each year they
are mobilized.
What is your view of the achievability of this goal? What measures
must be taken by the Army to be able to achieve it in 5 years or less?
Answer. It is my understanding that this is an important aspect of
sustaining the All-Volunteer Force because it facilitates
predictability for our soldiers and their families, allows for
professional military development, and facilitates time for Army
National Guard dual-use with the States. If confirmed, I will undertake
a review of the Army's current personnel programs with a view of
assessing the achievability of the DOD goal, and when necessary, I will
make appropriate recommendations to the Secretary designed to maximize
dwell time consistent with the DOD policy.
Question. In your view, how will shifting resources from Iraq to
Afghanistan affect dwell-time ratios?
Answer. It is my understanding that the concept outlined by the
President and the plan briefed to senior DOD leaders by Central Command
(CENTCOM) will result in increases in the dwell-time ratios for many of
the affected units.
Question. How will the end of the use of stop-loss affect dwell
time ratios?
Answer. I have been informed that the reduction of the use of Stop
Loss will not affect unit Boots-on-the-Ground (BOG) to Dwell Time
ratios. It may, however, have a negative impact on the dwell times of
individual soldiers with high demand skills.
Question. What is your assessment of the Army's ability to support
scheduled troop rotation planning in 2009 and beyond, particularly in
combat support and combat service support missions, given this goal?
Answer. I have been informed that based on the anticipated
transition force demand in the CENTCOM AOR, the Army will be able to
meet validated requirements--combat, combat support, and combat service
support missions--while increasing dwell-time ratios across the force.
Question. What measures are being taken 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, medical personnel, and truck drivers?
Answer. I have been informed that the Army assesses force
capabilities and adjusts force unit capacity, as necessary, to respond
to operational requirements in low-density/high-demand units. If
confirmed, I would ensure that the Army continues to assess force mix
across all three components to meet the strategic demands of
conventional campaigns, irregular warfare operations and homeland
defense/civil support missions, with a view towards balancing the force
structure to minimize risk in availability of low-density/high-demand
units.
Question. In your view, what will be the effect on recruiting,
retention, and readiness of the Army of the current rates of operations
and personnel tempo through 2010?
Answer. I have been informed that the Army has experienced no
negative effects on recruiting and retention due to operational and
personnel tempo. If confirmed, I will continue to monitor this critical
area.
Question. In your judgment, what would be the impact on the current
rates of operations and personnel tempo of assigning principal
responsibility for support to civil authorities for consequence
management of natural, domestic disasters to either our Active or
Reserve component forces?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with Department leaders, in
coordination with appropriate members of the Joint Staff, to make a
careful assessment of this issue and provide the Secretary with cogent
advice that will fully consider the challenges of today's security
environment.
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 arose in the
planning and procedures for mobilization and demobilization, e.g.,
inadequate health screening and medical readiness, monitoring,
antiquated pay systems, limited transition assistance programs upon
demobilization, and lack of access to members of the Individual Ready
Reserve (IRR). Reserve Force management policies and systems have been
characterized in the past as ``inefficient and rigid'' and readiness
levels have been adversely affected by equipment stay-behind, cross-
leveling, and reset policies.
What is your assessment of advances made in improving Army Reserve
component mobilization and demobilization procedures, and in what areas
do problems still exist?
Answer. It is my understanding that since the beginning of
Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, the Army has made
significant advances in improving mobilization and demobilization
processes. Most importantly, the Army has achieved improved
predictability and pre-mobilization readiness through the
implementation of Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) and through
achieving earlier notification of sourcing (NOS) and Alert prior to
mobilization.
Question. What do you consider to be the most significant enduring
changes to the administration of the Reserve components aimed at
ensuring their readiness for future mobilization requirements?
Answer. The implementation of ARFORGEN has been a significant
change to the administration of the Reserve components and I believe
helped to ensure readiness for future mobilization requirements.
Question. Do you see a need to modify current statutory authorities
for the mobilization of members of the National Guard and Reserves?
Answer. At this point, based predominantly on my personal
experience as a member of the National Guard, I feel current statutory
authorities are sufficient to support mobilization requirements. If
confirmed, I will be in a better position to assess whether to
recommend changes to applicable law and policy.
Question. Do you agree that National Guard and Reserve personnel
should be mobilized to augment civilians deployed to Afghanistan?
Answer. Yes, I believe that National Guard and Reserve component
personnel bring skills and experience that can be used to augment other
executive branch agencies and their civilian employees. For example,
Army Civil Affairs soldiers are currently employed in this capacity in
Afghanistan.
Question. What are your views on the proper role of the IRR in Army
force management planning?
Answer. It has been explained to me that the IRR is an available
manpower pool consisting of individuals who have been trained and
previously served in the active forces or in the Selected Reserve. The
IRR has proven to be a steady and valuable asset for the Army. Even
given my limited knowledge, it would appear that the IRR is serving an
important role. If confirmed I will have the opportunity to look more
closely at this issue.
Question. If confirmed, what changes, if any, do you foresee making
to the Army's IRR recall policy?
Answer. At this stage of the confirmation process I cannot predict
what changes may be required. However, I am informed that the Army
continuously monitors and reviews its processes and procedures. If
confirmed, I believe that my assigned duties would afford me the
opportunity to further evaluate the processes and policies applicable
to the IRR.
Question. What are your views about policies affecting continued
service by officer and enlisted personnel in the Reserve components who
have fulfilled their Military Service Obligation (MSO)?
Answer. It is my understanding that all Ready Reserve soldiers are
retained for the entire period of their MSO or contractual obligation,
or they may voluntarily remain in the IRR. Our soldiers are very loyal
to their country and should be commended for their continuing service.
If confirmed I will be in a position to review the relevant policies
and better determine if they remain suitable.
Question. What is your assessment of the adequacy of the system in
place for members in the IRR receiving orders to Active Duty to request
a delay or exemption for that activation, including the procedures in
place for appealing the Army's decision on that request?
Answer. I have been informed that the system in place to process
requests from an IRR soldier for delay, exemption, or appeal of an
order to Active Duty allows for appropriate consideration of the
soldier's personal circumstances, together with consideration of the
needs of the Army. If confirmed, I will undertake an assessment of this
system to determine whether changes should be made.
Question. What is your assessment of the value of the IRR to the
All-Volunteer Force?
Answer. It is my understanding that the value of the IRR is its
ability to provide individual replacements for deploying units and to
provide soldiers to support short-term missions throughout the Army.
The IRR has allowed the Army to meet critical requirements within
mobilizing Army Reserve and Army National Guard units.
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.
If confirmed, how would you seek to clarify and coordinate
reporting on the medical and dental readiness of the Reserves?
Answer. First, let me say that I am extremely proud of our Reserve
component servicemembers and their service to our Nation during this
time of war and transformation. Based upon my own experience as an
officer in the National Guard, I believe that all components of the
total force must be prepared to deploy at any time. If confirmed I will
assess the effectiveness of reporting on the medical and dental
readiness and to evaluate the need for policy changes and increased
oversight.
Question. How would you improve upon the Army's ability to produce
a healthy and fit Reserve component?
Answer. I am advised that the Army has comprised a multi-
disciplinary task force to address and promote Comprehensive Soldier
Fitness across all components. If confirmed, I look forward to learning
more about the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program, particularly as
it applies to the Reserve component, and working with leaders across
the Army to implement it.
lessons learned
Question. What do you believe are the major personnel lessons
learned from Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi
Freedom (OIF) which you would seek to address if confirmed as Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs?
Answer. Undoubtedly, lessons learned from throughout OEF/OIF will
enhance the Army's ability to plan and execute ongoing and future
missions. If confirmed, I will seek out and examine these lessons
learned, with a focus on their application to manpower and Reserve
affairs matters and apply them to the challenges and complexities of
our ongoing contingency operations.
national guard organization, equipment, and readiness
Question. Legislative proposals introduced in recent years and
recommendations of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves
have proposed numerous changes to the roles and responsibilities of the
National Guard and Reserves. Several of the proposed changes have been
implemented, and numerous others are under consideration.
How do you assess the changes in the roles, mission, and
authorities of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and the Director
of the Army National Guard?
Answer. I believe that the changes that have been made thus far to
enhance, clarify, and refine the roles missions and authorities of the
Director of the Army National Guard (DARNG) have been effective. If
confirmed, I will study the additional proposals under consideration
and determine whether they are appropriate.
Question. In your view, do the current Army processes for planning,
programming, and budgeting sufficiently address the requirements of the
Army National Guard? What is the appropriate role of the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau in this regard?
Answer. The Army National Guard is an integral part of the Army and
has representation in all the Program Evaluation Groups (PEGs) that
inform the process including Manning, Training, Organizing, Equipping,
Sustaining, and Installations. The Army National Guard also has
representatives in all Army staff sections to ensure that Army National
Guard requirements and priorities are integrated into the budgeting
process.
I believe that in his advisory role to the Secretary of the Army
and the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief, National Guard Bureau
(CNGB) supports the Army planning, programming, and budgeting process.
tricare fee increases for military retirees
Question. Secretary Gates recently told officers at the Air War
College that ``health care is eating the (Defense) Department alive.''
Do you agree with the Secretary's assessment?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What is your view of the need for increased beneficiary
payments in reducing overall health care costs to the Department?
Answer. I am advised that costs have grown due to many factors:
increased utilization by a mobilized RC force, expansion of benefits to
support basic health care needs and that of more severely wounded
soldier and their families, increased use by retiree beneficiaries,
health inflation, and finally no change in TRICARE premiums in the last
10 years. It is my understanding that a sound medical benefit program
directly impacts retention of soldiers and their families. If
confirmed, I would support a DOD review of the current beneficiary
payment structure to ensure that future benefit costs are sustainable.
Question. What other reforms in infrastructure, benefits, or
benefit management, if any, do you think should be examined in order to
control the costs of military health care?
Answer. It is my understanding that to a great extent, the costs of
military health care are subject to prevailing rates for labor,
equipment and supplies within the health care industry. If confirmed, I
will study this issue further and work with the other military
departments and DOD to determine the best structure for the future.
personnel and entitlement costs
Question. In addition to health care costs, personnel and related
entitlement spending continues to soar and is becoming an ever
increasing portion of the DOD budget.
If confirmed, what actions will you take to control the rise in
personnel costs and entitlement spending?
Answer. I have been advised that the military departments have
limited authority to reduce overall personnel costs and entitlement
spending. If I am confirmed, I will ensure adequate oversight through
processes/procedures and audit reviews to provide early warning
regarding the costs and effects of proposed new military pays or
benefits.
Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to avoid a
requirement for massive end-of-year reprogramming to cover personnel
costs?
Answer. As is the case with regard to change in any large
organization, military personnel changes take time to execute and
implement throughout the force. In order to avoid unnecessary changes,
if confirmed, I will work closely within the Army and DOD to accurately
budget, and then will monitor execution, strength, and incentives, to
ensure the Army remains in balance.
stress on army families
Question. Army families have been under great stress since 2001 as
a result of multiple and lengthy deployments in OIF and OEF.
In your view, what are the key indicators of the stress on Army
families at this time?
Answer. I recognize that soldiers and their families have made and
continue to make significant personal sacrifices in support of our
Nation. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Army remains committed to
providing soldiers and families with a quality of life commensurate
with their service. It is my understanding that the Army monitors a
number of indicators, and Army families continue to demonstrate how
resilient they are. However, after experiencing soldier absences during
deployments of varying duration and frequency, often with less time
between them than needed to truly reset, families have indicated a need
for: expanded support for their children; greater access to health care
resources; more robust family programs and services; additional
education and employment opportunities; and available, quality housing.
Question. If confirmed, what will you do to address these key
indicators?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army Family Covenant
formalizes senior leadership commitment and addresses the following key
areas for families: standardizing and funding existing family programs
and services; increased accessibility and quality of health care;
improving soldier and family housing; ensuring excellence in schools,
youth services, and child care; and expanding education and employment
opportunities for family members. If confirmed, I would exercise
oversight of the execution of the key soldier and family programs and
services, keep an ear to the ground to ensure the Army meets the needs
of its people, and identify funding requirements to continue efforts
that are critical to the sustainment of an All-Volunteer Force.
Question. If confirmed, what will you do to address these key
indicators?
Answer. If confirmed, I would exercise oversight of the execution
of the key soldier and family programs and services, keep an ear to the
ground to ensure the Army meets the needs of its people, and identify
funding requirements to continue efforts that are critical to the
sustainment of an All-Volunteer Force.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important family
readiness issues in the Army?
Answer. Family readiness issues vary by family, but one commonality
among all families is the need for information and communication. To
meet this critical need, I am advised that Family Readiness Groups have
been established to provide important support and assistance and a
network of communication among the family members, the chain of
command, and community resources.
Additionally, Army OneSource, the Army's online portal for family
support information, programs, and services, provides a comprehensive
multi-component approach for community support and services to meet the
diverse needs of all soldiers and families.
family readiness
Question. If confirmed, how would you address family readiness
needs in light of global rebasing, BRAC, continuing deployments, and
the growth of the Army?
Answer. Military families make extraordinary sacrifices as their
loved ones advance the cause of freedom around the world. Military
families have set aside careers, interrupted their education, and when
living far from a military base, struggled to locate child care equal
to the price and quality available at military installations. The Army
must recognize those sacrifices and deliver quality programs and
services that geographically dispersed and frequently relocating
families must endure.
I am informed that on October 8, 2007, Secretary Geren unveiled the
Army Family Covenant, a commitment to provide soldiers and their
families--Active, Guard, and Reserve--a quality of life commensurate
with their level of service and sacrifice to the Nation. I fully
support the Covenant's commitment to soldiers and families and, if
confirmed, will continue to improve family readiness through the Family
Covenant.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure support for Reserve
component families, particularly those who do not reside near an
active-duty military installation, related to mobilization, deployment,
and family readiness?
Answer. Family readiness is a very important issue to me. The Army
Family Covenant commits the Army to improve family readiness--in both
the Active and Reserve components--by standardizing family programs and
services, increasing accessibility to health care; improving soldier
and family housing; ensuring excellence in schools, youth and child
services; and expanding education and employment opportunities for
family members. The Soldier Family Action Plan provides the roadmap to
implement the Army Family Covenant commitment and improve and/or
address gaps in existing soldier and family programs and services.
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 am extremely appreciative of the undaunted support of
military spouses to our soldiers and am aware of the importance of
supporting employment opportunities for military spouses. If confirmed,
I will continue to pursue the initiatives that have been set in place
to benefit military families during this troubled economic era.
support for the single soldier
Question. While the percentage of married soldiers has steadily
increased, a substantial portion of soldiers, especially young
soldiers, are single.
What are the unique support needs of single soldiers, especially
those returning from combat?
Answer. It is my understanding that the needs of single soldiers,
especially those returning from deployments, may differ from the needs
of soldiers with spouses and children. I have been informed that in the
past few years, the Army has made significant investments in single
soldier barracks and programs to mitigate the stress of deployment and
improve single soldier readiness.
Question. If confirmed, what would you do to address these needs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review Army's soldier support programs
designed to improve the quality of life for all soldiers--Active and
Reserve component, single and married, with a view toward ensuring that
these program are effective in meeting the specific needs of each
group.
national security personnel system
Question. Section 1106 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 restored the collective bargaining rights of
civilian employees included in the National Security Personnel System
(NSPS) established by DOD pursuant to section 9902 of title 5, U.S.C.
Under section 1106, the Department retains the authority to establish a
new performance management system (including pay for performance) and
streamlined practices for hiring and promotion of civilian employees.
Senior DOD officials have stated that they do not intend to expand NSPS
to include employees in bargaining units that are represented by
employee unions.
What is your view of the NSPS system, as currently constituted?
Answer. I understand the NSPS's key features were to support a
streamlined and flexible civilian compensation, staffing,
classification, and performance management system essential to
effective management of a mission-oriented and results-driven civilian
workforce that are vital to the success of DOD missions. I understand
that DOD and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) are currently
conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the NSPS system. If confirmed,
I look forward to working with DOD and OPM to ensure an optimum system.
Question. Do you support the pay-for-performance approach adopted
for civilian employees in the NSPS system?
Answer. As a general principle, I support pay-for-performance; an
employee's compensation should be based on contribution to mission. If
confirmed, I look forward to seeing the results of DOD and OPM's
comprehensive evaluation of NSPS in order to work toward addressing any
identified concerns.
Question. Do you believe that the Department needs streamlined
authority for hiring and promotion of civilian employees to meet its
human capital needs?
Answer. I am advised that the Department is challenged to meet
increased civilian labor requirements in critical occupations and to
develop human capital strategies to respond to these challenges. It is
my understanding that there are situations where specialized hiring
authorities are required in order to provide sufficient qualified
applicants to meet mission needs. However, before making
recommendations for additional authorities, I would want to ensure that
managers fully understand the flexibilities and authorities currently
available. If confirmed, I will ask managers to creatively and actively
use available authorities and will explore the need for and use of
direct and expedited hiring authorities to assist in achieving the
Department's human capital objectives.
Question. In your view, is it viable in the long run for DOD to
maintain two separate systems (NSPS and the General Schedule) for its
civilian employees?
Answer. It is my understanding that DOD has a number of other
personnel systems, such as Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel
System and that for non-appropriated fund personnel. If confirmed, I
will work with DOD and OPM to assess the appropriate number and types
of personnel systems for effective and efficient personnel management.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the NSPS
authorizing legislation?
Answer. It is my understanding that DOD, in conjunction with OPM,
is planning to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of NSPS, as currently
implemented. If confirmed, I would seek to ensure that the Army
participates fully in this evaluation. Depending on the outcome of this
evaluation, legislation and/or policy changes may be appropriate to
ensure that NSPS is on track to achieve its full potential.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the NSPS
regulations?
Answer. It is my understanding that DOD, in conjunction with the
Office of Personnel Management, is planning to conduct a comprehensive
evaluation of NSPS, as currently implemented. If confirmed, I would
seek to ensure that the Army participates fully in this evaluation.
Depending on the outcome of this evaluation, regulatory changes may be
appropriate to ensure that NSPS is on track to achieve its full
potential.
balance between civilian employees and contractor employees
Question. In recent years, DOD and the Army have become
increasingly reliant on services provided by contractors. Over the past
8 years, DOD's civilian workforce has remained essentially unchanged in
size. Over the same period, DOD's spending on contract services has
more than doubled, with the estimated number of contractor employees
working for the Department increasing from an estimated 730,000 in
fiscal year 2000 to an estimated 1,550,000 in fiscal year 2007. As a
result of the explosive growth in service contracts, contractors now
play an integral role in the performance of functions that were once
performed exclusively by government employees, including the management
and oversight of weapons programs, the development of policies, the
development of public relations strategies, and even the collection and
analysis of intelligence. In many cases, contractor employees work in
the same offices, serve on the same projects and task forces, and
perform many of the same functions as Federal employees.
Do you believe that the current balance between civilian employees
and contractor employees is in the best interests of the Army?
Answer. The information set forth in the committee's question
presents cause for concern and warrants comprehensive examination. I
agree with President Obama's government contracting memorandum of March
4, 2009, directing the Federal Government to ensure that functions that
are inherently governmental in nature are performed by executive
agencies and are not outsourced. If confirmed, I would work with the
Secretary of the Army, the Under Secretary, and leaders across the Army
to assess this matter so as to ensure compliance with the law and with
the President's policy.
Question. In your view, has the Army become too reliant on
contractors to perform its basic functions?
Answer. As set forth above, I agree fully with President Obama's
memorandum of March 4, 2009, directing the Federal Government to ensure
that functions that are inherently governmental in nature are performed
by executive agencies and are not outsourced. If confirmed, I would
work with the Secretary of the Army, the Under Secretary, and leaders
across the Army to assess this matter so as to ensure compliance with
the law and with the President's policy.
Question. Do you believe that the current extensive use of personal
services contracts is in the best interests of the Army?
Answer. As I understand it, the Army may use personal services
contracts only in limited circumstances, when specifically authorized
by law and policy. If confirmed, I would work with the Secretary of the
Army, the Under Secretary, and leaders across the Army to ensure
compliance with applicable law and policy.
Question. Do you believe that the Army should undertake a
comprehensive reappraisal of ``inherently governmental functions'' and
other critical government functions, and how they are performed?
Answer. I support fully the principles and policies set forth in
President Obama's memorandum of March 4, 2009. That memorandum directs
the Office of Management and Budget, in coordination with the Secretary
of Defense, among others, to develop and issue government-wide guidance
to assist executive branch agencies in reviewing the propriety of
existing contracts and to formulate corrective action when appropriate.
I believe that any such review must include an appraisal of inherently
governmental functions and other critical government functions and how
they are performed. If confirmed, I will support any such review and
corrective action, particularly as it relates to matters under the
purview of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve
Affairs).
Question. If confirmed, will you work with other appropriate
officials in the Army to address these issues?
Answer. The issues you raise cross functional lines. Accordingly, I
believe that a comprehensive effort involving stakeholders across the
Army, DOD, the interagency, and Congress, will be required to address
these issues in a comprehensive fashion. I pledge that if confirmed, I
will work collaboratively with other Army officials on these matters,
in furtherance of the best interests of the Army and DOD.
Question. One reason for the explosive growth in DOD's contractor
workforce has been the continuing limitation placed on the number of
civilian employees of DOD. Rather than saving money as intended, this
limitation has shifted all growth to contractor employees.
Would you agree that the balance between civilian employees and
contractor employees in performing Army functions should be determined
by the best interests of the Army and not by artificial constraints on
the number of civilian employees?
Answer. Yes, I agree.
Question. If confirmed, will you work to remove any artificial
constraints placed on the size of the Army's civilian workforce, so
that the Army can hire the number of employees most appropriate to
accomplish its mission?
Answer. I understand that by law, the Army is required to manage
its civilian personnel solely on the basis of, and consistent with, the
workload required to carry out the Army's functions and activities and
the funds Congress appropriates to the Department. If confirmed, I
would support all efforts to ensure compliance with the law and to
remove inappropriate constraints on the size of the Army civilian
workforce.
sexual assault prevention and response
Question. Numerous cases of sexual misconduct involving soldiers in
Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan have been reported 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
Army failed to respond appropriately by providing basic services,
including medical attention and criminal investigation of their
charges.
What is your understanding of the resources and programs the Army
has in place in deployed locations to offer victims of sexual assaults
the medical, psychological, and legal help that they need?
Answer. I have been advised that the Army goes to great lengths to
ensure appropriate levels of support are available to our deployed
soldiers, including medical, psychological, and legal support. While I
have not been fully briefed on all Army initiatives, 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. I have been advised,
for example, that for the past 3 years, the Army has had in place a
comprehensive Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program. I am
informed that under this program, the Army requires every unit,
brigade-sized and higher, to appoint and train a deployable Sexual
Assault Response Coordinator and requires every battalion to appoint
and train two Unit Victim Advocates. If confirmed, I will study this
matter in greater depth with a view to ensuring that the Army continues
to take appropriate steps to aid 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 at home stations as well as deployed
locations?
Answer. In my opinion, the Army has taken several extremely
important steps in its campaign to prevent sexual assaults both at home
stations and deployed locations. For instance, I have been advised that
the Army launched a new comprehensive sexual assault prevention
campaign in 2008: the ``I. A.M. Strong'' program in which the letters
I, A, and M stand for Intervene-Act-Motivate. The ``I. A.M. Strong''
program features soldiers as influential role models providing peer-to-
peer messages to encourage other soldiers to take action to promote a
positive command climate in which sexual assault is not acceptable. If
confirmed, I will continue these vital initiatives and assess whether
additional steps should be taken.
Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the training and
resources the Army has in place to investigate and respond to
allegations of sexual assault?
Answer. Based upon the information I have been provided to date, it
appears that the Army is committed to ensuring that it has trained
personnel and resources in place to investigate and respond to
allegations of sexual assault. I have been advised that the Army
continues to emphasize victim services and response capabilities. I
have also been advised that the Army intends to hire and place
additional special investigators and prosecutors at Army installations
with the highest occurrences of sexual assault and to add examiners to
the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory. If confirmed, I will
assess whether additional steps should be taken to support victims and
hold offenders accountable.
Question. Do you consider the Army's current sexual assault
policies and procedures, particularly those on confidential reporting,
to be effective?
Answer. I have been advised that the Army has focused both on
eliminating sexual assault from its ranks and on victim response--both
key elements of an effective sexual assault program. I have been
advised that part of the focus on victim response was the
implementation of confidential reporting (also called ``restricted''
reporting), which I understand allows sexual assault victims to
disclose confidentially the details of their assault to specified
individuals and receive medical treatment and counseling, without
triggering the official investigative process. If confirmed, I will
work with knowledgeable professionals to assess and ensure the
continuation of effective Army programs.
Question. What problems, if any, are you aware of in the manner in
which the confidential reporting procedures have been put into effect?
Answer. Based on the information I have been provided to date, I am
not aware of any problems with the manner in which confidential
reporting procedures have been put into effect. If I am confirmed, I
will closely monitor the Army's sexual assault response procedures to
determine whether improvements are needed in the area of confidential
reporting.
Question. 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. If confirmed, I will have an active role in the oversight
and implementation of the Army's Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and
Prevention (SHARP) Program. I will work with the Secretary and the
Chief of Staff to ensure the Army's SHARP program continues to receive
the appropriate level of supervision and support.
religious guidelines
Question. What is your understanding of current policies and
programs of DOD and the Department of the Army regarding religious
practices in the military?
Answer. I have been informed that the Army's policies support
religious tolerance and respect. It appears that Army and DOD
regulations provide commanders and other leaders with ample guidance
regarding the free exercise of religion in the Army. Army policies
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.
Question. Do these policies accommodate, where appropriate,
religious practices that require adherents to wear particular articles
of faith?
Answer. I have been informed that the Army places a high value on
the rights of soldiers to observe the tenets of their respective
religious faiths. I have been advised that the Army will approve
requests for accommodation of religious practice, to include the wear
of particular articles of faith, unless the accommodation will have an
adverse impact on unit readiness, individual readiness, unit cohesion,
morale, discipline, safety, and health. It is my understanding that
Army policies are consistent with the First Amendment.
Question. In your view, do these policies accommodate the free
exercise of religion and other beliefs without impinging on those who
have different beliefs, including no religious belief?
Answer. I understand that Army policies require chaplains to
support all unit personnel, regardless of their beliefs.
Question. In your opinion, do existing policies and practices
regarding public prayers offered by military chaplains in a variety of
formal and informal settings strike the proper balance between a
chaplain's ability to pray in accordance with his or her religious
beliefs and the rights of other servicemembers with different beliefs,
including no religious beliefs?
Answer. I have been 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.
united states military academy
Question. What is your assessment of the policies and procedures at
the United States Military Academy to prevent and respond appropriately
to sexual assaults and sexual harassment and to ensure essential
oversight?
Answer. I have been informed that the United States Military
Academy continues to institutionalize prevention strategies designed to
end sexual harassment and violence by providing consistent policy,
removing barriers to victim reporting, ensuring accessible care, and
providing comprehensive education and training to all personnel. I am
advised that the Superintendent personally chairs the monthly Sexual
Assault Review Board, which provides executive oversight of all aspects
of the Academy's Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention
program. If confirmed, I will continue these initiatives and assess
whether any additional steps should be taken.
Question. What is your assessment of the policies and procedures at
the United States Military Academy to ensure religious tolerance and
respect?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Chief of Chaplains (CCH) is
responsible for religious support activities Army wide, to include at
the USMA, and that CCH policies and procedures support religious
tolerance and respect. It is my understanding that these policies are
consistent with the First Amendment.
suicide prevention
Question. The committee is concerned about the increasing rate of
suicides in the Army.
In your view, what is the cause of this surge in suicides?
Answer. It is my understanding that the increase in suicides in the
Army is likely not due to any single cause. Although there are
recognized suicide risk factors, such as deployments, that are unique
to Army life, it appears that risk factors such as relationship,
financial, and legal problems also play a significant role.
Question. What is your assessment of the Army's response to this
increase in suicides?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army has taken a
comprehensive, strategic approach to mitigating suicidal and high-risk
behavior. In my view, this approach is the best way to address the
problem of suicides by improving the mental, physical, and emotional
health of soldiers, and by taking steps to reduce personal risk; a
reduction in suicides should follow. If confirmed, I will fully support
suicide prevention and intervention efforts.
Question. The Army recently signed an agreement with the National
Institutes of Health to perform a 5-year study on suicides in the Army.
If confirmed, what actions would you suggest the Army take to enhance
its suicide prevention program while the study is ongoing?
Answer. I appreciate and share the committee's sense of urgency in
addressing issues of suicide prevention and intervention. If confirmed,
I will work with the leadership of the Army to assess all available
options to enhance the Army's suicide prevention program while the
National Institute of Health study is ongoing.
women in combat
Question. What is your understanding of the conclusions and lessons
that 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. It is my understanding that the Army is in compliance with
the requirements of law relating to women in combat. It is also my
understanding that Army's transformation to modular units took into
account and is in compliance with the current DOD assignment policy for
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.
Question. In your view, should the current policy prohibiting the
assignment of women to ground combat units be revised to reflect
changing roles for female soldiers and the changing nature of warfare?
Answer. If I am confirmed and after careful study and deliberation,
that there is a need to seek a change to the policy, I will provide the
Secretary with cogent advice regarding the changes sought and their
potential impact on the manpower and Reserve affairs of the Army.
foreign language proficiency
Question. A Foreign Language Transformation Roadmap announced by
DOD 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. More recently, Congress
authorized incentive pay for members of precommissioning programs to
study critical foreign languages.
In your view, what should be the priorities of the Federal
Government in expanding the foreign language skills of civilian and
military personnel and improving coordination of foreign language
programs and activities among the Federal agencies?
Answer. In my view, our Nation's current and future involvement in
overseas contingency operations will rely heavily on both foreign
language skills and cultural knowledge. The Army, as well as other
government agencies, should focus on increasing foreign language and
cultural awareness skills across their entire force as well as in its
language specialists (Foreign Area Officers, Civil Affairs, Special
Forces, linguists, etc.). These skills will allow us to strengthen and
multiply our forces' capabilities across the full operational spectrum.
Further, I am aware that two of the best Foreign Language schools in
the Federal Government exist in the Defense and State departments
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. I have been advised that the Army is in the initial stages
of conducting a Foreign Language Capabilities Based Assessment; this
joint effort will analyze and identify critical capabilities required
to support DOD operations in conventional and irregular warfare as well
as contingency operations. If confirmed, I would ensure that policies
involving recruiting, training and mobilization are reviewed and
adjusted accordingly to meet the validated foreign language needs of
the operational environment.
Question. What is your assessment of an appropriate time frame
within which results can be realized in this critical area?
Answer. I have been advised that the timelines in the initial
Defense Language Transformation Roadmap have already been met and
fulfilled with exception of a couple initiatives. It is critical that
the Army continues to look ahead to meet the needs of the operational
commanders. These foreign language needs are ever changing, as the
challenges of overseas contingency operations take us into regions of
diverse and low-density languages. I have been advised that the Army is
finalizing a Culture and Foreign Language Strategy that will outline a
holistic approach to the development of cultural and foreign language
training.
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 required
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 Army and the utilization of officers who have served as
legislative fellows?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Fellowship program has been
a valuable program that provides participants an understanding of the
complexities of congressional operations and Congress's role in the
process of government as a whole. Fellowships help participants gain an
understanding and appreciation for the strategic relationship between
the Army and Congress. I understand that the Army carefully evaluates
fellows' post-fellowship assignment, taking into account each fellow's
recent experience with Congress as well as duty specialty and past
experiences. The Army has a large requirement for personnel with
legislative experience at many levels of command and the fellows
trained each year help fill those needs.
defense integrated military human resources system (dimhrs)
Question. The Department and the Services are moving toward
adoption of DIMHRS as a cross-service, fully integrated personnel and
pay system. Under the proposed timeline, the Army is the first in line
to launch DIMHRS, with the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps to follow.
Recent reports indicate technical difficulties will postpone the Army's
launch date.
What is the status of the Army's implementation of DIMHRS? What is
your assessment of the need for an integrated, cross-service personnel
and pay system?
Answer. I have not been informed of the specific status of Army's
implementation of the DIMHRS, however, it is my understanding that once
fully implemented, this program will substantially improve the accuracy
and efficiency of our ability to manage our personnel across DOD.
Question. If confirmed, what changes, if any, would you recommend
to the implementation schedule and process currently in place?
Answer. If confirmed, I will carefully review the implementation
plan and associated milestones. If my review identifies any weakness, I
will make appropriate recommendations, after cross-Service
coordination, to the responsible officials.
gi bill benefits
Question. Last year, Congress passed the Post-9/11 Veterans
Educational Assistance Act that created enhanced educational benefits
for servicemembers who have served at least 90 days on active duty
since September 11. The maximum benefit would roughly cover the cost of
a college education at any public university in the country.
What is your assessment of the effect of the act on recruiting and
retention of servicemembers?
Answer. It is my understanding that the new post-September 11 GI
Bill is designed to enhance the Army's recruiting efforts in that it
will assist the Army in targeting that population of young adults who
desire to attend college but cannot afford to do so at the current
time. This benefit will open up opportunities for them to achieve their
educational goals. The impact of this benefit on retention will require
careful monitoring, but the provision in the new program that allows
career servicemembers to share or transfer their GI Bill benefits with
immediate family members may mitigate any negative retention impacts.
Question. What is your understanding of the sufficiency of the
implementation plan for the transferability provisions contained in the
act?
Answer. I have been informed that the Army is working closely with
DOD on the implementation of this new program and that DOD will publish
its implementing policies in the near future. If confirmed, I will
continue this important work and ensure that the Army's implementation
of this program is well executed, consistent with published DOD
guidelines.
quadrennial review of military compensation
Question. The Department recently completed work on the 10th
Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC), releasing Volume I
of its report in February 2008 and Volume II in July 2008. Among other
recommendations, the QRMC proposes a new defined benefit retirement
plan that more resembles the benefits available under the Federal
Employee Retirement System than the current military retirement
benefit; increasing TRICARE fees for retirees; and the adoption of
dependent care and flexible spending accounts for servicemembers.
What is your assessment of the QRMC recommendations, particularly
the proposed new defined retirement plan?
Answer. Reductions in current entitlements and benefits could
impact the morale of the current force and weaken future recruiting and
retention efforts. Proposed changes in military retirement entitlements
and benefits must be thoroughly reviewed to fully understand these
impacts. If I am confirmed, I will be mindful that our military forces,
who are often called upon to fight under extremely arduous conditions,
should receive the pay and entitlements promised them and that they
deserve.
senior executive workforce
Question. 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 work force challenges facing
the Department. With transformation, members of the senior executive
service 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's senior executive program focuses on the
recruitment, assignment, and development of adaptive, multi-skilled
senior civilian leaders and that the current senior executive program
includes periodic education and development opportunities and
performance based evaluations.
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 in a timely manner to
this committee and its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
Question. 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?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
direct hire authority at army labs
1. Senator Reed. Mr. Lamont, section 1108 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 permitted the defense
demonstration laboratories to exercise direct hire for a limited number
of senior level scientists and engineers. On December 16, 2008, that
authority was delegated to the individual Services without restriction
on further delegation. On March 3, 2009, the Navy had effectively
delegated that authority to the laboratory directors and by mid-March
one of the Navy laboratories had actually hired approximately a dozen
senior scientists and engineers. To the committee's knowledge, the
authority, which had been delegated to the Army, still remains unused
within the office of the Secretary of the Army. This is a very valuable
tool, permitting the laboratory directors to compete effectively with
private industry in the hiring of senior people. If you are confirmed,
do you intend to implement this statute and to delegate this authority
to the laboratory directors?
Mr. Lamont. Yes, I fully support the use of this authority. The
authority provides an additional recruitment tool to fill critical
scientific and engineering positions. The Secretary of the Army
delegated this authority to me in late May. On June 2, 2009, I
delegated the authority to the three Army Commanders (U.S. Army
Materiel Command, U.S. Army Medical Command, and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers) with oversight of the six Army personnel demonstration
laboratories and authorized further delegation of the authority
directly to the Laboratory Directors.
establishing personnel demo programs at army labs
2. Senator Reed. Mr. Lamont, the laboratory personnel demonstration
program has proven to be a successful personnel management system for
the defense research laboratories. It is ideally suited to attract and
retain the type of key personnel necessary if our defense laboratories
are to maintain their technological preeminence. There are at least
four Army laboratories that have indicated a desire to be part of the
lab demo personnel program. Two (the Natick Soldier Research
Development and Engineering Center and the Edgewood Chemical and
Biological Center) have already made application and two others (Tank
and Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center and the
Armament Research Development and Engineering Center) would like to
adopt the demo personnel system but are currently in the National
Security Personnel System (NSPS). It is the committee's understanding
the Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM)
supports these requests. If confirmed, would you expedite the movement
of these Army laboratories into the demo system?
Mr. Lamont. Yes, however, statutory relief is needed to expand
beyond the five RDECOM subordinate elements covered by the current
laboratory personnel demonstration program to include, not only the
Tank and Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center and
the Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center; but also the
Simulation and Training Technology Center and the RDECOM Headquarters.
This will help eliminate several of the multiple personnel systems
(NSPS, Acquisition Demo, General Schedule, and Wage Grade) currently
affecting RDECOM civilian personnel scattered throughout the command.
This will foster and promote the development and acceleration of
innovative technology and sound engineering solutions. Any statutory
relief that would permit RDECOM to fold its eligible personnel into
laboratory demo personnel systems would promote efficiency and cost
savings, and more importantly promote research, development, test, and
evaluation and science and technology business processes to improve
practices associated with getting technology to the field in a shorter
period of time and in support of the War fighter.
exclusion of army labs from national security personnel system
3. Senator Reed. Mr. Lamont, this committee, on a bipartisan basis,
has continually been concerned that artificial limitations on the
ability of our defense laboratories to discharge their mission be
removed. It is essential that these laboratories be able to hire,
compensate, and retain the employees they need to discharge their
mission and to compete successfully with private industry for such
talent. In this regard, would you support the permanent exclusion of
the lab demos from possible inclusion in the NSPS?
Mr. Lamont. I would not favor a permanent exclusion. The law
pertaining to the Defense Laboratories' inclusion in NSPS states that
the laboratories are excluded from coverage until October 1, 2011; and
that after October 1, 2011, NSPS would apply only to the extent that
the Secretary of Defense determines that the flexibilities provided by
NSPS are greater than those the laboratories have under section 342 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, Public Law
103-337. As such, the Department and Army would prefer to retain the
flexibility to apply NSPS to the laboratories, if NSPS provides greater
flexibilities than currently provided under section 342. The Army
recognizes the critical role the defense laboratories play in
supporting the national security mission. As such, retaining the
existing statutory language provides the maximum flexibility to ensure
the laboratories have the authorities they need to attract,
competitively compensate, and retain a high quality, high performing
workforce.
______
[The nomination reference of Thomas R. Lamont follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 27, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Thomas R. Lamont, of Illinois, to be an Assistant Secretary of the
Army, vice Ronald J. James.
______
[The biographical sketch of Thomas R. Lamont, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch by Thomas R. Lamont
Thomas R. Lamont, Nominee for Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Department of the Army, Department of
Defense. He is the former Chair of University of Illinois Board of
Trustees and a longtime Springfield attorney and resident partner for
the Chicago firms of Gordon & Glickson and Altheimer & Gray, and the
Springfield firm of Brown, Hay & Stephens. He concentrated his practice
in Government Law and Legislative Affairs.
In the public arena, Mr. Lamont has served as executive director,
Office of the State Attorney Appellate Prosecutor, Director of Civil
Litigation in the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, executive
director of the Illinois Board of Higher Education, and currently, as
Special Counsel and Adjunct Professor of Law to the University of
Illinois. In the mid-1970s, he served as a Counsel to the Speaker and
the Illinois House Democratic Staff.
In 1990, Mr. Lamont was elected to the University of Illinois Board
of Trustees. In addition, he has served as a trustee of the State
University Retirement System, a member of the Illinois Board of Higher
Education, and on U.S. Senator Carol Mosely Braun's Judicial Advisory
Committee.
Mr. Lamont served in a variety of Judge Advocate positions in the
Illinois Army National Guard for over 25 years. He culminated his
career serving as the Illinois Staff Judge Advocate. He retired as a
Colonel in 2007.
Mr. Lamont received his bachelor's degree from Illinois State
University in 1969 and earned his law degree from the University of
Illinois College of Law in 1972.
______
[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 R.
Lamont 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 Ray Lamont.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
3. Date of nomination:
April 27, 2009.
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 8, 1947; Jacksonville, IL.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Bridget Anne Later (now Bridget L. Lamont).
7. Names and ages of children:
Michael Thomas Lamont, 28.
Jeffrey Stephen Lamont (deceased).
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Virginia (IL) High School, 1961-1965.
Illinois State University, Normal, IL, 1965-1969, B.S., 1969.
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1969-1972, JD, 1972.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Nov. 2005-present, Special Counsel and Adjunct Professor of Law,
University of Illinois; Springfield, IL.
Aug. 2004-Nov. 2005, Executive Director (interim) Illinois Board of
Higher Education; Springfield, IL.
Feb. 2002-Aug. 2004, Partner, Brown, Hay & Stephens, Attorneys at
Law, Springfield, IL.
Feb. 1998-Feb. 2002, Partner, Altheimer & Gray, Attorneys at Law,
Springfield and Chicago, IL.
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.
Judge Advocate, Illinois Army National Guard, 1982-2007.
Member University of Illinois Board of Trustees, 1990-2003.
Chair, University of Illinois Board of Trustees 1992-1993, 1995-
1997.
Trustee, State Universities Retirement System, 1992-1995.
Member, Executive Comm., Illinois State University Alumni
Association, 2007-present.
U.S. Senator Alan Dixon's Military Academy Appointments Committee,
1985-1992.
U.S. Senator Carol Mosely Braun's Judicial Advisory Committee,
1992-1996.
Executive Director, State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's
Commission, 1979-1981.
Division Head, Illinois Attorney General's Office, 1983-1987.
Staff Attorney, Illinois Legislative Reference Bureau, 1972-1973.
Staff Attorney/Committee Counsel, Illinois State House of
Representatives, 1973-1976.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Director, Academic Development, Inc. (non-compensated).
Member, Executive Committee, Illinois State University Alumni
Association.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
See Question 11 above. In addition, I hold the following
memberships:
Trustee, YMCA, Springfield, IL
Member, Sangamon County Bar Association
Member, Illinois State Bar Association
Member, Military Law Committee, Illinois State Bar
Association
Member, Pritzker Military Library
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.
Democratic candidate and elected office holder to the position of
Trustee, University of Illinois, 1990-2003.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
03/04.............................. Committee to Elect Jay $150
Hoffman.
03/04.............................. Sangamon County $200
Democrats.
05/04.............................. Citizens for Londrigan $100
06/04.............................. Sangamon County $150
Democrats.
08/04.............................. Friends of Dick Durbin $100
01/05.............................. Sangamon County $100
Democrats.
03/05.............................. Friends of Dick Durbin $100
04/05.............................. Friends of Mike $150
Madigan.
06/05.............................. Friends of Dick Durbin $250
06/06.............................. Friends of Dick Durbin $500
06/06.............................. Friends of Tammy $100
Duckworth.
08/06.............................. Friends of Dick Durbin $500
10/06.............................. Friends of Dick Durbin $150
10/06.............................. Friends of Dick Durbin $100
04/07.............................. Sangamon County $150
Chairman's Club.
04/07.............................. Friends of Dick Durbin $200
12/07.............................. Joseph McMenimen for $500
Congress.
01/08.............................. Friends of Dick Durbin $400
01/08.............................. Obama for America..... $250
06/08.............................. Friends of Dick Durbin $500
07/08.............................. Obama for America..... $250
09/08.............................. Citizens for Callahan $100
for Congress.
10/08.............................. Sangamon County $100
Democrats.
10/08.............................. Obama for America..... $250
10/08.............................. Obama for America..... $100
03/09.............................. Douglas Whitley for $500
Illinois Governor.
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--University of Illinois College of Law
Resolution of Distinguished Service--Illinois Board of Higher
Education, 2004
Resolution of Distinguished Service--University of Illinois, 2006
Military Medals:
Distinguished Service Medal (IL)
Legion of Merit (IL)
Meritorious Service Medal (1 OLC)
Army Commendation Medal
Army Achievement Medal (2 OLC)
Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal
National Defense Service Medal
Armed Forces Reserve Medal
Army Service Ribbon
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
``Power and Authority of the Attorney General's Office,''
Administrative Law Handbook, Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal
Education (1986).
``Getting Involved In the Legislative Process,'' Small Business
Reports, Vol. 13, no. 9; (November 1988).
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Thomas R. Lamont.
This 11th day of May, 2009.
[The nomination of Thomas R. Lamont was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on May 14, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 18, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Charles A. Blanchard by
Chairman Levin 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. At this time I am unaware of any reason to amend the
Goldwater-Nichols Act. If I am confirmed and I identify areas that I
believe merit changes, I will propose those changes through the
established process.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. See my prior answer.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the General Counsel of the Department of the Air Force?
Answer. The duties and functions of the General Counsel are
determined and assigned by the Secretary of the Air Force. The General
Counsel provides legal advice and guidance to the Secretary, the Under
Secretary, the Assistant Secretaries, their staffs, and other offices
within the Office of the Secretary, as well as to the Chief of Staff
and the rest of the Air Staff. The General Counsel also provides legal
services throughout the entire Department in a variety of disciplines
including fiscal law, ethics, dispute resolution, contract law,
environmental law, international law, intellectual property law, real
property law, personnel law, labor law, and litigation. As the chief
legal officer of the Department of the Air Force, the General Counsel
determines the controlling legal positions of the Department of the Air
Force. The General Counsel also serves as the Designated Agency Ethics
Official, the Suspension and Debarring Official for the Department of
the Air Force, and exercises oversight of intelligence and other
sensitive activities and investigations.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I believe that my education and over 20 years of practice--
in both public service and private practice--has well prepared me for
the challenges of this office.
I received a Bachelors of Science degree (with honors) from Lewis &
Clark College, where I was awarded the Rena Ratte Award given to the
most outstanding graduating senior. After graduating from college, I
attended Harvard Law School and the Harvard Kennedy School of
Government, where I received both a J.D. and a Master of Public Policy
in 1985. I graduated first in my class at Harvard Law School, and
served as one of two Articles Editors at the Harvard Law Review. I
clerked for Judge Harry Edwards of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S.
Supreme Court.
After serving as an Associate Independent Counsel in the Office of
Independent Counsel James C. McKay, in 1988, I returned to Phoenix, AZ,
and joined the law firm of Brown & Bain, which subsequently merged with
Perkins Coie, my present firm. I became a partner at the firm in 1996,
and my practice has focused on complex commercial litigation, antitrust
law, state constitutional law and election law.
My work in private practice has been interrupted by several years
in public service. While still an associate at Brown & Bain, I served
as a member of the Arizona State Senate from 1991-1995, where I chaired
the Judiciary Committee and also served as Vice Chair of the
Environment Committee. In 1997, I left the firm and became the Chief
Legal Counsel for the White House Office of National Drug Control
Policy, which was under the leadership of General (Ret.) Barry
McCaffrey.
For purposes of the position for which I am nominated, my most
relevant experience was as General Counsel of the Army from 1999 until
2001.
I returned to private practice in Arizona in 2001, where I also
serve as Adjunct Professor of Law at the Arizona State University
Sandra D. O'Connor College of Law, where I have taught National
Security Law and Election Law.
I believe that my experience as the chief legal counsel for two
government agencies, especially my service as General Counsel of the
Army, as well as my experience in private practice at a national law
firm, have prepared me for the challenging and diverse legal issues
that will face the Department of the Air Force.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the General Counsel of
the Department of the Air Force?
Answer. I believe I have the necessary legal training, experience
and leadership abilities to be the General Counsel. This is especially
true given my experience as the Army General Counsel for 2 years. I am
also a firm believer, however, that the best lawyers work hard to
completely understand the operations of their client. If confirmed, I
will benefit from the extraordinary talent, expertise and experience of
the civilian and military lawyers in the Department as I broaden my
understanding of the issues the Air Force faces every day.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of the Air Force would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I anticipate Secretary Donley will expect me
to provide timely, accurate, and candid legal advice and counsel,
ensuring compliance with the law and the protection of the legal
prerogatives of the Department. I expect the duties and functions of
the office will cover the wide range of legal issues and
responsibilities prescribed by the Secretary. I anticipate the
Secretary would expect me to manage the General Counsel's Office
efficiently and effectively. Additionally, I anticipate the Secretary
would expect me to foster an atmosphere of professionalism and
responsiveness regarding all legal matters and services while working
with the Office of The Judge Advocate General, the General Counsels of
the Department of Defense (DOD) and the other military departments, as
well as the legal staffs of other government agencies.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
General Counsel of DOD?
Answer. The General Counsel of DOD is the Chief Legal Officer and
final legal authority for DOD. Although there is no direct reporting
relationship to the General Counsel of DOD, Jeh Johnson has made clear
in his testimony before this Committee and his actions in the
Department, that he intends to work closely with the Service General
Counsels. If confirmed, I anticipate having a close and professional
relationship with Mr. Johnson, characterized by continuing
consultation, communication, and cooperation on matters of mutual
interest, in furtherance of the best interests of DOD.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the General Counsel of the Department of the Air Force?
Answer. The challenges facing the Department of the Air Force as a
whole, as well as DOD, will largely determine the challenges that will
confront the General Counsel of the Air Force. Certainly both President
Obama and Secretary Gates have made clear that acquisition reform will
be a priority in the near term, and I expect that to be a priority for
the General Counsel of the Air Force as well. Although the current
environment makes it difficult to anticipate all specific legal
questions, I also expect to confront issues relating to operational
matters, intelligence, privatization initiatives, military and civilian
personnel policies, and compliance with environmental laws. In
addressing these challenges, I think it will be critically important
that the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of The Judge
Advocate General have a cooperative and professional partnership.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan on working closely with the Secretary,
the Chief of Staff, The Judge Advocate General, and the talented and
dedicated attorneys in the Department of the Air Force to candidly
evaluate the challenges and to ensure responsive and accurate legal
services are provided to meet and address these challenges. In
addition, if confirmed, I will work to adequately resource and expertly
staff the Air Force legal community, in order to guarantee decision
makers at all levels access to the best legal advice possible.
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 Air Force?
Answer. If confirmed, my foremost priority will be to provide the
Air Force timely, accurate, and candid legal advice, ensuring
compliance with the law and protection of the legal prerogatives of the
Air Force. It is imperative that the Air Force has the legal support
necessary to build and maintain the very best air, space and cyberspace
capabilities possible.
relationship with the judge advocate general
Question. In carrying out your duties, if you are confirmed, how
will you work with The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force?
Answer. As General Counsel of the Army from 1999 to 2001, I enjoyed
an excellent working relationship with The Judge Advocate General's
Corps that resulted in the delivery of high quality legal services to
the Army leadership. I learned that civilian and military lawyers bring
unique and vital experiences and expertise to the table, and that the
final legal advice given to the client benefited greatly from our close
working relationship. If confirmed, I will work to establish a close
professional relationship with The Judge Advocate General. Consultation
on matters of mutual import and interest should characterize that
relationship. It is imperative that the two offices work well together
to provide the highest quality of legal support to the Department of
the Air Force.
Question. How are the legal responsibilities of the Department of
the Air Force allocated between the General Counsel and The Judge
Advocate General?
Answer. My experience at the Army convinced me that it is critical
that The Judge Advocate General and the General Counsel work as
collaborative partners in proving the best possible legal services to
our common client. If confirmed, I will make developing such a
partnership a priority. The Secretary of the Air Force has designated
the Air Force General Counsel as the chief legal officer of the
Department of the Air Force. In recognition of the unique expertise and
experiences provided by the Office of the General Counsel and The Judge
Advocate General, both offices provide legal advice to the Secretary of
the Air Force and other Department officials. In addition, The Judge
Advocate General is responsible for the activities of The Judge
Advocate General's Corps and is primarily responsible for providing
legal advice and services regarding the Uniform Code of Military
Justice. The law expressly prohibits interference with the ability of
The Judge Advocate General to give independent legal advice to the
Secretary of the Air Force. Even in the absence of that statutory
requirement, I would welcome the expression of independent views on
legal issues by The Judge Advocate General.
Question. How will you ensure that legal opinions of your office
will be available to Air Force attorneys, including judge advocates?
Answer. It is my understanding that the majority of legal opinions
provided to Air Force attorneys and judge advocates are published
through a cooperative General Counsel and TJAG process. Close
professional cooperation between the civilian and uniformed members of
the Air Force's legal community is absolutely essential to ensure
appropriate legal opinions issued by the Office of the Air Force
General Counsel will be available to all Air Force attorneys and Judge
Advocates, and vice versa.
Question. In response to attempts within DOD to subordinate legal
functions and authorities of The Judge Advocates General to the General
Counsels of DOD and the Military Services, Congress enacted legislation
prohibiting any officer or employee of DOD from interfering with the
ability of The Judge Advocates General of the Military Services and the
legal advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide
independent legal advice to the Chairman, Service Secretaries, and
Service Chiefs. Congress also required a study and review by outside
experts of the relationships between the legal elements of each of the
military departments.
What is your view of the need for The Judge Advocate General of the
Air Force to provide independent legal advice to the Secretary of the
Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force?
Answer. The Judge Advocate General's ability to provide independent
legal advice has been statutorily recognized as essential to the
effective delivery of legal services. I share that view. Uniformed
attorneys bring another perspective and can provide insight and advice
shaped by years of service throughout the Air Force.
Question. What is your view of the responsibility of Air Force
judge advocates to provide independent legal advice to military
commanders?
Answer. Air Force Judge Advocates have a critical responsibility to
provide independent legal advice to commanders, given the missions they
perform. I think that this is well stated by The Judge Advocate General
Corps mission statement, which emphasizes the importance of
professional, candid and independent legal advice.
Question. If confirmed, would you propose any changes to the
current relationships between the uniformed judge advocates and General
Counsel?
Answer. If confirmed, I will make improving the relationship
between the General Counsel and The Judge Advocate General a top
priority, to ensure the effective delivery of legal services to the
Department of the Air Force.
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 Air Force?
Answer. The Judge Advocate General has the primary responsibility
for providing legal advice and services regarding the Uniform Code of
Military Justice and the administration of military discipline. 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. I will, if confirmed, consult 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, and will provide advice to the
Secretary of the Air Force as needed.
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. If confirmed, I plan to work to maintain the Air Force's
ability to obtain and retain the highest quality civilian and military
attorneys both in the General Counsel's Office and The Judge Advocate
General's Corps. If confirmed, I want to make Federal service as a
civilian attorney in the Air Force as attractive and professionally
rewarding as possible. I will also work with The Judge Advocate General
to ensure the Air Force has the tools we need to continue to recruit
and retain the best attorneys available.
Question. In your view, does the Department of the Air Force have a
sufficient number of attorneys to perform its missions?
Answer. If confirmed, I will, in consultation with The Judge
Advocate General, evaluate the adequacy of the numbers of attorneys in
the Department of the Air Force to accomplish the Air Force's missions.
Question. In your view, what incentives to successful recruiting
and retention of attorneys, if any, need to be implemented or
established?
Answer. While General Counsel of the Army, I worked closely with
The Judge Advocate General to implement retention bonuses for military
lawyers. My understanding is that this program was very effective in
retaining outstanding military lawyers. I am not familiar with the full
scope of the Air Force's programs for recruiting and retaining military
and civilian attorneys, but if confirmed, in consultation with The
Judge Advocate General, I will look at this area very carefully and
support initiatives that enhance the Air Force's ability to recruit and
retain the best legal talent available.
detainee issues
Question. What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in helping
DOD and the Department of the Air Force address legal issues regarding
detainees?
Answer. The legal issues regarding detainees are of critical
importance to DOD and the Department of the Air Force. These issues
need to be handled with great care, and with a clear focus on the rule
of law. I understand that the Air Force Office of the General Counsel
and the Office of The Judge Advocate General have representatives
assisting the DOD General Counsel in responding to the President's
executive orders in this area. If confirmed, I will work closely with
the DOD General Counsel in executing the President's directives.
Additionally, in consultation with The Judge Advocate General, I will
provide advice to the Secretary regarding detainee issues affecting the
Air Force, with particular focus on our obligation to treat all
detainees humanely.
Question. Section 1403 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006 provides 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.
In your view, is the prohibition in the best interest of the United
States? Why or why not?
Answer. Yes, this prohibition is in the best interest of the United
States. Prohibiting the cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or
punishment of individuals in our custody or under our physical control
upholds our ideals and obligations, and reinforces our moral authority
around the world.
Question. Do you believe that the phrase ``cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment'' has been adequately and
appropriately defined for the purpose of this provision?
Answer. I understand that considerable attention is being given to
this issue within DOD. If confirmed, I will play an active part in
ensuring the Department's implementing directives make clear what
conduct is prohibited.
Question. What role do you believe the General Counsel of the Air
Force should play in the interpretation of this standard?
Answer. The appropriate role of the General Counsel is to provide
advice to the Secretary of the Air Force and his staff on policies that
implement this standard. If confirmed, I will ensure Air Force
implementation is consistent with the law.
Question. What role do you believe The Judge Advocate General of
the Air Force should play in the interpretation of this standard?
Answer. The Judge Advocate General provides advice on policies that
implement this standard. The Judge Advocate General should also
continue to train and supervise the judge advocates in the field, who
are instrumental in maintaining this standard.
Question. If confirmed, will you take steps to ensure that all
relevant Air Force directives, regulations, policies, practices, and
procedures fully comply with the requirements of section 1403 and with
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions?
Answer. I will. The requirements of section 1403 and Common Article
3 of the Geneva Conventions remain essential to maintaining a
disciplined Air Force, bound by the Rule of Law.
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, DOD
Detainee Program, dated September 5, 2006?
Answer. I do.
Question. Section 2441 of title 18, U.S.C., as amended by the
Military Commissions Act of 2006, defines grave breaches of common
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, including torture and cruel and
inhuman treatment.
In your view, does section 2441 define these terms in a manner that
provides appropriate protection from abusive treatment to U.S.
detainees in foreign custody and to foreign detainees in U.S. custody?
Answer. This statute is intended to provide criminal sanctions for
specific war crimes as provided under international law and also
violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Even apart from our
obligations to prosecute these violations, however, the United States
also has the obligation to ``take all measures necessary for the
suppression'' of all other violations of the Geneva Conventions, even
those that are not grave breaches, and I believe the Department must
continue to hold military members accountable for violations of these
standards as well. I think that this statute, in addition to robust and
vigilant training of Airmen of our legal obligations, will protect
against abusive treatment of foreign detainees in U.S. custody, as well
as provide proper criminal sanctions against those who do not likewise
secure reciprocal protection of U.S. detainees in foreign custody.
contractors on the battlefield
Question. U.S. military operations in Iraq have relied on
contractor support to a greater degree than any previous U.S. military
operations. The extensive involvement of contractor employees in a
broad array of activities--including security functions--has raised
questions about the legal accountability of contractor employees for
their actions.
Do you believe that current DOD and Department of the Air Force
regulations appropriately define and limit the scope of security
functions that may be performed by contractors in an area of combat
operations?
Answer. It is my understanding that DOD instructions and
procurement regulations that define the limit and scope of security
functions are currently under review. Accordingly, it would be
premature for me to offer an opinion at this time regarding whether
current DOD and Department of the Air Force regulations on the subject
are adequate.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to such
regulations?
Answer. I have been advised that the Office of Management and
Budget is leading an interagency working group to write definitions and
criteria for sorting out the blended workforce and that the DOD is
reviewing certain instructions in this area. Accordingly, it would be
premature for me to offer specific changes to DOD or Department of the
Air Force regulations until the results of these reviews are known.
Question. Do you believe that current DOD and Department of the Air
Force regulations appropriately define and limit the scope of
contractor participation in the interrogation of detainees?
Answer. It is my understanding that current DOD policy
appropriately limits contractor participation in the interrogation of
detainees. If confirmed, I will examine the Air Force implementation of
these policies.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to such
regulations?
Answer. I have no basis to propose any changes at this time.
Question. OMB Circular A-76 defines ``inherently governmental
functions'' to include ``discretionary functions'' that could
``significantly affect the life, liberty, or property of private
persons''.
In your view, is the performance of security functions that may
reasonably be expected to require the use of deadly force in highly
hazardous public areas in an area of combat operations an inherently
governmental function?
Answer. I understand that support services that require substantial
discretion or prudent judgment are inherently governmental, and that
the likelihood that an individual will be required to resort to force,
especially deadly force, and the degree to which an individual may be
required to exercise force in public are important factors to consider
in assessing whether a particular security mission is inherently
governmental. Therefore, if I am confirmed, I am willing to examine
this matter to ensure appropriate attention is given to the legal
aspects of this issue.
Question. In your view, is the interrogation of enemy prisoners of
war and other detainees during and in the aftermath of hostilities an
inherently governmental function?
Answer. I understand that under DOD policy the direction and
control of interrogations--to include the approval, supervision and
oversight of interrogations, as well as the execution of those aspects
of an interrogation that entail substantial discretion--are inherently
governmental activities. Consequently, in my view, the Department
should continue to assess the appropriateness of the contractor's role,
if any, in interrogations.
Question. What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in
addressing the issue of what functions may appropriately be performed
by contractors on the battlefield?
Answer. If confirmed, I will advise senior Air Force leadership
regarding the functions that contractors may legally perform on the
battlefield, and I will assist them in implementing policies regarding
the use of contractors that are consistent with applicable law and DOD
policy.
Question. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) was
enacted in 2000 to extend the criminal jurisdiction of the U.S. courts
to persons employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces outside the
United States.
In your view, does MEJA provide appropriate jurisdiction for
alleged criminal actions of contractor employees in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and other areas of combat operations?
Answer. I understand that MEJA was intended to address the
jurisdictional gap in U.S. law regarding criminal sanctions, as applied
to civilians employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces outside the
United States, members of the Armed Forces, and former members of the
Armed Forces, including their dependents. In my opinion, MEJA provides
an effective means of exercising extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction
over contractor employees in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas of
combat operations who engage in conduct that would constitute a felony-
level Federal crime in the United States.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to MEJA?
Answer. If confirmed, I will study this issue and assess what
changes to MEJA may be appropriate, if any.
Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in
developing administration recommendations for changes to MEJA?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to play an active role in the
development of any proposals to change MEJA. I would also coordinate
closely with The Judge Advocate General in the development of any such
proposals given the complementary and sometimes overlapping
availability of jurisdiction under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice.
Question. Section 552 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007 extended criminal jurisdiction of the military courts
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to persons serving with or
accompanying an armed force in the field during time of declared war or
a contingency operation, such as our current operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
In your view, does the UCMJ provide appropriate jurisdiction for
alleged criminal actions of contractor employees in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and other areas of combat operations?
Answer. The UCMJ provides commanders the tools necessary to
maintain good order and discipline and the morale, welfare and safety
of all those under their jurisdiction during military operations.
Because misconduct by contractors may undermine good order and
discipline, Congress extended UCMJ jurisdiction over such individuals,
and the Secretary of Defense, in turn, published guidance on the
prudent exercise of such jurisdiction. This guidance ensures that the
Department of Justice and the DOD each play an appropriate role in
resolving whether, and under which system, jurisdiction might be better
exercised in each potential case.
Question. What is your view of the procedures agreed upon by DOD
and the Department of Justice to reconcile jurisdictional
responsibilities under MEJA and the UCMJ?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to review the procedures
agreed upon by DOD and the Department of Justice to reconcile
jurisdictional responsibilities under MEJA and the UCMJ. If confirmed,
I will, in coordination with The Judge Advocate General, assess the
effectiveness of the procedures and whether further refinements of
these procedures are necessary.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the UCMJ to
ensure appropriate jurisdiction for alleged criminal actions of
contractor employees?
Answer. At present, I am not aware of any specific provisions in
need of change.
religious guidelines
Question. What is your understanding of current policies and
programs of DOD and the Department of the Air Force regarding religious
practices in the military?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Air Force has supported
policies of religious tolerance and mutual respect. If confirmed, I
would continue the Air Force's commitment to upholding the
constitutional tenets of the ``free exercise'' and ``establishment''
clauses, and review policies as necessary to assure continued
compliance with the First Amendment.
Question. In your view, do these policies accommodate the free
exercise of religion and other beliefs without impinging on those who
have different beliefs, including no religious belief?
Answer. I have not had opportunity to review the Air Force's
policies regarding free exercise of religion and other beliefs. If
confirmed, I will study this issue to determine if changes in policy
are necessary under the law.
Question. In your opinion, do existing policies and practices
regarding public prayers offered by military chaplains in a variety of
formal and informal settings strike the proper balance between a
chaplain's ability to pray in accordance with his or her religious
beliefs and the rights of other servicemembers with different beliefs,
including no religious belief?
Answer. I understand that chaplains are not compelled to offer
prayers that are inconsistent with their faith, but are expected to
remain sensitive to the pluralistic Air Force and society they serve.
In my opinion, such an approach strikes an appropriate balance given
the diversity of religious views in the Air Force. If confirmed, I am
willing to study this issue further to determine if changes in policy
are necessary under the law.
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. As General Counsel of the Army, I played a role in
reviewing general officer nominations, and I understand that the role
of the Air Force General Counsel is similar to that of the Army General
Counsel. I understand that, for general officer promotions, the Office
of the General Counsel reviews the following:
a. Memoranda of Instruction that govern the conduct of
promotion selection boards and subsequent promotion selection
board reports.
b. Adverse information that is not in an officer's official
military personnel file that may be presented to the promotion
selection board. I have been advised that this information is
reviewed to ensure it is accurate and comports with the
requirements of Title 10 such that the information is
``substantiated, relevant information that could reasonably
affect the deliberations of the selection board.''
c. Adverse information related to general officers. In
general officer cases, the standard for adverse information
that must be presented to a promotion selection board is ``any
credible information of an adverse nature.'' I have been
advised that the Office of the General Counsel participates in
a detailed screening process in which all credible information
related to officers whose records will be reviewed by a
promotion selection board for promotion to a general officer
grade. The process ensures that all adverse information is
properly identified for presentation to the promotion selection
board.
d. Adverse information that becomes available after a
promotion selection board makes its recommendations. I have
been advised that the Office of the General Counsel provides
legal advice to the Secretary of the Air Force so that he may
determine whether a promotion review board should be convened
to consider whether to continue to support the promotion of the
considered officer or take steps to remove the officer from the
board report or promotion list.
Question. What is your understanding of the role of the General
Counsel of the Department of the Air Force in ensuring the legal
sufficiency of statutory selection board processes?
Answer. I understand that, prior to approval by the Secretary of
the Air Force, all Memoranda of Instructions for officer promotion
selection boards are reviewed by the Office of the General Counsel 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 reviewed by
the Office of the General Counsel prior to final action on the report
by the Secretary. The General Counsel must determine that the Air Force
has met applicable statutory standards, DOD direction and Secretary of
the Air Force guidelines and that individual selection board reports
conform to the law. The General Counsel must advise the Secretary of
the Air Force 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 Air Force and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), the General Counsel helps
to ensure that Air Force promotion policies properly implement
applicable laws and regulations and are fairly applied.
Question. What is the role, if any, of the General Counsel of the
Department of the Air Force in reviewing and providing potentially
adverse information pertaining to a nomination to the Senate Armed
Services Committee?
Answer. From my service as General Counsel of the Army, I
understand the importance of ensuring that substantiated or potentially
adverse information is reported to the Senate Armed Services Committee
in a timely, accurate, and comprehensive manner. It is my understanding
that under current Department of the Air Force 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. If confirmed, I will ensure that 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, accurate, and comprehensible 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
Air Force, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Manpower and
Reserve Affairs), and other senior Department leaders to ensure that
the Department of the Air Force military personnel policies are
formulated and applied uniformly, fairly, and in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations. If confirmed, it will be my duty to
take appropriate action if I become aware of an individual case in
which military personnel policies were not fairly and lawfully applied.
If confirmed, I will coordinate with the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), who exercises overall supervision
of the Air Force Review Boards Agency, regarding the legal sufficiency
of the determinations made by the Air Force Board for the Correction of
Military Records. In addition, I am aware of and fully respect the
independent role that the Air Force Board for the Correction of
Military Records plays in the correction of military records.
sexual assault prevention and response policy
Question. Numerous cases of sexual misconduct involving airmen and
cadets have been reported 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 respond
appropriately by providing basic services, including medical attention
and criminal investigations of their charges.
What is your understanding of the resources and programs the Air
Force has in place in deployed locations to offer victims of serious
sexual assaults the medical, psychological, and legal help they need?
Answer. This is an extremely important issue for the Air Force and,
if confirmed, I will focus significant attention on this area. I am not
fully aware of all Air Force initiatives or resources, but I understand
that the Air Force has recently taken steps to improve the assistance
to all victims of sexual assaults, with enhanced recognition of the
special circumstances that apply to deployments. If confirmed, in
consultation with The Judge Advocate General and other senior leaders,
I will study this matter in greater depth with a view to ensuring the
Air Force continues to take appropriate steps to provide medical,
psychological, and legal help to airmen who are victims of sexual
assault.
Question. What is your view of the steps the Air Force has taken to
prevent additional sexual assaults on female soldiers at their home
stations and when they are deployed?
Answer. I do not have sufficient information to evaluate the steps
taken by the Air Force to prevent sexual assaults on female airmen. I
understand the importance of this issue, however, and if confirmed, I
will assess whether additional steps need to be taken. If confirmed, I
look forward to working closely with Air Force leaders on all
initiatives to prevent sexual assault.
Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the training and
resources the Air Force has in place to investigate and respond to
allegations of sexual assault?
Answer. Presently, I am not familiar with all of the Air Force
training and resources to investigate and respond to allegations of
sexual assault. If confirmed, I will become familiar with them and will
assess whether additional steps should be taken to support victims and
hold offenders accountable.
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. 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 that they
understand their legal responsibilities in this important area. In
addition, if I become aware of any particular cases involving
reprisals, I will ensure that they are addressed in accordance with the
law. Whistleblower protections for military personnel are essential to
the integrity of the Air Force, and merit serious attention by the
General Counsel.
support to air force inspector general
Question. What role, if any, do you think the General Counsel of
the Air Force should have in reviewing the investigations and
recommendations of the Air Force Inspector General?
Answer. If confirmed, I will establish and maintain a close,
professional relationship with the Inspector General, and will provide
candid, independent, and objective legal advice. As part of my
responsibility to review legal and policy issues arising from the Air
Force intelligence and counterintelligence activities, I will advise
the Inspector General concerning proper reporting of the Air Force
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.
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. Comprehensive and deliberate professional development of
career civilian attorneys and paralegals is an important building block
to ensure the Air Force receives the highest quality legal services. I
understand that in December 2006 the Air Force General Counsel and The
Judge Advocate General formed a joint program to actively develop
civilian legal personnel to meet current and future Air Force
functional and leadership requirements. I am advised that, in
accordance with the charter for this program, a Civilian Legal
Community Policy Council composed of representatives of both
organizations meets regularly to advance initiatives for the
development of the Air Force civilian legal community. If confirmed, I
will work closely with all of the entities affected by this issue to
support the continuing and important efforts of the Policy Council and
any other initiative deemed appropriate.
client
Question. In your opinion, who is the client of the General Counsel
of the Department of the Air Force?
Answer. The client of the General Counsel of the Department of the
Air Force is the Department of the Air Force, acting through its
authorized officials.
acquisition issues
Question. What role should the General Counsel play in ensuring
that Air Force procurement programs are executed in accordance with the
law and DOD acquisition policy?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary of the
Air Force, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition), and
other senior officials to ensure the Department of the Air Force's
acquisition and procurement programs are executed in accordance with
applicable provisions of law, as well as DOD guidance. Participation by
Air Force lawyers should start in the earliest stages of program
development. They should seek out potential legal issues and, where
appropriate, identify lawful alternative courses of action.
Question. What role should the General Counsel play in ensuring
that ethics provisions on conflict of interest are followed both by Air
Force personnel and by Air Force contractors?
Answer. Ethics training, acquisition ethics training, and fostering
a culture of ethics throughout the Air Force are paramount in creating
an organizational climate that is sensitive to the need of avoiding
conflicts of interest and that reacts appropriately when such issues
arise. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary of the Air
Force, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition), The
Judge Advocate General, and other senior officials to promote an
organizational climate that is sensitive to the need to avoid conflicts
of interest and that reacts appropriately when specific issues arise.
This also extends to ensuring that Air Force personnel adhere to the
letter and spirit of the law relating to post-employment restrictions.
I believe Air Force lawyers can make a significant contribution to
these endeavors through provision of training, through early and
sustained involvement in the Department's acquisition programs and
procurement activities, and through continued instructional outreach to
industry.
Question. Allegations of fraud and abuse during contingency
contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan have been wide-spread.
What role should the General Counsel play in ensuring that Air
Force personnel are properly trained in contingency contracting and are
supervised in the performance of their duties?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary of the
Air Force, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition), The
Judge Advocate General, and other senior officials to ensure the legal
community continues to fully support training, policy development, and
an ethical climate to promote the highest technical and ethical
standards in our contingency contracting operations. I strongly support
initiatives to adequately resource, train and equip contracting
personnel to properly conduct contingency contracting, assuring
vigilant stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Lastly, I would promote
increased collaboration between our acquisition professionals,
investigators, fraud counsel, and other stakeholders to ensure that we
are doing everything we can to limit the opportunity for fraud, waste,
and abuse in the contingency contracting process, and to correct those
situations where there has been a breach.
detecting organizational conflicts of interest
Question. Organizational conflicts of interest have become a major
concern with the growing use of private contractors being tasked to
perform key functions that the services had formerly performed in-
house. This has been seen in cases in which highly qualified
individuals who expect to be hired as government employees need a
salary pending completion of the hiring process.
What do you think the Air Force should do, and what should the
General Counsel's role be, in ensuring that the Air Force identifies
organizational conflicts of interests and takes the appropriate steps
to avoid or mitigate them?
Answer. If confirmed to serve as the General Counsel, I will work
with Air Force senior leadership to educate our personnel to understand
the circumstances that can lead to an organizational conflict of
interest and to identify those circumstances at the earliest
opportunity. I will help ensure that all circumstances of potential
organizational conflicts are promptly addressed in a manner consistent
with appropriate guidance. Our goals need to include avoidance of
conflicting roles that might bias a contractor's judgment and
prevention of circumstances that may result in an unfair competitive
advantage.
Question. What is your understanding of steps the Air Force has
taken to address the problems created by delays in the hiring process
under circumstances in which the Air Force intends to hire an
individual into government service?
Answer. I understand that Air Force leadership has engaged with the
Office of Personnel Management, DOD and associated liaison offices to
address factors which can delay hiring actions. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with Air Force leadership to continue this effort to
minimize or eliminate delays.
legal ethics
Question. What is your understanding of the action a Department of
the Air Force attorney or an Air Force Judge Advocate should take if
the attorney becomes aware of improper activities by a Department of
the Air Force official who has sought the attorney's legal advice and
the official is unwilling to follow the attorney's advice?
Answer. The attorney should immediately bring the matter to the
attention of the attorney's supervisor and, if not satisfactorily
resolved, to higher level supervisory lawyers or authorities in the
chain of supervision or command.
Question. Do you believe that the present limits on pro bono
activities of government attorneys are generally correct as a matter of
policy or does the policy need to be reviewed?
Answer. I understand that government attorneys may participate in
pro bono activities on their own time, consistent with statute,
regulation, or other rule or guidelines. I also understand that
specific guidance applicable to the JAG Corps permits pro bono work
with supervisory approval so long as the representation does not occur
on government time or at its expense, does not interfere with official
duties, and does not create a conflict of interest or the appearance of
a conflict of interest. Although I am not aware of the need to address
pro bono activities, if confirmed, I would review the current policy
with The Judge Advocate General.
Question. In your view, do the laws, regulations and guidelines
that establish the rules of professional responsibility for attorneys
in the Department of the Air Force provide adequate guidance?
Answer. I understand that all DOD lawyers are required to be
members in good standing of a State Bar and are therefore subject to
the rules of professional responsibility of their particular
jurisdiction. Lawyers engaged in litigation must also comply with the
rules of the court in which they appear. All military and civilian
lawyers in The Judge Advocate General's Corps must comply with the
specific rules applicable to them. If confirmed, I will review the
rules of professional responsibility applicable to Air Force lawyers to
assess if changes are required.
role in the officer promotion and confirmation process
Question. In your view, what is the role of the General Counsel of
the Department of the Air Force in ensuring the integrity and proper
functioning of the officer promotion process?
Answer. I understand that, under title 10, U.S.C., the Secretary of
the Air Force is responsible for the proper functioning of the
Department of the Air Force promotion selection process. In addition to
the legal review of memoranda of instruction and selection board
reports to ensure they comport with statutory standards, DOD policy and
Secretary of the Air Force guidance the Air Force General Counsel must
also ensure the conduct of the board process conforms to all legal
requirements. Additionally, the General Counsel must advise the
Secretary of the Air Force of any case in which a selection board
report or selection board process 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 Air
Force and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs), the General Counsel helps to ensure
that Air Force promotion policies properly implement applicable laws
and regulations and are fairly applied.
litigation involving the department of the air force
Question. In your opinion, what is the relationship between the
Department of the Air Force and the Department of Justice with respect
to litigation involving DOD?
Answer. The Department of Justice represents the Department of the
Air Force in civil litigation. If confirmed, I will work with The Judge
Advocate General to ensure the continuation of a collaborative
relationship with the Department of Justice with respect to litigation
involving the Department of the Air Force.
Question. In your view, does the Department need more independence
and resources to conduct its own litigation or to improve upon its
current supporting role?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Air Force's interests in
civil litigation are effectively protected and defended by the
Department of Justice. If confirmed, I will work with The Judge
Advocate General to ensure that adequate resources are available to
ensure that the Air Force is able to provide the appropriate level of
support to the Department of Justice and protect the Air Force's
interests in civil litigation in which the department is involved.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the General Counsel of the
Department of the Air Force?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
Question. 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?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Question for the record with answer supplied follows:]
Question Submitted by Senator John Thune
training range encroachment
1. Senator Thune. Mr. Blanchard, community encroachment has been an
issue around Air Force bases for several years. As the size of
surrounding communities increase, the number of complaints about
aircraft operations often increases as well. The same can be said with
respect to military training routes, military operations areas
airspace, and training ranges. These complaints can instigate
operational changes as well as airspace changes. While some of these
changes make good common sense, others adversely affect aircrew
training and combat readiness. In your opinion, does the Air Force have
legal authority to prevent training range encroachment? If so, to what
extent should the Air Force use this authority to help maintain its
capacity for realistic training?
Mr. Blanchard. The safety of our Airmen while carrying out their
training and combat readiness missions is critical. To further this
end, the Air Force has at its disposal a number of tools to manage
encroachment and noise issues. The cooperation and support of
surrounding communities is always the first choice. Development
restriction in the form of zoning by municipalities and counties
surrounding an installation is the most common method to prevent land
uses incompatible with the mission. The Air Force uses its Air
Installation Compatible Use Zone process and Joint Land Use Studies as
means to work with municipalities and counties to promote compatible
uses surrounding installations and ranges. In addition, the Office of
the Secretary of Defense makes funding available each year to military
installations under the Readiness and Environmental Protection
Initiative (REPI) to enter into agreements with eligible partners to
purchase surrounding property rights from willing sellers to prevent
encroachment and protect species habitat. The Air Force is currently
using REPI program authority and funds at 10 different bases to acquire
conservation or other restrictive easements to help address
encroachment issues.
______
[The nomination reference of Charles A. Blanchard follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 30, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Charles A. Blanchard of Arizona, to be General Counsel of the
Department of the Air Force, vice Mary L. Walker, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Charles A. Blanchard, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Charles A. Blanchard
Charles A. Blanchard is a partner at the Phoenix office of Perkins
Coie Brown & Bain, with a practice that focuses on complex commercial
litigation, antitrust, State constitutional law, and election law. In
addition to his career at Perkins Coie, Blanchard's over 20 year legal
career includes many years of public service, included positions as the
chief attorney at two Federal governmental agencies.
Most recently, from 1999 until 2001, he served as General Counsel
of the Army, where he acted as the top legal officer to the Department
of the Army. From 1997 until 1999, he served as Chief Counsel to the
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy during the tenure of
Barry McCaffrey as Drug Czar. Other government experience includes two
terms as a member of the Arizona State Senate, work as an Associate
Independent Counsel in the Office of James C. McKay, law clerk for D.C.
Circuit Judge Harry Edwards and law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. He also served as the Interim Homeland
Security Director for Governor Janet Napolitano in 2003.
Blanchard is a 1985 graduate of Harvard Law School (where he
graduated first in his class) and the Harvard Kennedy School of
Government (where he earned a Masters in Public Policy). He graduated
with a Bachelor of Science from Lewis & Clark College in Portland, OR,
in 1981. Blanchard is active in the community and has served on
numerous Boards and Commissions, including the Governor's Regulatory
Review Council, Children's Action Alliance, and the Arizona Foundation
for Legal Services and Education. He lives in Phoenix, AZ, with his
wife Allison and his 4 year old son Teddy.
______
[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 A.
Blanchard 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 Alan Blanchard.
2. Position to which nominated:
General Counsel, U.S. Department of the Air Force.
3. Date of nomination:
April 30, 2009.
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 14, 1959; San Diego, CA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to the former Allison Jo Major.
7. Names and ages of children:
Charles Edward Blanchard (Teddy); age 4.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Harvard University (1981-1985), JD/MPP magna cum laude (June 1985).
Lewis & Clark College (1977-1981), Bachelor of Science (Chemistry)
(June 1981).
Sprague High School (1974-1977), High School Diploma (June 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.
Partner, Perkins Coie Brown & Bain, PA; Phoenix, AZ; (March 2001-
present).
General Counsel, U.S. Army; Arlington, VA; (August 1999-January
2001).
Director, Office of Legal Counsel, Office of National Drug Control
Policy; Washington, DC (August 1997-August 1999).
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Consultant (SGE), Department of Defense Pentagon Transition Office
(April 14, 2009-present).
Council Member, Governor's Regulatory Review Council; Phoenix, AZ
(February 2004-January 2009).
Interim Homeland Security Director (consultant) Office of Governor
Janet Napolitano (January 2003-May 2003).
Arizona State Senator (1991-1995).
Associate Independent Counsel, Office of Independent Counsel James
C. McKay; Washington, DC (June 1987-April 1988).
Law Clerk, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (July
1986-June 1987).
Law Clerk, Judge Harry T. Edwards, U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC
Court, Washington, DC (July 1985-July 1986).
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, Perkins Coie Brown & Bain PA
Adjunct Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor School of Law, Arizona State
University
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Vice President, Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project
Vice President, Children's Action Alliance
Board Member, Arizona Foundation for Legal Services and Education
Member, Arizona Bar Association
Member, Maricopa County Bar Association
Member, American Bar Association
Member, Nature Conservancy
Member, Arizona Town Hall
Member, Harvard Law School Alumni Association
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
Candidate:
Arizona State Senate (Democrat) (1990, 1992); U.S. Congress
(AZ CD1) (Democrat) (1994)
Officer:
State Committeeman, Arizona Democratic Party (1991-1995,
2003-2005).
Precinct Committeeman, Arizona Democratic Party (1988-1995,
2003-2005).
Delegate, Democratic National Convention (1992).
Rules Committee, Democratic National Convention (1996).
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
In addition to the offices listed in (a) above, I have been outside
legal counsel for the following committees:
Arizona Democratic Party
Ellen Simon for Congress
Giffords for Congress
Harry Mitchell for Congress
Bob Lord for Congress
(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.
Note: These are contributions made both by me and my wife:
Al Franken for Senate
01/10/2009; $100
Arizona Democratic Party
11/08/2005; $400
04/24/2006; $1,000
06/12/2007; $1,000
12/12/2007; $250
10/29/2008; $500
Arizona List
09/23/2004; $200
04/18/2007; $100
01/09/2008; $100
09/18/2008; $200
Arizona Senate 2006
06/08/2006; $2,000
Kerry Victory Fund
06/12/2004; $2,000
Committee to Elect Chad Campbell
04/26/2005; $370
Doug Allsworth for School Board
09/16/2006; $500
Bob Lord for Congress
02/14/2007; $500
12/22/2007; $500
Ellen Simon for Congress
09/21/2006; $1,000
Friends of Tom Umberg
03/10/2004; $500
Georgians for Meade (Howard Meade--Member running for judge of
Court of Appeals)
03/14/2004; $500
09/23/2007; $250
Giffords for Congress
01/03/2006; $1,000
10/26/2006; $1,000
06/12/2007; $200
03/22/2008; $1,000
Harry Mitchell for Congress
09/22/2006; $1,000
10/27/2006; $1,000
04/05/2007; $1,000
03/27/2008; $500
07/02/2008; $1,000
10/27/2008; $500
Janet Napolitano (Governor) 2006
03/03/2006; $120
Keep It Clean
07/06/2004; $250
Kirkpatrick for Arizona
03/22/2008; $500
06/19/2008; $1,000
07/23/2008; $500
09/28/2007; $500
10/27/2008; $500
Kris Mayes 2004
03/17/2004; $110
Napolitano Office Account
07/28/2005; $120
Obama for America
02/04/2008; $2,000
03/26/2008; $300
05/28/2008; $1,000
09/04/2008; $2,300
Obama Fund
10/23/2008; $500
Jose Cerda for Clerk (Cook County Clerk)
12/24/2006; $500
Pederson for Senate
12/02/2005; $1,000
09/29/2006; $1,000
People for Grijalva
04/16/2004; $250
06/01/2005; $250
Spitzer 2006
06/01/2006; $500
Tim Nelson for County Attorney
05/08/2008; $780
Warshaw for County Attorney, Maricopa County
07/13/2004; $200
14. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Army Distinguished Service Award (2001)
ONDCP Directors Award for Distinguished Service (1999)
Governors Council on Highway Safety Awareness (1992)
Toll Fellowship (Council of State Governments) (1993)
Arizona Attorney General's Distinguished Service Award (1992)
Fay Diploma (Top Student), Harvard Law School (1985)
Rena Ratte Award (Top Student), Lewis & Clark College (1981)
Winning Team, Ames Moot Court, Harvard Law School (1984)
Marshall Scholar (1981) (declined)
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
The New Deal Lawyer, 20 Harv. J. Leg. 678 (1983).
Note, Restrictions on Bank Underwriting of Corporate Securities: A
Proposal for More Permissive Regulations, 97 Harv. L. Rev. 720 (1984).
``Exclusionary Rule--Good Faith Exception: Massachusetts v.
Sheppard and United States v. Leon,'' 98 Harv. L. Rev. 108 (November
1984).
Report of Independent Counsel, In re Edwin Meese III (July 5, 1988)
(co-author).
``Riparian Areas: Protect Them for Our Future,'' The Arizona
Republic (February 2, 1992).
``We need a plan to deal with crime, its causes,'' The Arizona
Republic (October 17, 1993).
``Education Reform: Charter Schools Better Serve Kids,'' The
Phoenix Gazette (June 15, 1994).
``Make a Commitment to Cut Teen Drug Use,'' Arizona Republic
(August 27, 1998) [modified versions of this oped also published in
Deseret News, The Oregonian, Tacoma News Tribune and Spokane
Spokesman].
``Drugs, Crime, Prison, and Treatment'', Spectrum [quarterly
publication of Council of State Governments] (Winter 1999).
``Boost Drug Treatment, Cut Crime: Failure to Invest Dooms
Communities to Repeat Offenders,'' Arizona Daily Star (February 21,
1999).
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Charles A. Blanchard.
This 11th day of May, 2009.
[The nomination of Charles A. Blanchard was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on May 14, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 18, 2009.]
NOMINATIONS OF ADM JAMES G. STAVRIDIS, USN, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE
GRADE OF ADMIRAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND AND SUPREME
ALLIED COMMANDER, EUROPE; LT. GEN. DOUGLAS M. FRASER, USAF, TO BE
GENERAL AND COMMANDER, U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND; AND LTG STANLEY A.
McCHRYSTAL, USA, TO BE GENERAL AND COMMANDER, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
ASSISTANCE FORCE AND COMMANDER, U.S. FORCES, AFGHANISTAN
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2009
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 Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed,
Akaka, Bill Nelson, Webb, Udall, Hagan, McCain, Inhofe,
Sessions, Chambliss, Graham, Thune, Wicker, and Collins.
Also present: Senator Murkowski.
Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Joseph M. Bryan,
professional staff member; Ilona R. Cohen, counsel; Mark R.
Jacobson, professional staff member; Jessica L. Kingston,
research assistant; Michael J. Kuiken, professional staff
member; Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; William G.P. Monahan,
counsel; Michael J. Noblet, professional staff member; and
William K. Sutey, professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Joseph W. Bowab, Republican
staff director; Adam J. Barker, professional staff member;
Richard H. Fontaine, Jr., deputy Republican staff director;
Michael V. Kostiw, professional staff member; David M. Morriss,
minority counsel; Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel; and Dana
W. White, professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Christine G. Lang and Brian F.
Sebold.
Committee members' assistants present: James Tuite,
assistant to Senator Byrd; Vance Serchuk, assistant to Senator
Lieberman; Carolyn A. Chuhta, assistant to Senator Reed; Nick
Ikeda, assistant to Senator Akaka; Christopher Caple, assistant
to Senator Bill Nelson; Patricia Hayes, assistant to Senator
Bayh; Gordon I. Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb; Jennifer
Barrett, assistant to Senator Udall; Roger Pena, assistant to
Senator Hagan; Anthony J. Lazarski, assistant to Senator
Inhofe; Lenwood Landrum and Sandra Luff, assistants to Senator
Sessions; Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss;
Adam G. Brake, assistant to Senator Graham; Jason Van Beek,
assistant to Senator Thune; Dan Fisk and Brian W. Walsh,
assistants to Senator Martinez; Erskine W. Wells III, assistant
to Senator Wicker; and Chip Kennett, assistant to Senator
Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody. The committee
meets this morning to consider three military nominations:
Admiral James Stavridis, nominated to be Commander, U.S.
European Command (EUCOM) and Supreme Allied Commander, Europe;
Lieutenant General Douglas Fraser, nominated to be general and
to succeed Admiral Stavridis as Commander, U.S. Southern
Command (SOUTHCOM), marking the first time that an Air Force
general would take command of SOUTHCOM, if confirmed; and
Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal, nominated to be General
and Commander, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and Commander,
U.S. Forces, Afghanistan.
On behalf of the committee, we want to thank each one of
you for your service to our country, your willingness to
continue to serve. We also want to acknowledge the sacrifices
that you and your families have made along the way. The support
that our military families provide is critical, and we want to
do all that we can to support them.
If confirmed, these three nominees will lead our military
in meeting today's security concerns in their areas of
responsibility, and preparing for tomorrow's. One of the most
immediate challenges is implementing the President's new civil
military strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. If confirmed,
two of our witnesses, Admiral Stavridis and General McChrystal,
will need to coordinate closely for that strategy to work. As
Commander EUCOM and Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, Admiral
Stavridis will need to work with our NATO and other European
coalition partners to build the capabilities needed in
Afghanistan and secure allied commitments to the NATO ISAF
mission.
Our European allies continue to provide the majority of the
nearly 35,000 non-U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but only a
portion are in the fight where the fight mainly is, in the
south and east of Afghanistan. The NATO contribution in
Afghanistan remains inadequate, even as President Obama has
approved increasing the U.S. presence by some 21,000 soldiers,
to a total U.S. force of 68,000 by the end of this summer.
Moreover, Secretary Robert Gates testified recently that
the NATO Afghan Army Trust Fund has received contributions of
less than one-tenth of its target of 1 billion Euros from our
NATO allies. Admiral Stavridis, we'd be interested in any
thoughts that you may have as to how to get NATO and our other
allies in Europe to do their share for the Afghanistan mission,
whether by providing additional military resources, additional
trainers for the absolutely critical task of growing the Afghan
security forces faster, financial contributions to defray the
costs of Afghanistan reconstruction, or providing civilian
technical expertise to build the country's governance capacity.
Another issue relative to European security relates to
Russia. Vice President Joseph Biden and Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton have called for resetting U.S.-Russian
relations. I believe there are opportunities to find and build
common security interests between the United States and Russia,
including the development of a unified response to the threat
of a nuclear-armed Iran.
The President, Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates, and
National Security Advisor General Jim Jones have all commented
positively about the prospects of the United States and Russia
working on a common missile defense as a way of deterring
Iran's nuclear ambitions. Senators Bill Nelson, Susan Collins,
and I recently explored that possibility on our visit to
Moscow, Prague, and Warsaw, and came back with some positive
possibilities worth exploring.
Admiral Stavridis, I invite your comments on whether a
cooperative U.S.-Russian missile defense program could possibly
change the overall dynamic in the region and might cause Iran
to recalculate any nuclear weapons ambitions. We also would
welcome comments that you might have on the potential for the
NATO-Russia Council to serve as a useful forum for discussing
such possible joint missile defense cooperation.
General McChrystal, if you're confirmed, you would bring
what Secretary Gates called ``fresh eyes'' to the task of
commanding NATO's ISAF and U.S. forces, Afghanistan.
Implementing the counterinsurgency approach outlined in the
President's strategy will require significant coordination, not
only between two chains of command, one reporting up to the
NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, and the other through
U.S. Forces, Afghanistan, to General David Petraeus at the U.S.
Central Command, but also to coordinate between the military
and civilian components of the effort in Afghanistan.
The next commander of ISAF and U.S. forces in Afghanistan
will confront a myriad of challenges, including a resurgent
Taliban, an effectively open border in the area between
Kandahar, Afghanistan, and Quetta, Pakistan, over which border
extremists come into Afghanistan and return to safe havens in
Pakistan. In addition to that, there is crippling poverty and
unchecked narcotics trafficking corrupting the government. All
instruments of U.S. and coalition power, not just military
force, but also diplomatic, economic, and legal tools, will be
needed to turn the situation in Afghanistan around.
General McChrystal, I also invite you this morning to
clarify your understanding of U.S. standards for the treatment
of detainees and to comment on allegations of detainee
mistreatment by units under your command during your tenure as
Commander of the Joint Special Operations Command from 2003 to
2008. You may want to address both that issue and the Tillman
matter in your opening statement. Both subjects were discussed
in executive session of the Senate Armed Services Committee
last year in connection with your nomination to your current
position as Director of the Joint Staff.
General Fraser, if confirmed, the challenges facing you in
the western hemisphere may be different, but they are also
complex. As a result of the relative success of Plan Colombia
over the past decade, security has improved for Colombians;
however, you will still be confronted by an illegal narcotics
trade that is constantly adjusting its tactics in response to
U.S. surveillance and counternarcotics efforts. As Admiral
Stavridis can attest, the violence that shook Bogota 10 years
ago is now challenging governments across Central America and
Mexico. Countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, and Panama have
now become the focal point of territorial battles for
production sites and trafficking routes for drugs. The
committee will be interested in hearing your views on this
situation and how you intend to address this burgeoning
challenge.
In addition to addressing these issues, you'll also be in
charge of developing our security relations with important
allies. General Fraser, we look forward to hearing from you on
these matters, and how you plan to build on the work of your
predecessors.
Senator McCain.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in
welcoming Admiral Stavridis, General McChrystal, and General
Fraser, and congratulating them on their nominations. The
importance of each of these positions to our national security
can't be overstated.
The recent fighting in Pakistan, coupled with our ongoing
challenges in Afghanistan, underscore the high stakes our
country faces in this theater. I support the long overdue
change of course announced for Afghanistan earlier this year.
The war there and in Pakistan is one that we can and must win.
But, for years now we have been fighting without a clear
strategy, with insufficient resources, and with less than total
support of the Government of Pakistan. Now that we have a new
strategy, I believe we must quickly follow up with the
development of an integrated joint-agency civil-military
campaign plan for all of Afghanistan and for the Pakistan
border area.
We also need to ensure that General David Rodriguez has the
staff and resources he will need to conduct operational
planning similar to the activities conducted by the Multi-
National Corps-Iraq.
Finally, we must take every possible step to accelerate the
growth of the Afghan security forces. The Afghan army is too
small, and, even with the current projected end strengths of
134,000, it will not be big enough to tackle the many security
challenges at hand.
At a minimum, we need to more than double the current size
of the Afghan army to 160,000 troops and consider enlarging it
to 200,000. The costs of this increase should not be borne by
the United States alone, but by the international community. I
look forward to hearing General McChrystal's thoughts on these
aims, as well as your views on the need for a comprehensive
civil-military campaign plan and for the establishment of a
planning corps under General Rodriguez.
Admiral Stavridis, you will play a critical role in
marshaling NATO's efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere. While I
believe the United States should continue to encourage European
troop contributions and press for reductions of caveats on
their use, I also believe we should move away from stressing
what Washington wants Europe to give and more toward
encouraging what Europe is prepared to contribute.
Many of our NATO allies, and other allies and partners
outside NATO, including countries in Asia and the Gulf, are
fully capable of contributing many badly needed resources. As
Secretary Gates noted in remarks over the weekend, in many
areas, noncombat-related contributions, from police training to
a trust fund for the Afghan National Army (ANA), will be as
critical to long-term success, as more European troops on the
ground. Admiral Stavridis, we will look to you for new
approaches in these areas that will increase NATO involvement.
America's future is fundamentally tied to the stability,
prosperity, and security of our southern neighbors. The recent
uptick in violence along our southern border is perhaps the
chief example of the interplay between our own security and
that of our southern neighbors.
Today, Phoenix, Arizona, is the kidnapping capital of
America, and gangs that were born on the streets of El Salvador
and Nicaragua wreak havoc on our Nation's cities and towns.
Through the Merida Initiative with Mexico and via our
various SOUTHCOM security partnerships throughout the
hemisphere, we must help our southern neighbors help themselves
in a concerted effort to fight crime, stop drug trafficking,
and provide security for their people. General Fraser, I look
forward to hearing your thoughts on how SOUTHCOM is addressing
these problems.
I thank our nominees for their service, and I look forward
to their testimony today, and rapid confirmation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator McCain.
Before we call on our witnesses for their opening
statements and to introduce their families, one of our dear
colleagues, Senator Murkowski, is here, and we will call on her
to make an introduction.
Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
McCain. Thank you.
I am truly honored this morning to sit before you to
introduce Lieutenant General Douglas Fraser. General Fraser is
accompanied by his wife Rena, his son, Ian, and his daughter,
Heather, and, I also understand, her husband, as well.
I have had the pleasure and the privilege to come to know,
not only General Fraser, but his family, through the time that
he has spent up north in Alaska. He comes before the committee
this morning for confirmation to the rank of general, capping
off a 34-plus-year Air Force career. That career officially
began in 1975, upon his graduation from the Air Force Academy.
Following graduation, General Fraser served in Oklahoma,
Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Alabama, Idaho, Hawaii, Colorado,
Washington, DC, in addition to Alaska. So, I think those
children are certainly well traveled, there. He's also served
in Germany and Japan. But, General Fraser calls Alaska home,
and we certainly could not be prouder.
General Fraser served two memorable assignments in Alaska,
the first from January 2000 to April 2002, when he commanded
the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf Air Force Base there in Anchorage. It
was during those years that I represented the airmen of
Elmendorf in the Alaska legislature. I became familiar with
General Fraser's leadership, both on base and off. General
Fraser and his wife, Rena, were more than ambassadors for the
Air Force, they were truly forces of good for our whole
community.
In October 2005, General Fraser returned to Elmendorf after
two assignments in Colorado. He headed up the Joint Alaskan
Command, where he remained until April 2008. It was during this
time period where our Armed Forces were really coming to grips
with the challenge of treating men and women returning from
Iraq with post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain
injuries. General Fraser was truly committed to addressing the
challenges. He was involved in a roundtable that we had
convened to discuss how we deal with the healthcare facilities,
how our ability to deal with the challenges could be handled.
At the time I learned about an innovative project that the Air
Force medical wing at Elmendorf would undertake, it was called
a Hometown Healing. The Air Force medical wing determined that
it was capable of treating wounded warriors in Alaska. It
sought out Alaskans who were recovering in the lower 48
hospitals, brought them back to Alaska, and this occurred under
General Fraser's watch at the Alaska Command, and it's
something that we are very proud of. That Elmendorf hospital
was subsequently voted the best in the Air Force.
Alaska is known across the globe for the high level of
support that it provides to members of the armed services that
are stationed in our State. This doesn't happen by coincidence.
It's the product of strong partnerships between the senior
leaders on Alaska's installations and the leaders of our Alaska
communities, partnerships that each senior leader improves upon
during his tenure and passes along to his successors. The Air
Force has sent to Alaska some of its very best, people like the
current Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norton Schwartz; and
the Commander of Pacific Air Forces, General Howie Chandler. I
would say that, General Fraser, you stand shoulder-to-shoulder
with these senior leaders, in terms of support for Alaska's
military communities.
While I have to express some disappointment that General
Fraser's next assignment is going to take him away from the
Pacific, that's where the Nation needs him, and that's where he
will go. Wherever General Fraser goes, I know that he will be
an inspiration to the troops that he leads, a strong force in
his community, and a military leader of the highest qualities.
I strongly endorse his confirmation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski. A
very significant introduction. We're delighted you were able to
join us today.
Let me now call on our three witnesses, in the following
order, for their opening comments: Admiral Stavridis, General
Fraser, and General McChrystal.
STATEMENT OF ADM JAMES G. STAVRIDIS, USN, NOMINEE FOR
REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF ADMIRAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, U.S.
EUROPEAN COMMAND AND SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER, EUROPE
Admiral Stavridis. Chairman Levin, Ranking Member McCain,
members of the committee, I'd like to begin by simply saying
how proud I am to be here with General Fraser and General
McChrystal. I couldn't ask for a better Army-context battle
buddy, Air Force-context wingman, and the Navy would say
shipmates. We're glad to be here together.
I'd just make the comment, as you look at the three of us
here, it really is a joint Goldwater-Nichols kind of panel--
Army, Navy, Air Force--and also, Skeet Fraser, nominated as the
first airman to go to SOUTHCOM, I'm lucky enough to be
nominated as the first admiral to go to Europe; Stan
McChrystal, a product of real improvements in legislative
quality built into special operations, all came out of this
Congress, came out of Goldwater-Nichols. So, we're proud to be
here, and I thank you for taking the time to hear us.
I'm here with my family--my wife, Laura, right here behind
me, my childhood sweetheart. We lived together in Europe when
we were both children, so the prospect of going back to Europe
is extremely appealing to both of us. We have two daughters
ourselves now, who are both here, Christina, a proud graduate
of the University of Virginia, works out at Google in San
Francisco, my daughter, Julia, makes us very proud by signing
up, this year, for the Navy Reserve Officer Training Corps
program, going to the University of Texas at Austin. I'm very
proud and lucky to have the family here with me.
I am personally, obviously, very honored and humbled by the
President's nomination and the Secretary's recommendation for
this position. I have a fair amount of background in Europe. In
addition to having lived there as a child, I've traveled
throughout Europe extensively over the years. I've operated
with NATO off of Haiti, the Balkans, in the Gulf; and studied
NATO as part of my academic work that the Navy sent me to at
the Fletcher School, years ago. I believe in the transatlantic
alliance. I think it's an important one, and if confirmed, I
hope to be a positive force, as Senator McCain was just talking
about, and the Chairman, in convincing our allies to continue
to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us in important missions
throughout the world, and, in particular, in Afghanistan.
My approach will be, as it has been at SOUTHCOM for the
last 3 years, to be collegial, to be oriented toward
international solutions, multilateral approaches, and, above
all, interagency and whole of government. These are challenging
times in Europe, they're challenging times in Afghanistan and
the world. If confirmed, I will do my best.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Admiral, thank you so much.
General Fraser?
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. DOUGLAS M. FRASER, USAF, NOMINEE TO BE
GENERAL AND COMMANDER, U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND
General Fraser. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this
opportunity. Senator McCain. I would like to also thank Senator
Murkowski for her kind introduction and for her continued
support of our men and women in uniform.
If I could, let me first introduce my wife, Rena, my
partner for 11 years, who has eagerly learned about the Air
Force and the joint community, and now steadfastly advocates
for and supports military families around the globe.
Next, I'm joined by my son, Ian. He spent 4 years in the
Air Force. He's a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and now
works with industry.
I'm also accompanied by my daughter, Heather, and her
husband, Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Lyman, a businessman and
member of the Air Force Reserve. Lieutenant Colonel Lyman, when
performing duty with the Air Force Reserve, routinely travels
forward to Iraq and Afghanistan to directly support our joint
warfighters. Heather and Bruce have also blessed us with our
first grandchild.
We're also joined today by Lieutenant Michael Dinmore, a
U.S. Air Force Academy graduate who we sponsored while we were
in Colorado Springs while he was attending the Academy, and
he's now a third-year medical student at Bethesda, and he's
essentially another son to us.
Finally, our daughter, Hannah Green, couldn't be with us
today. She is, I'm sure, studying very hard and doing well in
her final exams back in Honolulu.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to introduce
my family. As you can see, we've grown very robustly, in our
Air Force career and our time in the Armed Forces.
Distinguished members of the committee, it's my distinct
privilege to appear before you today as the nominee for the
Commander of United States Southern Command. I am both honored
and humbled to be nominated by the President and the Secretary
of Defense for this important role and for the opportunity to
continue serving with the magnificent men and women who
voluntarily defend this Nation.
I am no stranger to Latin America. I spent 3 years in high
school in Bogota, Colombia, graduating there in 1971. During
this time, I gained a lifelong appreciation and affection for
Latin America. Since that time, I have visited several
countries in the region on a couple of different occasions,
and, if confirmed, I relish the opportunity to return to the
wonderful lands of my childhood.
While I haven't spent much time in Latin America during my
career, let me assure you that I will spend all my time and
energy enhancing the role that United States SOUTHCOM plays
with our partner Armed Forces in the region and continue
Admiral Stavridis' dedicated efforts to enhance the interagency
cooperation and coordination.
Finally, as Admiral Stavridis mentioned, I am honored to
share this venue with him and Lieutenant General McChrystal. I
can't think of two better joint partners--battle buddies,
wingmen, shipmates--I'd rather be with here today than these
two distinguished gentlemen.
I've not had the pleasure of directly serving with Admiral
Stavridis. As I have looked more closely at SOUTHCOM, I'm
impressed by what SOUTHCOM has accomplished under his
leadership, by his foresight and his innovation, and I look
forward to the opportunity to build on his distinguished
accomplishments.
Likewise, during my current duty as the Deputy Commander
United States Pacific Command, I've shared some time with
Lieutenant General McChrystal while he served as the Director
of Joint Staff. I am equally impressed with his vision,
intellect, and drive to improve the coordination and operation
of our joint forces.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity and the
privilege to appear before you today. I look forward to your
questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, General.
General McChrystal?
STATEMENT OF LTG STANLEY A. McCHRYSTAL, USA, NOMINEE TO BE
GENERAL AND COMMANDER, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ASSISTANCE FORCE
AND COMMANDER, U.S. FORCES, AFGHANISTAN
General McChrystal. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, members
of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you.
I'd like to thank the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and the Secretary of Defense for recommending me, and the
President for nominating me to serve the team engaged in this
important mission.
I'm accompanied today by my wife, Annie. Her love and
support for more than 32 years have been extraordinary.
The President's new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy outlines
a path to attaining our strategic goal in the region through a
fully resourced counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan. It
is important for me to give you my perspective on where I
believe we are and where we must go. I appreciate this
opportunity.
First, I'd like to recognize the many Afghan civilians,
soldiers, and police, who, along with young Americans and all
our coalition partners, have sacrificed greatly to stand up and
fight for Afghanistan. I honor the fallen, as I know do each of
you on this committee.
You gave me the opportunity to discuss in detail one of
those fallen, Corporal Pat Tillman, in closed session with this
committee a year ago, in advance of my confirmation as Director
of the Joint Staff, which I appreciated. I stand ready to
answer any additional questions you may have.
I would like to express my deepest condolences to his
fellow Rangers, who lost a comrade, and to his family, who lost
a brother, a husband, and a son.
As a fellow soldier, I'd also like to recognize the service
of General David McKiernan.
In Afghanistan, despite impressive progress in many areas
since 2001, the situation is serious. Afghans face a
combination of challenges: a resilient Taliban insurgency,
increasing levels of violence, lack of governance capacity,
persistent corruption, lack of development in key areas,
illicit narcotics, and malign influences from other countries.
Together, these challenges threaten the future of Afghanistan
and regional stability.
The potential re-emergence of al Qaeda or other extremist
safe havens in Afghanistan, as were present before September
11, and existing safe havens in Pakistan, are critical threats
to our national security and to our allies.
Additionally, challenges to legitimate governance, like
those underway in Pakistan, undermine an important partner and
threaten regional stability.
Finally, I believe that providing the Afghan people,
battered by 30 years of almost unbroken violence, an
opportunity to shape their future requires our firm commitment
and demonstrates the values that underpin America's credibility
worldwide.
For all these reasons, we must succeed.
The challenge is considerable. This is not the environment
we, along with our NATO allies and other international
partners, envisioned 4, or even 2, years ago, but it is the
environment we have today and the place from which we must
navigate a way forward.
There is no simple answer. We must conduct a holistic
counterinsurgency campaign, and we must do it well. Success
will not be quick or easy. Casualties will likely increase. We
will make mistakes. The commitment and continued support of
this committee, Congress, and the American people will be
vital. With the appropriate resources, time, sacrifice, and
patience, we can prevail.
A key component of resourcing is people. More than 21,000
additional U.S. military personnel will have deployed to
Afghanistan by October this year. You might properly ask if
that is enough. I don't know. It may be some time before I do.
What I do know is that military-centric strategy will not
succeed. The Department of State and other members of the
interagency are preparing to train and deploy additional
civilian personnel with vital governance and development
expertise. Development of an integrated civil-military plan
with Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and his team to unite efforts
across security, governance, and development is ongoing. It
complements efforts by Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, General
David Petraeus, and others to address issues across the region.
I will support fully the completion and execution of that plan.
Counterinsurgency is difficult business and demands
resources, courage, and commitment over time. Each step of the
essential shape-clear-hold-build process offers challenges and
pitfalls. We face serious challenges, but the insurgency threat
and the Afghan people offer no vision for a better future and,
thus, remain vulnerable to a government in Afghanistan that can
provide one.
Central to counterinsurgency is protecting the people.
Efforts to convince Afghans to confer legitimacy on their
government are only relevant if Afghans are free to choose.
They must be shielded from coercion while their elected
government secures their trust through effective governance and
economic development at all levels. This must be Afghanistan's
effort, with our committed support.
In counterinsurgency, how you operate, the impact of
civilian casualties, collateral damage, cultural insensitivity,
and the inherent complexities involved in separating insurgents
from the population often determine success or failure. If
defeating an insurgent formation produces popular resentment,
the victory is hollow and unsustainable.
In Afghanistan, faced with a determined and unconstrained
foe, precision and discipline are essential, from limited but
necessary air strikes to small-unit search and detention
operations. If confirmed, I would emphasize that how we conduct
operations is vital to success. This is a critical point. It
may be ``the'' critical point. This is a struggle for the
support of the Afghan people. Our willingness to operate in
ways that minimize casualties or damage, even when doing so
makes our task more difficult, is essential to our credibility.
I cannot overstate my commitment to the importance of this
concept.
My experiences leading counterterrorist forces in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and other locations did much to develop my
strong belief in the importance of a holistic counterinsurgency
campaign. While proud of the contributions of the forces I was
honored to command, we were most effective when integrated with
interagency and allied-nation partners in full-spectrum
counterinsurgency campaigns. In Afghanistan, I believe
intelligence-driven precision operations will remain critical,
but must be subordinate to efforts that protect the population
and set conditions for governance and economic advancement.
Although I expect stiff fighting ahead, the measure of
effectiveness will not be enemy killed, it will be the number
of Afghans shielded from violence. Securing the population is
ultimately best done by Afghans. I consider the development of
Afghan Security Forces, both the ANA and Afghan National Police
(ANP), our highest-priority security task. If confirmed, I
would work with our NATO, European Union, and Afghan partners
to support this effort.
At this point, I also believe the Afghan National Security
Forces will likely need to grow beyond the currently approved
strengths to provide adequate security. Like you, I am keenly
aware their efforts are part of a coalition, many of whom have
sacrificed greatly and invested heavily to support Afghanistan.
If we are both confirmed, I will have the honor of working for
my friend Admiral Jim Stavridis, and my command will include
approximately 59,000 servicemembers from 41 nations, all 28
NATO nations, and 14 NATO partner nations supporting
Afghanistan. Presently, ISAF forces are conducting security and
stability operations, providing senior leadership in all five
regional commands, and are directly involved in the mentoring,
training, and equipping of the ANA. I look forward to listening
to, learning from, and leading, this team in our common
challenge.
As this committee knows, since September 11 our forces have
learned valuable lessons regarding the treatment of detainees,
and made mistakes along the way. When I took command in 2003, I
found our treatment of detainees followed existing guidance but
needed improvement. Our facilities were limited, our expertise
in specialties like interrogation was insignificant--or,
insufficient--and we lacked organizational experience at every
level. In the months and years that followed, we invested
considerable energy, developed expertise and experience, and
improved continuously. If confirmed, I will strictly enforce
the highest standards of detainee treatment consistent with
international and U.S. law.
Our effort in Afghanistan demands expertise and continuity.
Working within the realities of family needs and career
development, we must develop a core of professionals who
possess expertise in the theater, in its languages and culture.
Assigned for repeated tours, remaining focused on Afghanistan
when not deployed, these experts can significantly increase the
effectiveness of our overall effort.
I'd like to thank the committee for their consistent
support. Programs like the Commanders Emergency Response
Program (CERP) offer critical flexibility. Robust intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets facilitate
unprecedented intelligence fusion. Equipment like the Mine
Resistant Ambush Protected all-terrain vehicle save lives, and
programs like the Afghan National Trust Fund build partner
capacity. But, most important is our magnificent volunteer
force. Seasoned by years and growing experience in
counterinsurgency operations, they continue to inspire us with
their courage and commitment. They are strong, but have given
much.
Thank you for the unfailing support you have provided these
tremendous professionals and their families.
I was honored to be nominated for this position, and, if
confirmed, pledge to you and to the men and women for whom I
would serve the best of which I am capable. With that, I look
forward to answering your questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, General.
We'll have an 8-minute round. Before we begin with
questions, let me ask the standard questions of each of you. We
ask these of all of our nominees.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
[All three witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which
would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation
process?
[All three witnesses answered in the negative.]
Will you ensure that your staff complies with deadlines
established for requested communications, including questions
for the record in hearings?
[All three witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in
response to congressional requests?
[All three witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Will those witnesses be protected from reprisal for their
testimony or briefings?
[All three witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and testify, upon
request, before this committee?
[All three witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Do you agree to give your personal views, when asked before
this committee to do so, even if those views differ from the
administration in power?
[All three witnesses answered 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?
[All three witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
I think there's going to be a vote at 11 o'clock, and if
there is, we'll try to work right through it.
Let me ask both Admiral Stavridis and General McChrystal
about the end strength of the ANA. General McChrystal, you made
reference to it. The current goal, target end strength, for the
ANA is 134,000. As of April, there are 86,000 troops assigned
to the army. President Obama has approved the deployment, later
this year, of 4,000 soldiers as trainers to embed and to work
with the Afghan Security Forces. But, I'm very much concerned,
as many of us are, about the size of that army and the lack of
a higher end strength goal. I joined with Senator Lieberman and
13 other Senators in a letter to the President to urge him to
support, now, the increase in the end strength levels for the
Afghan army and the police to the higher ranges, which were
recommended by the Afghan defense and interior ministers; and
for the army, that range was between 250,000 and 300,000, which
would mean double the current target.
Admiral, let me ask you first, because General McChrystal
has already commented on it, but then I want to ask the General
the same question. Do you believe that the realities on the
ground in Afghanistan necessitate growing the Afghan National
Security Forces beyond the currently planned end strengths?
Admiral Stavridis. Mr. Chairman, my study of, sort of,
classic counterinsurgency doctrine, looking at everything from
T.E. Lawrence through David Kilcullen's ``The Accidental
Guerrilla'' as I prepared for these hearings, would lead me to
believe that we do need larger security forces in what Stan has
correctly referred to as a classic counterinsurgency campaign.
Chairman Levin. That means larger than the current end
strength?
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. General, you said that we're likely to need
them; in your judgment, will the Afghan Army need to have a
significantly higher end strength than 134,000?
General McChrystal. Yes, sir, that's my belief right now.
Chairman Levin. In terms of the Pakistan situation--and
here, I think, General, you also made reference to this--would
you agree with me that assistance to Pakistan will only be
effective if the Pakistani Government is perceived by the
people of Pakistan as taking the fight to the insurgents
because of their own needs as a nation, not because of U.S.
pressure?
General McChrystal. Yes, sir, I do.
Chairman Levin. Admiral, do you want to give a quick
comment on that?
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir, I do.
Chairman Levin. All right.
General McChrystal, are you familiar with the National
Solidarity Program in Afghanistan?
General McChrystal. Yes, sir, I am.
Chairman Levin. Do you have an opinion as to its success
and whether it's a good program?
General McChrystal. Sir, at this point--and I want to learn
more when I get on the ground, but, what I've seen from here,
it's been very successful and very positive.
Chairman Levin. All right. Now, relative to the question of
detainees--and you made brief reference to it, General--we have
a letter from you, which I'll make part of the record--
clarifying an answer which you provided for the committee in
advance of the hearing today.
One line in your letter says that, ``We must at all times
adhere to our obligation to treat detainees humanely. Military
necessity, as well--along with humanity or principles of--
underlying the Law of War, military necessity does not permit
us to derogate from those imperatives.'' I'll put the entire
letter in the record, but it is an important clarification of
your pre-hearing answer for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Chairman Levin. Now, relative to the events that occurred,
I want to just clarify your understanding and your awareness
and knowledge of what occurred when you were the commander of
special operations. How many special-mission unit task forces
were there when you were the commander?
General McChrystal. Sir, they were multiple. We had a task
force at Afghanistan, which then had subordinate task forces,
and sometimes it was as few as two, sometimes it was as many as
four. In Iraq, similarly, we had a major task force, then later
went to two major task forces, and each of those had
subordinate task forces.
Chairman Levin. All right.
General McChrystal. I couldn't give you, off the top of my
head, but it was--at times it was as many as 8 to 10 task
forces, all under my command.
Chairman Levin. All right. Now, you were the commander of
special operations, is that correct?
General McChrystal. Sir, I was commander of part of special
operations. There were theater special operations, as well.
Chairman Levin. All right. Now, you were not the task force
commander?
General McChrystal. Sir, I was the Joint Task Force
Commander for Task Force 714.
Chairman Levin. But, in terms of those special-mission unit
task forces, you were not the commander of those task forces?
General McChrystal. Sir----
Chairman Levin. You were not a commander of one of those
task forces?
General McChrystal. Sir, those task forces made up my joint
task force.
Chairman Levin. Did each of those task forces, those
special-mission unit task forces, have a commander?
General McChrystal. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. All right. Now, what was your
understanding, your awareness of the treatment of detainees
when you were the overall commander? The Inspector General of
the Department of Defense (DOD) indicated that a memorandum of
the Secretary of Defense which was approved on December 2,
2002--and that memorandum, relative to the interrogation of
detainees, authorized the use of things like stress positions,
sleep deprivation, and the use of dogs. The report of this
committee showed how that memorandum of December 2, 2002, then
went to, first, Afghanistan and then was transmitted verbatim
to Iraq. In terms of the treatment of detainees--when you got
there, tell us what you were aware of, what you did, relative
to that subject.
General McChrystal. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I took over in October 2003, and I'd like to sort of start
with three things, to begin with. First, I do not, and never
have, condoned mistreatment of detainees, and never will. When
we found cases where we thought there was an allegation of
mistreatment, we investigated every one, and we punished, if,
in fact, it was substantiated, and that was from the beginning.
That said, when I took command, I found the detainee
facilities really insufficient for need. They were physically
not prepared for that. We didn't have the right number of
interrogators. We didn't have the right experience in the
force, either. None of us had ever done this with the level of
precision that we needed to, so we learned.
We stayed within all of the established and authorized
guidelines. They were in them when I took command, and then,
with each change in guidelines, we did a legal review, and
stayed within those all the time. But as I outlined last year
when we discussed it, it also was something that I believe
continuously improved. Each month, we got better at it, for
lots of reasons. One, our experience got better. Two, the
procedures got, just, constantly looked at and so that they
were improved. So, I think the constant improvement is the
thing that took us from what I think was acceptable and legal
to something that I became much more proud of over time, in
terms of the quality of the operation.
Chairman Levin. When you say ``acceptable and legal,'' you
mean that they were within the guidelines established by the
Secretary of Defense.
General McChrystal. Sir, they were within legally
prescribed guidelines, that's right, the policy we were given.
Chairman Levin. The policy that you were given that you
understood at that time was legal.
General McChrystal. Yes, sir, that's right.
Chairman Levin. That policy included, at that time, under
that December 2, 2002, memorandum of the Secretary of Defense--
that policy included the aggressive acts that I described:
stress positions, the use of dogs, and nudity. Is that correct?
General McChrystal. Sir, it did. We did not use all of the
things that were outlined there.
Chairman Levin. Were some of them used?
General McChrystal. Some of them were used when I took
over, sir, and then, we immediately began to reduce that.
Chairman Levin. You immediately began what?
General McChrystal. To reduce those, sir.
Chairman Levin. Okay.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Go ahead if you want to----
Chairman Levin. No, I think that----
Well, I just want to make sure, when you say that you
``improved'' you meant that even though some of the actions
relative to detainees, the aggressive interrogation techniques,
had been approved by the Secretary of Defense in a memorandum,
which you understood had been legally authorized, that, when
you say you ``improved them,'' you reduced the number of
techniques which were utilized, even though they had been
authorized, is that correct?
General McChrystal. That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. All right. Now, were you uncomfortable with
some of the techniques that you saw there?
General McChrystal. When I took over, I was, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. All right. The direction of reduction of
the use of those techniques, even though they had been
authorized by the Secretary, nonetheless was something that you
felt was appropriate and necessary?
General McChrystal. That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. All right. Thank you.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses for their excellent opening
statements.
General McChrystal, General McKiernan reportedly had a
request pending for the deployment of an additional 10,000 U.S.
troops to Afghanistan in 2010. Do you expect to renew this
request, alter it, or rescind it?
General McChrystal. Sir, I believe I'll have to make an
assessment on the ground, and can't tell you right now whether
I would do that.
Senator McCain. What is your initial assessment? Do we need
the additional 10,000?
General McChrystal. Sir, I'm just not sure, at this point.
Senator McCain. How long do you expect the
counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan to last?
General McChrystal. Sir, I can't put a hard date on it. I
believe that counterinsurgency takes time. I believe that we
need to start making progress within about the next 19 to 24
months to know----
Senator McCain. But, you do comment, in your statement,
that you believe that casualties will go up in the short term.
General McChrystal. Sir, I do.
Senator McCain. I think that's an important message that
Members of Congress and the American people understand.
Roughly how many detainees are in prison in Bagram today?
Roughly.
General McChrystal. Sir, I believe it's about 600, but I--
--
Senator McCain. Not all are from Afghanistan? Some are
other foreign nationals?
General McChrystal. I don't know the detailed breakdown
right now, sir.
Senator McCain. Do you expect that, as we saw in Iraq,
fighters from other countries will be on the battlefield in
Afghanistan?
General McChrystal. I do, Senator.
Senator McCain. We will probably be capturing some of
those?
General McChrystal. I do, Senator.
Senator McCain. Then our problem with what to do with
detainees from other countries will continue.
General McChrystal. I believe that it will.
Senator McCain. The death by friendly fire of Corporal
Tillman was a great tragedy, as we all know, and the pain and
the loss of this American hero to his family was compounded by
the misinformation that quickly spread about the circumstances
of his death, some of which were included in the recommended
citation for the award of the Silver Star Medal that was
forwarded by his commanding officer through you, as the
commanding general of the Joint Special Operations Command, and
approved by you on April 28, 2004. Can you describe what
happened in April with respect to the information regarding the
circumstances of Corporal Tillman's death, and why you
forwarded the Silver Star recommendation in the form that it
was in?
General McChrystal. Senator, I can. I appreciate the
opportunity to do that.
Corporal Tillman was killed on April 22, and in the days
following, as with the loss of any soldier, a number of things
happened, administrative and just practical things that
occurred. I particularly took part in two things. I arrived
back into Afghanistan from a meeting in Qatar with General John
Abizaid on about the 23rd, and I was informed, at that point,
that they suspected that friendly fire might have been the
cause of death, and they had initiated what we call a 15-6, or
an investigation of that. We initially were waiting for the
outcome of that initial review before we went forward with any
conclusions. It was a well-intended intent to get some level of
truth before we went up.
At the same time, we looked at his potential award for
valor. Any lost soldier, they immediately look and determine
whether an award was appropriate. In the case of Corporal
Tillman, a Silver Star was recommended. I sat down with the
people who recommended it. That was higher than some had been
given, and we went over a whiteboard, and we looked at the
geometry of the battlefield, and I queried the people to
satisfy myself that, in fact, that his actions warranted that,
even though there was a potential that the actual circumstance
of death had been friendly fire.
I need to stress, here, we've had a number of famous people
in American history killed by friendly fire--Stonewall Jackson,
Leslie McNair, and the like--and I don't separate or I don't
believe that the circumstance of his death detracts from his
courage, commitment, or contribution.
So, I was comfortable recommending, once I believed that
the people in the fight were convinced it warranted a Silver
Star, and I was too, with forwarding that.
I also sent a message informing my chain of command that we
believed it was fratricide, and we did that when we were told
there were going to be fairly high-profile memorial services.
Now, what happens, in retrospect, is--and I would do this
differently if I had the chance again--in retrospect, they look
contradictory, because we sent a Silver Star that was not well
written. Although I went through the process, I will tell you
now I didn't review the citation well enough to capture or,
catch that, if you read it, you can imply that it was not
friendly fire. Also, when I sent the message, the intent
entirely was to inform everybody up my chain of command so that
nobody would be surprised.
If I had it to do all over again--and we subsequently
changed Army policy after this, because the intent on awards at
that time was to do an award rapidly so that it could be
presented to the family at the memorial service for their
comfort. What we have learned since is, it is better to take
your time, make sure you get everything right with the award,
and not rush it.
I say that, in the two things which I believe were entirely
well intentioned on my part and, in my view, everyone forward
that I saw was trying to do the right thing. It still produced
confusion at a tragic time. I'm very sorry for that because I
understand that the outcome produced a perception that I don't
believe was at all intended, at least in the forces that were
forward.
Senator McCain. Do you believe that Corporal Tillman earned
the Silver Star by his actions before he died?
General McChrystal. Sir, I absolutely do. I did then, I do
now.
Senator McCain. Given your experience in Afghanistan, do
you believe that the interrogation techniques that are provided
in the Army Field Manual are sufficient to get the information
to fight the battle that you need?
General McChrystal. Yes, sir, I do.
Senator McCain. Do you believe any additional techniques
are necessary?
General McChrystal. No, sir.
Senator McCain. I interrupted you. You expect the
counterinsurgency in Afghanistan to be dependent, to some
degree, on Pakistan; therefore, unpredictable. Are you
encouraged by the recent, perhaps temporary, success by the
Pakistani Army in Swat and perhaps moving in to Waziristan?
General McChrystal. Sir, I am encouraged.
Senator McCain. How do you account for that?
General McChrystal. Sir, I believe that, if you looked back
several years, what appeared to the people of Pakistan as an
American problem of terrorists that were transnational, some of
whom happened to be in Pakistan, I believe that they now view
it as an internal insurgency. They have an internal insurgency.
The actions which they have taken over the last weeks have been
resolute in going after that internal insurgency.
Senator McCain. So, the situation isn't as bad as we had
feared, but not as good as we hope, regarding the effectiveness
or commitment of the Pakistani Government and military.
General McChrystal. Sir, I think the situation is very
serious, but they know it and are acting on it.
Senator McCain. Aren't you concerned about the overall
corruption problem in Afghanistan?
General McChrystal. Sir, I am.
Senator McCain. Are you worried that there's still not a
joint strategy, or agreed-upon strategy, as far as the
eradication or control of the poppy crops?
General McChrystal. Sir, I believe that is critical, that
we develop one.
Senator McCain. Do you see any coherency in that policy?
General McChrystal. Sir, I haven't been forward to look at
it closely, but I know we need one.
Senator McCain. As a result of your experience in Iraq,
what lessons do you apply to Afghanistan? Briefly, since I
think I'm out of time.
General McChrystal. Sir, I believe a counterinsurgency
campaign, a classic counterinsurgency campaign, well resourced,
is going to be required. I think that's all----
Senator McCain. Under very different circumstances.
General McChrystal. It's different, sir, but many of the
same requirements. We have to get governance, development, and
security, or we won't make progress.
Senator McCain. A large geographic area?
General McChrystal. Sir, it is more limited than it was at
some times in Iraq; it's mostly in the south and the east, but
there are some problems in the west and popping up in the
north, as well.
Senator McCain. We will experience significant resistance
as we move into the south of Afghanistan?
General McChrystal. Sir, I believe that we will.
Senator McCain. Am I out of time?
Chairman Levin. You are out of time.
Senator McCain. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks, to the three of you for your extraordinary careers
of service to our country, and congratulations on these
nominations.
I want to focus in on Afghanistan, for most of my
questions, and say that, in nominating Admiral Stavridis and
General McChrystal to the positions you're going to, it seems
to me that the President has put in place here what I would
call, not just a strong team, but really an all-star team. With
Admiral Stavridis, for EUCOM, General Petraeus in Central
Command, you now, General McChrystal, heading our operations,
as you've described, in Afghanistan, with General Rodriguez,
that, together with the diplomatic nonmilitary effort there
with Ambassador Holbrooke, now Ambassador Eikenberry going into
Kabul with crew of his own that will feature, I guess, several
State Department personnel of ambassadorial rank, we're really
concentrating our strength, here, because it's so important to
win in Afghanistan. I suppose I want to ask you that, as a
first question.
General McChrystal, do you believe this is a winnable war
in Afghanistan for ourselves and our Afghan allies?
General McChrystal. Sir, I believe it is winnable, but I
don't think it will be easily winnable.
Senator Lieberman. I think both of those points--very
important to hear from you--that is, for Members of Congress
and the American people to understand, that it's winnable, but
it's not going to be easy; it's probably going to get worse
before it gets better.
I know you're a general and not a political leader, but, I
think, in these kinds of positions these days, you're going to
probably be asked the kinds of questions that we're asked. So,
let me ask you, Why do you think it is important that we
succeed in Afghanistan?
General McChrystal. Sir, I think the first and obvious
thing is to prevent al Qaeda safe havens as were before
September 11. I actually believe that the importance is much
wider than that. I believe the regional stability of
Afghanistan and Pakistan are linked, and a lack of stability in
that area, I think, is going to cause geopolitical problems.
Even if there were no al Qaeda, I think it would still be an
important region.
Finally, I think our credibility in the world--we have the
ability to support the people of Afghanistan and to move in to
shape a better future that they want, and I think that that
will make a difference in how we are viewed, worldwide.
Senator Lieberman. You made some interesting statements in
the question and answers you exchanged with the committee about
the linkage between the Taliban and al Qaeda. There have been a
lot of people, in recent months, who have been saying that it
may be possible to break off the Taliban to cooperate with us.
But, you've made some very strong statements here about your
skepticism about our ability to do that, to break the Taliban
away from al Qaeda, certainly not so long as they think they
are winning. I want to ask you to speak a little bit to the
Taliban/al Qaeda linkage, as you see it.
General McChrystal. Yes, sir. I guess, first, I'd say that
the al Qaeda linkage is somewhat to the Taliban, but it's also
to other organizations there. They have, in fact, been there
for many years now. They've intermarried, they've created
connections that are beyond just organizational.
Insofar as with the Taliban, they do have a link with the
Taliban, and I don't think that the Taliban have any reason,
right now, to turn their back on al Qaeda. Therefore, I don't
think there's a motivation to do that.
I think what is probably more important is, I don't believe
that the Taliban is a single, cohesive organization. They are
more a confederation of smaller entities, many of which are
absolutely motivated by regional or financial or almost
warlordism, so they do not have a large coherent structure, to
the level it sometimes can look on a map or on an
organizational chart. I think it might be easier to fragment
the Taliban and separate the hardcore Taliban from the hardcore
al Qaeda.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you.
General, it's my understanding that, as of today, we still
don't have the kind of integrated joint civil-military plan for
Afghanistan that we have for, and had for some time now, in
Iraq. Is that your understanding?
General McChrystal. Sir, I know that planning is ongoing to
develop that. Karl Eikenberry is an old friend of mine, and I
have committed that, if confirmed, that would be something that
we absolutely will complete as quickly as possible.
Senator Lieberman. So, it's your statement, here, that you
intend to work with Ambassador Eikenberry on a joint civil-
military plan for Afghanistan.
General McChrystal. Absolutely, sir.
Senator Lieberman. Do you have a goal, a time by which you
hope to complete that?
General McChrystal. Sir, I hate to be pinned to goals, but
I think we need to finish that this summer.
Senator Lieberman. Soon. Okay, good.
Admiral, there's a lot of both appreciation for NATO
involvement in Afghanistan, and also a dissatisfaction with how
it's working, overall, and particularly those of us who are
very committed to NATO, concern that this significant out-of-
theater involvement by this great military alliance succeed. Of
course, it's hard to run a war with this many nations,
particularly if they come into the battlefield with individual
caveats. As you assume this command, what are your thoughts
about what we can do to improve NATO's involvement, here, in
Afghanistan?
Admiral Stavridis. Sir, thank you. First, if I could, I'd
add to Stan's excellent list of why Afghanistan matters. The
point precisely that you just raised, it matters because of the
NATO engagement. How the Alliance performs there will bleed
over into the future of the Alliance. I don't think it's a go/
no-go for the Alliance, but it's certainly important and
critical. In addition to all the excellent points Stan made, I
would add that one, as well.
As I look at it--and, of course, I have not had any
conversations yet with my military interlocutors in the world
of NATO--I was very struck by what Ranking Member McCain said,
that we need to think about asking our allies to do what they
are willing to do and recognize where there are places they
just cannot go. That runs the gamut of things, from money to
civil-military actions, along the lines of the plan that
General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry are going to put
together. It includes the trust fund that we talked about
because, as the Chairman said, the odds are high that we will
need more Afghan security forces, at the end of the day. At the
end of the day, all security is local. So we'll need funding
for that. That's a potential zone of contribution for NATO.
Sir, I think there are many different avenues for me to
pursue, if confirmed, and I look forward to those interactions
with our allies, working with General McChrystal to hear what
he needs, and attempting to facilitate that.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Admiral. My time's expiring.
I just want to state for the record, on a different matter, you
have some very strong statements, in the question and answer
with the committee, on the rising ballistic missile threat to
Europe, and particularly that posed by Iran. As a consequence,
you argue that--and I quote you, ``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.'' You also very
strongly said, ``We need multi-layered missile defense
capabilities stationed and operational in the region before a
threat fully emerges to ensure our common European allies' and
partners' security.'' In this vein, and quite specifically,
warn that though the sea-based--basically the Aegis and THAAD
Patriot programs are very important, they cannot defeat, and I
quote you again, ``the entire range of threats by themselves.''
I want to thank you for those statements. I couldn't agree
with you more, and I look forward to working with you on those
and other matters related to your command.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Lieberman.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me just state--which you're aware of, Mr.
Chairman, but our guests may not be--that they always have a
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works meeting at the
same time they have this, so that puts me in an awkward
situation of having to go back and forth. Let me say, second, I
can't think of any three people who are more qualified for the
positions for which you're nominated than the three of you, and
I am very excited about things to come.
Now, you may have covered this in my absence, but I want to
mention, in fact, there was a great editorial in Investors
Business Daily called ``Iran Grows Bold.'' I'll just read a
little bit of here and then I want to make it as part of the
record--``That's why, knowing we've decided on appeasement as
the best course, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on the very day of
North Korea's demonstration of a nuclear bomb said that a
``freeze'' of Iran's own nuclear program was out of the
question.'' It goes on and talks about some of the individuals
from--here it is--``General Vladimir Dvorkin, head of Center
for Strategic Nuclear Forces in Moscow, recently said, Iran is
actively working on a missile development program, 1 or 2 years
away from having a nuclear weapon.''
[The information referred to follows:]
Senator Inhofe. I'm getting mixed signals here, because
we're all very familiar with the capabilities that we need to
protect western Europe, and maybe even the United States, from
a missile coming from Iran, and it's necessary to have the
radar in the Czech Republic, as well as the Poland
opportunities. While they're for it, and they're ready to do
it, and the Polish Parliament is even saying that they are
hoping that ``We don't regret our trust in the United States.''
I'd just like to have one of you respond to what is confusing
to me, and that is why it is that we now have Russia saying
that they don't want to participate in this, or they don't want
to approve this until and unless they have certain conditions
met on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, and yet they turn
around and say that, yes, it is necessary to have this. Where
do you think Russia is, and how important do you think--let's
start with you, Admiral Stavridis--to have that European site?
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir, I think I'm probably the right
one to answer the question, given that Russia is part of the
EUCOM area of focus.
Sir, as you fully appreciate, and the Chairman alluded to
this in his opening statement, any of these decisions really
are a matrix of diplomatic and political activity that goes
well beyond the purview of a military commander. My own view,
at this point, looking at it from a distance and before I have
an opportunity, if confirmed, to go and interact with the----
Senator Inhofe. Forget about the politics, just the
importance of the European site, from a military perspective.
Admiral Stavridis. From what I can see, at this point, I'd
agree with the President's comments that he made at the NATO
summit, which are that, as long as the Iranian threat persists,
the system is effective, that the likelihood of proceeding
forward is important.
Senator Inhofe. I would say it looks like the Iranian
threat will persist. While I'm asking you a question, this is
kind of off the wall--I've fought and lost the 3-year battle of
Vieques a few years ago. I felt, at that time, that was the
best integrated training opportunity that we had. We've been
using it since 1941, we lost it, for political reasons, both
Democrats and Republicans, because President Bush was in on
this decision. Now the things that I said were going to happen,
the adverse things, in terms of Roosevelt Roads and adversely
affecting Puerto Rico, I'm getting people coming back to me,
saying, ``Any possibility of reopening Vieques as a site?'' Any
thoughts on that?
Admiral Stavridis. Sir, that would, of course, fall under
the purview of my good friend, Chief of Naval Operations,
Admiral Gary Roughead. I'll take that message back to Admiral
Roughead and ask him to interact with you.
Senator Inhofe. Do you think the quality of training today
is as good as it was when we had that integrated training at
Vieques?
Admiral Stavridis. Sir, I don't know the answer to that
question. I have not operated----
Senator Inhofe. Okay, but maybe for the record we could do
that.
[The information referred to follows:]
From my perspective as a combatant commander, the Navy has been
providing me with highly trained personnel and units who have
accomplished so much in the Southern Command area of focus. The Navy
has made a huge and significant impact through exercises such as Unitas
and Panamax, as well as Operation Continuing Promise and real world
disaster relief efforts. So, as a user I am very satisfied with the
training the Navy is providing its sailors under their mobile training
concept, which was created following the closing of the Atlantic Fleet
Weapons Training Facility in Vieques to meet the training needs of the
Navy.
Senator Inhofe. General McChrystal, you and I talked about
this, and I appreciate all of you visiting with me and giving
me the time that you have. I know you've been very busy. The
Nebraska--I don't see the Senator from Nebraska here--National
Guard has been in Afghanistan on these agricultural programs,
and then the Oklahoma Guard is going up to carry them on. Would
you give a very brief assessment as to what successes or
failures they're having up there on that?
General McChrystal. Sir, my information, as we discussed,
is secondhand, but all I've gotten is very positive, and I do
know that the importance of the agricultural part of the
development program is key. On the basis of what I know right
now, it's very positive.
Senator Inhofe. Good, I'm glad to hear that. I've heard
that from a lot of the commanders in the field, and others.
Let me get my three or four programs that are my favorites,
just, for yes-or-no answers from the three of you. It would be
on train-and-equip, sections 1206, 1207, and 1208, as it refers
to Special Forces, the International Military Education and
Training (IMET) program, the CERP program, and the Combat
Commander Initiative Fund programs. I think those four programs
are among the most significant programs that we have going for
us right now. Do you agree?
General Fraser?
General Fraser. Yes, sir, I do agree, they're very
important programs.
Senator Inhofe. Admiral?
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir. Based on 3 years at SOUTHCOM,
they approach indispensable.
Senator Inhofe. Good.
General McChrystal. Yes, sir, I concur.
Senator Inhofe. All right. Well, what I'd like to have you
do--and this would be for the record--Admiral, if you could
respond. I have been told, over there, that, by spending no
more money, but by handling the cashflow in the IMET program,
that we would--and maybe having a multiyear program--it would
not be scored, and it would be immensely more beneficial to us
for those partnerships with the other countries. If you could
kind of answer that for the record, I'd appreciate it.
Admiral Stavridis. Aye-aye, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
The International Military Education and Training (IMET) program is
one of the best and most cost-effective engagement tools for forging
longlasting, military-to-military relationships with the current and
future leaders of our hemisphere's security institutions. The funding
flow for IMET is complex, with multiple government agencies
participating in the budget planning process, and requiring a 3-year
planning process. The complicated and time intensive planning process
results in allocation occurring in the second half of the programmatic
year. Because IMET is currently 1-year funding, this leaves little time
for execution of funds before the end of the programmatic fiscal year.
This would be a tight timeline for any program. However, IMET presents
additional complications. Execution of the IMET program necessitates
enrollment in the military institutions to which we bring our partner
militaries. By the time we receive the budget allocations, enrollment
in these institutions is sometimes full or closed, presenting
additional challenges to execution of the program. For all of these
reasons, it would be very useful if this was multi-year funding.
Senator Inhofe. All right. AFRICOM, I know this is not
directly involved with what you would be doing in your case--
I've been concerned that they're not getting their resources. I
was one of them who, when the continent was divided into three
different commands, said that it would make much more sense to
have AFRICOM, and that's what's happening today, although it
appears to me that they're not getting the resources. I'm
talking about airlift resources and others. Do you think they
are? If not, would you try to improve that?
Admiral Stavridis. Sir, I don't have the answer to the
question. I'll ask General Ward, who's a colleague and good
friend. I would support the adequate resourcing of Africa
Command. I agree it's important for unity of effort in that
continent.
[The information referred to follows:]
In speaking to Africa Command, I understand that airlift is
certainly a challenge, and some help may be coming. However, generally
speaking, they are satisfied that they can conduct their missions
within their resourcing.
Senator Inhofe. Okay, good.
Lastly, I'm getting it all in here--the concern that I have
had for the aging fleet of everything that we're having right
now--of course, the average of over 18 years old, the Navy
aircraft averages 18 years; Marine Corps, over 21 years;
refueling tankers, over 44 years. I'd like to ask each one of
you what the impact on operating and maintaining 20- to 40-
plus-year-old equipment has on combat readiness and if you have
any thoughts about what we can do on this, the aging aircraft
fleet.
Tinker Air Force Base, being in my State of Oklahoma,
they're doing a great job on the KC-135s, but you know how old
they are. If we are successful today and make a determination
as to what kind of a tanker we would have, we would still be
using them for another 30 years.
Let's start with you, General. Does that keep you up at
night, concern about the aging equipment that we have?
General Fraser. Sir, it is a concern, and we need to keep
our focus on it. I've really been on the outside as the
Services have really deliberated on this--as I look at my
position currently, as the Deputy Commander, Pacific Command,
we have the resources we need to do the job; it's one of those
things we need to make sure we continue to focus on and enable
us in the future.
Senator Inhofe. Admiral?
Admiral Stavridis. I agree, sir.
Senator Inhofe. All right.
General McChrystal, I might go a little further, when I see
your green uniform there, the Future Combat System is one of
the first things--transformations in 50 years that we've had on
the ground, and I know that it's very controversial. Many of
these decisions are political decisions. But, I would still say
that we're using some of the really outdated stuff. The Paladin
was World War II technology. Recognizing the Paladin/FAASV
Integrated Management (PIM) program is going to at least go
forward to improve the Paladin, it's undergone two or three of
these renovations already in the last 30 or 40 years. What do
you think about the Army's aging equipment?
General McChrystal. Sir, my expertise on much of the
equipment is pretty thin, but I would say that I think tough
decisions were made in the Secretary's budget recommendations
for this year, particularly moving toward some of the irregular
warfare. I think they've had to make tough tradeoffs. There are
none that I've seen I didn't agree with----
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Well, I know that's not in your
purview, but it's still you; you're Army.
Thank you very much.
Admiral Stavridis. Sir, I just add, the Quadrennial Defense
Review that Secretary Gates is doing now is looking very
specifically at that issue, as well.
Senator Inhofe. Very good, thank you, Admiral.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for your service to the Nation, and
the service of your families.
Admiral Stavridis, Senator Lieberman raised the question of
the long-term NATO commitment to this effort. The NATO heads of
states agreed to create these training missions and operational
liaison and mentoring teams. They still haven't filled them.
Is that going to be a deficit that will continue forward,
or are you confident they can fill that and continue for a long
period of time?
Admiral Stavridis. Sir, the Operational Mentoring and
Liaison Teams (OMLTs) are in shortfall right now. There are 52
fielded; we need 64. The really bad news is, looking ahead,
we're positioned to have 71, and need as many as 90-plus.
[The information referred to follows:]
During my testimony on June 2, 2009, I misspoke concerning the
number of Operational Mentoring and Liaison Teams (OMLTs) in
Afghanistan. I would like to take this opportunity to correct the
record.
There are currently 54 OMLTs fielded; we need 66. I originally said
there were 52 fielded and we needed 64. We are positioned to have 70
OMLTs, while I originally said we are positioned to have 71.
Thank you for the opportunity to correct the record.
Admiral Stavridis. Sir, you've identified, I think, a
crucial area. It's at the top of my priority list, if
confirmed, to put an argument forward to our allies that this
is the kind of thing they could perform very well in. The same
discussion we were having earlier about, ``Where are the
comparative advantages?'' these small teams could have
tremendous effect and would be threaded into General
McChrystal's civil-military campaign plan as a very central
feature, because, at the end of the day, again, security is
local; you have to train up these Afghans. That's what these
so-called OMLTs would be very good at. Top of my list, sir.
Senator Reed. Let me ask you another question, Admiral.
With the exception of the British, who have combat brigades in-
country--and, frankly, I think French commandos and a few other
national units--what's the ability to generate brigade-sized
forces comparable to an American brigade?
Admiral Stavridis. Sir, it's limited. I think that, again,
this is why we need to work with the allies to find the sizing
of units that they could put in the field. The Canadians do
terrific work, down south. They have, actually, the highest
per-capita casualty rate; higher than our own in the United
States, for example. The Dutch are doing terrific work. The
French are doing terrific work, and so forth and so on. Of
course, the British.
We need to find the right sizing units, and that's
something that I'll be looking very much for General
McChrystal's expertise, and also talking to General Petraeus,
who has excellent experience at this type of coalition
structuring on the Iraq side. I think, between the three of us,
we need to find ways to generate combat effect if we can't have
big standing combat formations.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
General McChrystal, the command structure now with General
Rodriguez, how do you propose to utilize General Rodriguez?
General McChrystal. Sir, General Rodriguez has
extraordinary operational experience, which most of you are
aware of, both in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think that in almost
any role, he's going to be value added.
What I would like to aspire to is that he would be in
operational command of the regional commands, the five regional
commands. That would allow me to look at the strategic level
and the interface, and he would do the maneuvering. That
requires NATO to agree to that. That is not yet done, so I
don't want to get ahead of reality. But, that would be my
aspiration.
Senator Reed. There's another aspect to the questions that
Admiral Stavridis and I have, and that is shifting away from a
geographical base of operations to functional. That is, if NATO
takes the training mission, if NATO takes logistical missions,
then the geography of the fight could be up to those combat
units. They're not all exclusively American, but mostly
American. Is that a thought you're giving?
General McChrystal. Sir, I just looked at that. I haven't
studied it. It seems to make a lot of sense to me.
Senator Reed. Okay. There is another aspect, too, here,
which is very sensitive; that is, the civilian casualties. Like
so many of my colleagues, I've been out there recently, and
that is an issue that has a great political effect, manipulated
for self-interested purposes by all sides. How are you going to
ramp up the battle as you intend to, particularly in the south,
and then also minimize collateral civilian casualties?
General McChrystal. Sir, I believe the perception caused by
civilian casualties is one of the most dangerous things we face
in Afghanistan, particularly with the Afghan people; the
Pashtun, most likely. I think that we have to recognize that
that is a way to lose their faith and lose their support, and
that would be strategically decisive against us.
So, my intent, if confirmed, is to review all of our
existing rules of engagement, review all of our tactical
directives, get with all of our forces, with the goal of not
putting ourselves in a position, except when we have to protect
American or coalition or Afghan forces, actual survival, from
positions where we create civilian casualties.
Now, I'm free to say, with the chaos of war, it's difficult
to say ``always'' or ``ever.'' But, certainly I think it has to
be viewed as a critical requirement for us.
Senator Reed. One of the aspects of your mission, not only
to attack and disrupt the Taliban and the other elements there,
but to minimize casualty, is the use of technology, like
unmanned aerial vehicles. Do you think you have enough of
those? Do you need more?
General McChrystal. Sir, I have a history of saying, ``I've
never had enough,'' and I can't ever envision a day when I'd
say that an operation I'm involved in has enough ISR. That
said, there has been significant increase in Afghanistan this
year, and by the end of this year it's going to be
significantly more. But, every time you get more ISR, you get
more precision. Every time you get more precision, then what
you can do is, you can reduce civilian casualties, you can also
reduce impact on civilian population. If you are going to an
individual, and the operation goes after a single house or a
single compound, and you don't affect the whole village, you
don't have a negative impact on everyone else. So, while ISR is
not a panacea for everything, the more you have, the smarter
you are as a force, and the more precise you can be. I'm just a
huge believer. Everything we can do to continue to increase
that will be of value to us.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
General Fraser, you have an area of the world which is very
close to us. One of the lessons I think we've learned worldwide
is that governmental capacity is such a critical element of
stability. I wonder if you will undertake an assessment of the
governmental capacity of the countries in your areas of
operations as a leading-edge indicator of where problems might
exist.
General Fraser. Senator, thank you for that question. As I
understand it and as I've studied what SOUTHCOM is already
doing, I think they already have a very robust program that
looks to do that, a very interagency, very cooperative program.
The issues we deal with in that region, I think, reflect that.
It's a whole-of-government approach, it's an interagency
approach, it's an international approach. So, yes, sir, if
confirmed, I'll continue efforts along that line.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Thune is next.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me echo what's already been said. You all are extremely
qualified. I can't think of individuals who are better equipped
to serve in the posts for which you're here this morning. I
want to thank you for that service, and also add my
appreciation to your families for the sacrifice that they make
each and every day so that you can continue to serve our
country with such distinction.
I also want to associate myself with the remarks that were
made by Senator Lieberman earlier, and also Senator Inhofe,
with regard to the third site in Europe and the danger imposed
by the Iranian threat. Admiral Stavridis, you have made some
fairly strong comments in that regard, and I also want to
express my support for that view. I think it's just really
important that we continue to pursue that undertaking.
General McChrystal, if I might--the core goal of the new
AfPak strategy is to destroy the extremists and their safe
havens within both Pakistan and Afghanistan, and you would
imply from that, I think, that it's not necessary to form a
coalition government or a reconciliation of political elements
in Afghanistan, as General Petraeus did in Iraq. It seems,
rather, that the goal requires only that an agreement be
reached with the Taliban to block al Qaeda operations in
Afghanistan.
My question is, is it acceptable, in your opinion, to have
the Taliban once again in charge of Afghanistan if they agree
to deny al Qaeda safe haven in Afghanistan?
General McChrystal. Senator, I find it very unlikely that
the Taliban would make a credible agreement to do that. So, I
would have a difficult time even speculating.
That said, I think that the President's intent, and my
belief, is that we need to create in Afghanistan a state that
would not allow the return of safe havens. In my view, I think
that means it's going to have to be a government that may be a
working coalition that may have some former Taliban. But, right
now, based upon Taliban statements, I can't see them being a
credible official part of the government.
Senator Thune. The Washington Post report, on April 29,
that Pakistan's inability to slow Taliban advances has forced
the administration to shift its Afghan-Pakistan strategy from a
step-by-step process of greater engagement with Pakistan to a
more accelerated approach. I'd be interested in knowing what
that shift in strategy will do, in terms of affecting your job
in Afghanistan.
General McChrystal. Sir, I actually think it's positive. I
think the degree to which Pakistan shows the resolve which they
have shown lately, and their willingness to go after what they
view as an important internal problem and let us partner and
help them in any way possible, I think that's positive. If we
can, in good faith, do that, I think we continue to build a
strategic partnership that I think is important for the long
haul.
Senator Thune. I'd like to get at one other issue--and,
again, I'd address this to General McChrystal--dealing with the
issue of corruption in Afghanistan. There is, of course, a lot
being written about it. According to Sarah Chayes, who operates
an economic cooperative in Kandahar and appeared as a witness
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this
year, corruption so widespread that nearly every citizen
interaction with the government results in some form of
shakedown. Traveling along the roadways requires one to pay a
bribe at each police checkpoint. According to Ms. Chayes, ``To
pay your electricity bill, you have to go to eight different
desks in two different buildings, and you have to pay bribes in
order to have the privilege of paying your electricity bill.''
This sort of unchecked dishonest form of governance, I
think, really is obstructing our progress in Afghanistan. As
she has noted, people, in some cases, prefer probably to live
under the Taliban because of the excruciating difficulty that
they encounter with the corruption in the government. In fact,
I think that's what brought the Taliban to power back in 1994.
My question is--if we don't work to clean up the corruption
in the Afghan Government, we may not be able to win this war,
and the question is, what, if confirmed, can you do, in terms
of taking steps that would implement our new strategy there,
that would lead to more honest government and end some of this
corruption that is really plaguing the government and our
ability, I think, to be successful there?
General McChrystal. Sir, I concur with what both Sarah told
you and also what you've stated, in terms of corruption. I
think it has a corrosive effect that undermines the legitimacy
of any government, particularly Afghanistan right now, where it
is a real problem, and it is perceived by the people to be a
real problem. I think we need to help them at every level,
partnering with them to try to work out corruption. I don't
think there is a way we can suddenly take a society that, after
30 years of war, has developed some bad habits, and wring it
out suddenly. But, I do think constant pressure on it, at the
ministerial level--and I would look to partner with Ambassador
Eikenberry and his team to try to provide people at each level
to work, and then, out more locally, things like Provincial
Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) and our forces to put pressure on
it to try to reduce it. I think it's one of the things that
must be reduced for the government to be legitimate, and
therefore, for the people to trust it.
Senator Thune. Do you see us having any kind of success
there, long term, absent a functioning--and ``clean'' is
probably too much of a word to use, but at least a capable,
accountable, and at least effective government in that country?
General McChrystal. No, sir. It may not look exactly like a
structure of our Government, but it has to be functioning, it
has to be perceived by the people as legitimate.
Senator Thune. Okay.
I want to come back to one other question, I think, that
was asked earlier by Senator Reed, and it has to do with the
issue of the command structure there, and how that sometimes
has hampered our efforts, as well. Critics often point out that
part of the problem in Afghanistan is the lack of unified
effort among our allies, and that we managed to cripple our
effort, because there's not broad coordination or vision, and
that there's confusion about strategy and tactics and
operations and those sorts of things. You've touched on this
already. I would direct this to you, General, and to Admiral
Stavridis, as well, about what can be done to establish a more
unified effort, especially as we contemplate pouring troops
into Afghanistan.
General McChrystal. Sir, I think the first point I'd make
is, it's not as clean and as unified as we might like. On the
other hand, the nature of coalition warfare is such that you
bring a number of partners together with different values,
different goals, different habits, and you get them to work
together. At the end of the day, I think you have to judge
whether you get more from fighting as a coalition than you give
up by not having unity. I think, historically--and I think
strongly--we get more out of being a coalition, and it's sort
of like democracy, you pay for a certain lack of order, but the
benefits are so great.
I think what we have to do is work through it by
overcommunicating, just constantly staying wired. There are
probably some things we can do, as I mentioned, with the
aspiration for General Rodriguez's role that would make us more
effective.
Admiral Stavridis. I would agree, and I would add that the
command relationships are complicated, but they are not, in any
sense, unworkable. I believe that the communication, and
indeed, the friendship between myself, General McChrystal,
General Petraeus, Ambassador Eikenberry, all of us well known
to each other, will be very effective in then turning and
working with our allies to try and create a holistic approach,
a pallet upon which we can all paint our different pictures,
and yet, have it come out as the picture we want.
Senator Thune. In your efforts with our allies----
Chairman Levin. Excuse me for interrupting, Senator Thune.
I'm going to run and vote now. A vote has begun. After you,
Senator Akaka would be next, and he will then identify whoever
else is here.
Thank you. Excuse the interruption.
Senator Thune. One final point I want to make on that is,
in your efforts to--as you strengthen and build some of those
relationships with our allies, this issue of caveats is really
problematic. If you talk to troops or commanders, it
continually comes up, and it really does undermine and
hamstring our ability to be effective. I understand there are
certain, as you noted, limitations when you're dealing with a
coalition effort like this, but I really hope that you all can
home in on that and see if perhaps we can provide some relief
from some of these, just--the conditions and caveats that some
of our allies impose on our ability to get the job done.
Admiral Stavridis. Sir, if I could, we spoke earlier about
the importance of these OMLTs, these teams that we're going to
try and bring together. That's at the very top of the priority
list for me. I would say caveats would be the next. I sat down,
in the course of preparing for this hearing, and read every one
of the 69 caveats that applied to the various nations involved
in this. It is complicated. It's worth mentioning, 18 of the 41
countries are caveat-free, so there are examples, amongst the
coalition, of nations, who do not place caveats upon
themselves.
So, I think by working with our allies, and, again, as
we've talked about, trying to find where the absolute redlines
are, but getting close and close and closer to those every day,
will reduce the caveats. Again, that's, I think, an area where
Stan and I will be working very closely together.
Senator Thune. Thank you all very much.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Akaka [presiding]. Thank you.
Thank you very much, to our panel, for being here. Welcome
and aloha. Congratulations on your nominations, also, thank you
to your families. I know families are great supporters of what
you do, and I know your outstanding leadership is due to the
support of your families. Thank you all for being here.
General Fraser, I would like to thank you very much for
your steadfast leadership over the past year in the Pacific
Command, under the leadership of Admiral Keating and yourself.
The proud men and women of the Pacific Command have met the
challenges of a very demanding region, and I want to thank you
for your service out there as you move on to SOUTHCOM.
General, SOUTHCOM is critical to our U.S. strategic
objectives. If confirmed, what would be your top priorities for
that region?
General Fraser. Thank you, Senator. I see two basic issues
that we need to work. One is, in my role there, it's the basic
defense in defending the southern approaches to the United
States. It is, and will remain, a key effort, but that's for
the United States.
I think the big thing within the region is an international
and interagency approach. The issues that are resident there
require us to take that approach. If I'm confirmed, my goal is
to continue what Admiral Stavridis has so aptly done, and that
is engage with the militaries in the region, engage in the
interagency, engage internationally to continue to address the
problems in the region, primarily poverty and income
distribution.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, General, for that. I'm glad to
also know that you did spend your young life in that area, and
for me, being knowledgeable of the culture of these areas makes
a difference in the command there.
General McChrystal, according to Secretary Gates, the goal
in Iraq is to have a soldier in a medical facility within 1
hour of being wounded. In Afghanistan, the response time has
been closer to 2 hours. I applaud the initiative of Secretary
Gates, in his defense budget, to improve the medical evacuation
capability in Afghanistan. General, what is your current
assessment of the medical evacuation issues in Afghanistan?
General McChrystal. Senator, thank you. You're exactly
right, what they refer to sometimes as ``the golden hour'' is
how quickly you can get a casualty to the right level of care,
and the medical outcomes affected by that, always to the
positive if it's lower.
Sir, we were behind in Afghanistan what we had in Iraq,
just not nearly as many assets, plus not as many bases as
distance to base. The Secretary directed some changes at the
beginning of this calendar year. Many of those forces have
already flowed in. Some of the others are still flowing, I
believe, as part of the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade. When all
of those are on the ground, and some of the additional new
bases are established, I believe that that time will be down
very close to or about what it is in Iraq.
If confirmed, one of the things I would look at closely is
to make sure we maintain the ability to get our casualties--and
that's all our casualties--coalition, Afghan, United States--to
the right level of care quickly.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Admiral, a major focus of EUCOM is building partnerships
and its capacity within the region. There are several security
cooperation programs dedicated to building relationships. These
programs conduct peacekeeping and contingency operations, and
help minimize conditions that lead to conflict. What is your
assessment of the partner capacity-building efforts of EUCOM?
Admiral Stavridis. Sir, let me begin by saying I'm in
complete agreement that this kind of effort, which we in the
military sometimes call ``phase zero,'' meaning working very
early on in the problem to build partnership capacity, is
crucial to the security of our Nation, and indeed to global
security.
I have used those programs very effectively. We alluded to
them a few moments ago. Sometimes called 1206, 1207, 1208,
building partnership capacity funds in SOUTHCOM. If confirmed,
I'd like to take that same approach with me to EUCOM.
From what I can see at a distance, not having traveled
forward, General Craddock is doing a very good job of using
those funds, as well, particularly in Eastern Europe and in the
Caucasus, and if confirmed, I would seek to build on his good
work.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
General McChrystal, DOD has made significant progress
caring for our returning warriors that have been diagnosed with
mental health issues, but because of the stigma association,
many don't seek assistance that is required. We must get the
message to our warriors that one of the most courageous acts is
reaching out for help.
General, if confirmed, what would you do to continue the
efforts to tear down the stigma that deters many from seeking
counseling?
General McChrystal. Sir, I think primarily just talk to
leaders. We've had some senior leaders who have very publicly
sought help, and I thought that was hugely helpful. I would
continue to talk to our leaders and try to convince them that,
obviously, they don't have to pretend they need help if they
don't need it, but to break down the walls on the stigma of it.
It really begins with leadership at every level, all the way
down to squad and team leader, to take that away.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Senator Akaka, I'm on the horns of a
dilemma. I understand you haven't voted.
Senator Akaka. No.
Senator Wicker. Neither have I. I'd have a lot more
confidence that they'll hold the vote open if you could get
some assurance from the Majority Leader. My questions may be
brief, therefore. But, I certainly appreciate the hearing. It's
been very educational.
Admiral Stavridis and Lieutenant General McChrystal, both
of you said that you believe the Afghan army end strength will
have to be higher than they are currently projecting. Is that
correct?
Admiral Stavridis. Based on very preliminary and from-a-
distant look at everything, but that's my intuition.
Senator Wicker. Okay, so that's your intuition. I guess
it's an intuition on the part of General McChrystal, too,
because, General, you are not willing to speculate on your
predecessor's request for an additional 10,000 American troops.
So, square that with us, if you can. What's the estimate, from
both of you gentlemen, on how much higher than 134,000 the
Afghans might need to go, and how are you able to say that and
not give us an estimate on the 10,000?
General McChrystal. Yes, Senator. When you look at the
Afghan requirement, I look at the police and the army together,
because together they form the security that the government
has. I think that it's about, I think, 80,000 policemen right
now, a little bit more than that, approved already, about
82,000 to 84,000 military. You have about 160,000 total. I
think we can literally just look at the size of Afghanistan and
the size of the population, and you can extrapolate out, even
without a significant insurgency, that would be a challengingly
small number of security forces to have. With an insurgency, I
think you factor it in.
I am reticent to speculate on U.S. forces, because I just
want to get on the ground. We haven't even gotten the
additional forces the President authorized there yet, so I'd
like to see them on the ground, see the impact we're having
before I feel comfortable giving that kind of estimate.
Senator Wicker. Okay. You are, all three, going to be
involved in counternarcotics. Let me start with you, Admiral
Stavridis. Are you proud of the 10-year history of Plan
Colombia? Are there fewer drugs coming from Latin America, as a
whole, because of this? What advice, based on that, will you
have for General McChrystal in the field with the poppies, and
for your successor in South America? Are we thinking outside
the box enough, in terms of fighting the narcotics? I know we
want them to go to alternative crops. Are we thinking outside
the box, in terms of addressing the demand for narcotics, which
we know will still be there, and thinking of ways to address
that question, not only from the supply side, but the demand
side?
Admiral Stavridis. Senator, as I have testified on numerous
occasions, any counternarcotics effort is composed of three
interlocking tasks. One is the demand side, which you just
alluded to. One is the supply side, which gets into crop
substitution and those kinds of things. One is the interdiction
piece, trying to understand the supply chain, reverse engineer
it, and kill it. Those three things have to work together.
If I have advice for General McChrystal or advice for
General Fraser, it would be to understand that you can't
attempt to use precision-guided ideas, if you will, to go after
one single part of a counternarcotics problem. You have to have
a robust demand side. You have to have an enlightened supply-
side approach, which, again, crop substitution, I think, is
very central to, but really encompasses the entire realm of
development. Finally, you have to have capability in the
middle, in the interdiction piece. That's where I think General
Fraser will find great challenge in SOUTHCOM, because the
distances are great, and I think General McChrystal will be
working very hard on the supply side of this.
At the end of the day, the solutions are international,
interagency, local security, and, I think, also with an
additional component of strategic communications. It's very
important to convince people not to use it, on the demand side,
as you talked about, and also to convince them to quit growing
and producing it, on the supply side. These are immense tasks.
Senator Wicker. Although we've made progress in Colombia.
Admiral Stavridis. We have made progress.
Senator Wicker. Can you address the question about overall
drug trafficking from Colombia and the neighboring region?
Admiral Stavridis. There is still an extremely high level
of drugs flowing through the region, Senator, as you well know.
To your point about, ``Are we thinking out of the box
enough?'' I think that's an area where we need more creative
thinking. To give you an example of the narcotic traffickers'
innovative thinking, they're creating semisubmersible
submarines to move cocaine from Colombia. This is a real
innovation, a difficult challenge. We need to step up and take
similar types of approaches on the interdiction side, as well
as on the demand-and-supply sides.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, gentlemen.
Senator Udall [presiding]. Gentlemen, welcome. I want to
congratulate all three of you on your nominations. I know
you're careful to say ``if confirmed,'' but I'm confident that
all three of you will be confirmed.
I'm glad to have a chance to ask some questions today. I'm
going to start with General McChrystal. We had talked before
the hearing again, and I mentioned, I had a chance to travel to
Afghanistan and Pakistan with Senator Hagan, Senator Begich,
Senator Shaheen, and Senator Carper last week. It's hard to see
a lot in 5 days, but we had back-to-back meetings, and we were
in forward operating bases in Kandahar and Helmand. We also
visited Lahore, in Islamabad. We did cover a lot of ground. We
met with people on the ground who are working tactically to
deliver the new strategy. We also had a chance to meet with
many of the Afghan and Pakistan leaders, plus key American and
NATO leaders, as well.
General, I came up with the sense that the new strategy has
a chance to work. No strategy can work if it doesn't have buy-
in, but I really had the feeling that this one clearly does. We
met State Department personnel who were coordinating the influx
of citizens and civilians for the new PRTs to the senior
commanders, who talked a lot more about good governance than
they did about weaponry or military tactics. All in all, there
was just a feeling that we're on the march. In particular, the
Pakistani political leaders were evincing real concern about
the western regions of their country, not the eastern border
with India.
If I might, I'd like to just drill down into this concept
of success. It's hard to define. Even a strategy with
widespread support could fail. Could you talk about what
success might look like in Afghanistan and Pakistan? You said
you hope to see progress in 18 to 24 months. What might that
look like?
General McChrystal. Sir, I think it would have several
components. I think, first, it would be a reduction or,
hopefully, a complete elimination of al Qaeda inside Pakistan,
where they mostly are now, with occasional elements inside
Afghanistan. But, it would be essentially reducing their
ability to either operate transnationally or to cooperate with
elements like the Taliban in either country.
Inside Pakistan, I think it's a return to stability and
essentially their victory against their internal insurgency.
They do have a functioning government with a strong history, so
if they continue with their counterinsurgency campaigns and
they get relative stability, then I think it sort of looks like
that.
Afghanistan has much further to go, because after 30 years
of war, their economic infrastructure is, I believe, fifth
poorest in the world. There's just not much to build on
physically so they have to start by doing that. I think we
achieve a level of security that allows each of the areas, to
include those currently challenged by the Taliban, to bring in
governance that is maybe locally based, but it is linked to the
national government. So, when they think of their governmental
chain, they may think locally, and it may be tribal, in a
village, but when it goes back up the chain, it is absolutely
recognized as going up through the district province and then
to the national government. They are not challenged to the
point where they have a Taliban shadow government.
I think the other aspect of the Taliban, rather than
destroyed--I'll steal a term that came from a bright young
officer I worked with, he said, the challenge is to make them
irrelevant, push them away from the population, and let them be
irrelevant, a percentage of whom will, I believe, stop
insurgency, and a percentage of them may not. Then, of course,
you can allow actual governance and economic development to go.
I don't expect a skyrocketing growth in the country,
economically, but steady growth underpinned by solid governance
is what I think success looks like.
Senator Udall. I think, in a sense, you're distinguishing
between the big-T Taliban and the little-t taliban. You talked
about the hardcore Taliban elements that you believe are
irredeemable, but you alluded to those Taliban who join the
fight because that's what Afghans do in the spring, join the
fight because it's the only way they can provide for their
families.
General McChrystal. Absolutely, sir. Like Admiral
Stavridis, I'm a friend of David Kilcullen's, and I think a lot
of what he says about ``the accidental guerrilla'' is true. I
think what we have to do is eliminate the people who do it for
other than just absolutely strong ideological reasons.
Senator Udall. This may be a rhetorical question, but I
want to ask it anyway. The al Qaeda situation is a large part
of the problem in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But, if we were to
capture or kill Osama bin Laden tomorrow, which is a goal we
all hold, would the job be done in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
General McChrystal. Sir, I don't believe it would. When I
think of al Qaeda, I think that you cannot destroy al Qaeda,
finally, until Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri are gone.
But, getting them gone doesn't conversely automatically cause
al Qaeda to go away.
Senator Udall. Yes.
General McChrystal. I don't think it does.
Senator Udall. An editorial comment from me. I know we've
focused on Osama bin Laden a lot of the time, but his number-
two in command, the Egyptian, I think, is a serious target for
us, as well. We'll continue that work, I know. That's a goal we
all hold.
We had a changing focus to the ANA and ANP, the Afghan
Security Forces, in a meeting with Defense Minister Wardak. He
agreed that the new strategy's stated goals of 134,000 ANA
troops and 82,000 ANP personnel would not be sufficient. We had
some additional conversations about the sustainability of a
large Afghan force--how would we pay for it. Do you have any
thoughts about that question that we face?
General McChrystal. Sir, I agree, as I said earlier, I
think a growth in the Afghan Security Forces, army and police,
are likely to be required. I'd be surprised if we don't.
Resourcing it, I think, is going to be a challenge, and I have
not really seen a solid recommendation for that yet.
Senator Udall. General Fraser, you have similar challenges
on the counternarcotics front. Admiral Stavridis has to oversee
all of this from his position in Europe. It would seem like
there are some common lessons and approaches that we might be
able to apply, both in Afghanistan and in the northern reaches
of South America. Would you care to comment?
General Fraser. Thank you, Senator. I do think there are
great similarities between it, and I think, if confirmed, one
of the challenges that I will have, that we'll all have, is
communicating between one another. I will endeavor to do that,
to make sure that we communicate what's working in one region,
how that applies to what would work in another region so that
we're crossing the boundaries, we're decreasing the boundaries
and enabling one another to use the best practices, wherever
they are, to success in our regions.
Admiral Stavridis. If I could add, Senator, it's worth
noting that we're in conversations at SOUTHCOM with our
Colombian friends about the possibility of Colombian military
engagement in Afghanistan. If that comes to fruition, it is a
very direct and personal venue to have soldiers who have had
experience in both counterinsurgency and counternarcotics
transferring some of those lessons learned. I think, also
important to note in that context, we talk a lot about NATO's
involvement in Afghanistan, there are 28 NATO nations, but 13
other countries that are also involved there. So, moving these
lessons are very important.
Senator Udall. Thank you. I see my time's expired. I would
make one final comment--and, General McChrystal, you're well
aware of this--that at one point before the last 30-year
misadventure that's characterized Afghanistan, it fed much of
the region; it has the potential to produce a lot of food. We
did hear that, for example, the price of wheat can rival that
of poppies. It's not as if we're trying to fight upstream when
it comes to the markets there, but we do have to provide an
alternative. We have to provide that security and that
development opportunity for the farmers, particularly in the
south of Afghanistan.
Thank you again.
Chairman Levin [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Chambliss.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To each of you, having gotten to know all of you over the
last many years, thank you for your leadership, thanks for your
service, and Americans feel they're fortunate to have men like
you in the roles that you are now. To your families, we say
thanks.
General McChrystal, I think I've seen you probably in
theater more than I've seen you out of theater here in recent
years, and I note those bars on your sleeve indicate you've
been gone from home a lot more often than you've been at home.
To each of you, thank you for that.
Admiral Stavridis, I was in your ethnic home, over the last
week, and had the opportunity to observe what's going on in
Greece, particularly with regard to what's happening with the
migration of folks out of Afghanistan and Pakistan through
Turkey, through Greece, sometimes staying in Turkey, sometimes
staying in Greece, causing some problems there. But, Turkey
obviously is a very strategic country right now. Its European
orientation, NATO membership, and enduring relationship make it
a bridge of stability between the Euro-Atlantic community and
the Nations of Central Asia and the Arabian Gulf. How would you
describe our relationship with Turkey today? How has the
situation in northern Iraq, with the Kurdistan Workers' Party
and the Kongra-Gel, threaten that relationship?
Admiral Stavridis. Thank you, Senator. Probably worth
noting that, although I'm ethnically Greek, my grandfather was
actually born in Turkey and came through Greece on his way to
the United States. I think I have cultural understanding of
both of those nations.
Turkey is an incredibly important friend and ally to the
United States. I would categorize our relationship at the
moment from what I can see before going to theater, if
confirmed, and actually meeting with our Turkish military
counterparts, it is a strong relationship. We are conducting a
great deal of information and intelligence-sharing with our
friends. We recognize the threat to Turkey posed by the Kurdish
separatist movements. I believe it is both an important and a
strong relationship, and one that I intend to focus on, if
confirmed.
Senator Chambliss. General McChrystal, Afghanistan
obviously is so closely tied with what's going on in Pakistan
that it's going to be a very difficult situation for us there.
As you and I talked the other day, a military solution in
Afghanistan is one thing, but, at the end of the day, it's
going to have to require a political solution to ultimately
solve the issues there. One of those political issues that we
have is what is taking place in Pakistan. How do you see the
relationship between what's going on in Pakistan right now
having a direct impact on Afghanistan? After your confirmation
and being put in place, what are your intentions with respect
to Pakistan?
General McChrystal. Senator, thanks for your question. I
view Afghanistan and Pakistan as absolutely linked, but not one
and the same. Sometimes people use the term ``PakAf'' or
``AfPak,'' and I think that may do a disservice to both of
those countries, because both are very unique situations,
unique people. I do believe, however, they suffer a very
similar problem. In Pakistan, they now have what has become an
internal insurgency. It's not strictly Taliban, although it
uses that moniker. It's a collection of different groups that
have essentially turned inward against the Government of
Pakistan. Unless they can bring that insurgency under control
and reestablish governance, I think that they will have
tremendous problems. But, also it makes Afghanistan very
difficult, because it offers a sanctuary, which any guerrilla
force or insurgency benefits from, and makes it very difficult
to defeat. A friend of mine used to use the analogy, it's like
burning leaves in your backyard on a windy day; it just
constantly will keep blowing over and causing problems. I think
we have to see solution and progress in both countries almost
simultaneously--the increase of governance, the reduction of
the ability of elements like the Taliban to catch hold.
Senator Chambliss. The 48th Brigade of the Georgia National
Guard is back in Afghanistan. Again, you and I discussed this,
and I look forward to visiting them and visiting you while
they're over there. We continue to call on our Guard and
Reserve on a very regular basis. It's no longer a volunteer
service on their part, almost; it's a constant service. Not
part-time, for sure. We've talked about the seamless
integration of the Guard and Reserve. Can you talk for a minute
about that? Any issues there that we need to be thinking about
that you're prepared to implement that would change what's
going on right now?
General McChrystal. Sir, I think we've made a lot of
progress in the last few years. As you and I discussed, I have
a history with the 48th, back to about 1982, very close with
that brigade. We do very well in the field. There is just not
an issue in the field, and organizations work together.
Sometimes we do have to employ organizations in smaller
formations than they might like to be, the battalion or brigade
level, and that's a challenge. But, it's a challenge, Active
and Reserve component. I think it's legitimately looked at by
all the commanders.
I think the chairman has done an awful lot. He has General
Craig McKinley very integrated now, as the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau, in what he does. I sense progress there.
Admiral Stavridis. Senator, could I add something?
Senator Chambliss. Sure.
Admiral Stavridis. The State Partnership Program, which was
mentioned earlier, is a Guard and Reserve program that is just
of seminal importance, based on my 3 years in SOUTHCOM, and, I
think, throughout these regions. It gets to Stan's point about
how smaller formations can have tremendous impact, particularly
in these counterinsurgency situations. It's a real strength of
the Guard and Reserve, sir.
Senator Chambliss. Not unlike what we saw in Iraq, the
training of the military and the enlistment of folks into the
military in Afghanistan has been on the rise, and it appears
that we have some very capable fighters; they've been fighting
all their lives, so they certainly know what they're doing.
But, on the other side of that coin, the security police is an
issue. It has been, in Iraq. I think that still remains our
weakest link there. I saw, in my recent trip to Afghanistan,
the same thing in Afghanistan. General McChrystal, what's your
direction, there? What's your thought with respect to how we
continue, number one, to provide funding? Or, do we look to the
Afghans for the funding? As far as the training, what about our
partners? Are they stepping up and helping us like we need them
to?
General McChrystal. Sir, first, I absolutely agree with the
assessment. I think that the army's come along well, although
it has some challenges. The police are lagging a bit. We have
not been able to put the level of mentoring or partnering with
them out in as many locations, or the training down to as low a
level, as will need to be to be effective. We'd like to see
more help from our NATO partners. We are now going to do more
with the deployment of the 4th of the 82nd, which actually
goes, in late August and in September, that will essentially
double our ability to do that. But, I think it's overdue. I
think that will be progress. It may be all that's required to
get them to the level needed.
Senator Chambliss. General, Senator Levin and I serve on
the board at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security
Cooperation (WHINSEC), and we've had a good working
relationship with the admiral and folks at WHINSEC. We look
forward to you being in place and continuing that strong
relationship. We're doing good work down there. Again, just
thank all of you for your willingness to serve and your great
leadership.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Chambliss.
Senator Hagan.
Senator Hagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to once again welcome our men here today and
thank you so much for your commitment to our country, to our
military, to the men and women serving in the military, and, in
particular, to their families, too. Certainly, welcome to all
of the family members, your wives, and children. I know it's so
important for you to have them here. The ones who aren't here,
in spirit, I'm sure they're watching.
But, as I'm sure Senator Udall said, he and I and several
others just got back from a trip to Afghanistan and Pakistan,
and it was certainly educational for me to be there, but to see
the terrain that our military is working on, and obviously the
heat, the need for equipment, the need for maintenance is also
very important.
It was interesting, as I'm sure you've heard, too, we had
an opportunity to meet with President Hamid Karzai and
President Asif Ali Zardari, a number of the other ministers, as
well as the people in both countries. I certainly enjoyed
talking one on one to the troops that I could speak with from
North Carolina, and they are certainly proud, serving and what
a good job they're doing.
While we were there, it was interesting, too, Karzai,
Zardari and Ahmadinejad actually had a joint meeting in Iran
during that time, so it was interesting hearing Karzai's and
Zardari's aspects on that meeting.
But, in our meeting with President Karzai--and this is to
Admiral Stavridis and General McChrystal--in our meeting with
President Karzai last week, he emphasized the importance of
defining the mission in Afghanistan and to work with Pakistan
on the other side of the border. The feeling that al Qaeda's
presence in Afghanistan has really shifted to Pakistan's
Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA), and specifically in
Waziristan, and the fact that they've pretty much moved into
the FATA area, but compounding the problem is that the Afghan
Taliban High Command dwells in Quetta inside Pakistan's
Baluchistan Province. The increased U.S. ground strength in
Afghanistan, coupled with the coordination with the Pakistan
Army and Frontier Corps, are critical in depriving al Qaeda and
the Taliban of safe havens in Pakistan and preventing the
cross-border attacks.
My question has to do with keeping in mind Pakistan's
sovereignty and reluctance for the United States to conduct
operations inside Pakistan's FATA, what type of cross-border
coordination strategy can we adopt with the Pakistan Army to
deny the Taliban and al Qaeda safe havens there?
General McChrystal. Yes, ma'am. I think that the idea that
we would conduct operations in Pakistan in any extent is not
valid, and nor do I think we would want to. I think the road to
success in Pakistan is through the Government of Pakistan and
through the Pakistani military and Pakistani police.
It gets to the building-partnership-capacity kinds of
activities that we have done with Pakistan, and hopefully will
do with increasing effectiveness over the years, or in the
years in the future.
I think everything we can do to share intelligence with
them, to share, in some cases, ISR assets, that sort of thing,
to coordinate operations--there have been a number of
coordination centers established--those are still growing in
size and in scope. So, I think everything we can do to empower
and increase their capacity is really the road we have to go
inside Pakistan.
Admiral Stavridis. I agree with General McChrystal
completely.
Senator Hagan. Another comment that we heard quite a bit
about was in the Swat Valley, obviously the military operations
going on there in Pakistan, and the number of the internally
displaced people (IDPs) in Pakistan; it was numbering 2.4
million while we were there. I was just wondering about any of
the humanitarian needs and aspects that are taking place right
now within Pakistan to help those huge numbers of people. Can
you give me an update? Are you aware of any activity going on
in helping, from a humanitarian aspect?
General McChrystal. Ma'am, in my role as Director of the
Joint Staff, we were working to provide, through U.S. Central
Command (CENTCOM), whatever the Government of Pakistan
requested. It did request some support. Maybe not as much as we
expected at the beginning, but they have requested it, and we
provided it. I think, again, that's key. I think the number of
IDPs, if they hold the government responsible for their plight,
obviously offer the chance for greater unrest. I think, right
now, the sense is, they hold the Taliban, the insurgents,
responsible. But, I think that has to be worked hard by the
Pakistani Government, with whatever help the world can give.
Senator Hagan. In Afghanistan, I met with the Minister of
Interior Mohammod Hanif Atmar, and he indicated--it was
interesting--that the ANP was undergoing a pilot program to
allow females to actually accompany, with members of their
families, their fathers or their brothers--to come in as police
recruits within the ANP, in an effort to utilize family
dynamics, to control violence, and to sustain order in the
urban areas. Security checkpoints in Afghanistan are, in many
cases, manned by men, and obviously there have been a number of
female suicide bombers recently. What I understand, that the
strategy of utilizing the women has been done effectively in
Jordan, in performing security functions and countering female
suicide bombers.
It was interesting, too, Minister Atmar said that it was
within several months that the enemy targeted its first female
officer, and she was killed. But, I was just wondering if you
were aware of that or what your opinion is on this initiative
to recruit the Afghan women.
General McChrystal. Ma'am, I was not aware of it, but, on
the sound of it, makes absolute sense. When we deal with the
cultural realities or sensitivities of any area we're operating
in, the ability to adapt and get to the right person--I mean, I
would guess that a female police officer could question females
much more effectively, certainly, than a foreign soldier could,
but probably even better than a male Afghan policeman. So,
theoretically, I think it makes absolute sense.
Admiral Stavridis. I would just add, ma'am, that this is an
example of a program in which our allies could potentially play
a very good role. Many of their police forces have cultural
sensitivities that are different than ours and might be
adaptable to this region. A good example of the benefits of
approaching the coalition in a way that they can participate in
comfortable ways for them.
Senator Hagan. Thank you.
General Fraser, multilateral cooperation on drug
interdiction and cashflow and the smuggling of weapons is
essential in maintaining stability in the SOUTHCOM region. It's
also an area of significant overlap with U.S. Northern Command
(NORTHCOM), particularly with regard to the smuggling of drugs,
cash, cashflow, weapons across the border in El Paso to the
Mexican state near there. To what extent do you foresee working
with NORTHCOM on these issues? I know it's such a huge problem
right now.
General Fraser. Yes, thank you, Senator.
A lot of the cocaine that flows into the United States
flows through Central America into Mexico and then into the
United States. SOUTHCOM has already initiated a very close
relationship with NORTHCOM. They have liaison officers. They
share a joint operating area with Joint Interagency Task Force
South. They've had staff-to-staff talks. They continue that
dialogue on a routine basis. I know Admiral Stavridis and
General Renuart have a close working relationship.
I've had the pleasure of working for General Renuart
before, so I anticipate, and, if confirmed, I look forward to,
continuing and building on the relationship that Admiral
Stavridis has already done.
Senator Hagan. Thank each and every one of you for your
comments, and I look forward to working closely with you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Hagan.
Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, also, want to compliment you on your careers. I think
you're excellent choices for the jobs that you're about to take
on, and I'm sure you'll be confirmed by the Senate.
General Fraser, along the lines of what the Senator from
North Carolina was asking, if you haven't had a chance to
evaluate it, that's fine, but could you give me an opinion as
to whether or not the fence we're building on the U.S.-Mexican
border is helping, in terms of drugs and illegal immigration?
Do you have a view of that?
General Fraser. Senator, I don't have a view on that. I
have not studied that.
Senator Graham. Could you take a look at it and give me an
opinion about that?
General Fraser. Yes, sir. I'll take that and get back to
you.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mexico is a part of the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) Area of
Focus (AOF), as such the monitoring of the U.S.-Mexican border and the
border fence issue fall under NORTHCOM responsibility. The border fence
issue is not a situation directly monitored by U.S. Southern Command
(SOUTHCOM). However, because of the shared linkages between Mexico and
the SOUTHCOM AOF I am told that SOUTHCOM works closely with NORTHCOM on
security in the region. I believe a border fence, while important, is
just one aspect of the full spectrum of efforts required to secure the
border. The requirement to monitor and enforce the sovereignty of not
just the land portion of the border, but all domains that make up the
border must be considered. Relying on a fence alone has the potential
to simply drive illegal border traffic to other avenues which will in
turn lead to border excursions via air, subterranean, and sea routes.
It is my opinion that the greatest aid to protecting the sovereignty of
the border is ensuring the prevalence and enforcement of law on both
sides of the border.
Senator Graham. General McChrystal, as I understand it, as
we go forward, it's helpful to look back and see where we're
at, a baseline in Afghanistan. Under the NATO operations, the
Germans were supposed to train the police. Are they training
the police now?
General McChrystal. Sir, I'm not sure of their current
role, but----
Senator Graham. I think they're not. I think the U.S. Army,
and particularly the National Guard, are training the police.
We had several years lost, where one of our NATO allies who was
primarily responsible for police training, and we, quite
frankly, went nowhere. Now the U.S. military has taken over
that job. The Phoenix Program seems to have a lot of potential,
where you put mentors out in different regions to train the
police.
The Italians, Admiral, were supposed to be in charge of the
judiciary. How well did that work?
Admiral Stavridis. Sir, I don't have the details on it, but
I think the current state of the judiciary in Afghanistan needs
improvement, as well.
Senator Graham. I can tell you, I think it was a miserable
failure and that we now are having to take that job upon
ourselves.
Admiral, who was in charge of dealing with the drug
eradication program originally?
Admiral Stavridis. I believe the British were, sir.
Senator Graham. I think we've had a different view of how
to do it.
The reason I point out these things is not to be overly
critical of our allies, but you have the police, which are key
to us winning, have gone nowhere for years; the judiciary, I
think, has probably gone backwards; and when it comes to drug
eradication, we're having to start all over again. So, both of
you have a real challenge, here. We've lost time, money, and
effort, and I want people in America to understand that you're
taking over a NATO operation that has been less than
successful.
Now, Admiral, you said the outcome in Afghanistan is
important to the future of NATO, but it's not a go or no-go. In
my view, it is, that if NATO fails in Afghanistan, it will
never recover. Is that off-base?
Admiral Stavridis. Again, sir, I think it's critically
important, and I think we're going to have to succeed, for a
whole host of reasons, both national and international.
Senator Graham. I say this because I support what the
President's doing. I want the American public to know that this
has been a NATO operation all along. That was a positive. It
could be a positive, but, quite frankly, when it comes to
implementing the war plan, the way to stabilize Afghanistan, we
have not gone forward; we've, quite frankly, gone backwards.
If we go to 160,000 Afghan-manned army, General McChrystal,
how much will that cost, each year?
General McChrystal. Sir, I don't have the figures. I can
get them.
Senator Graham. Okay. What's the entire budget for
Afghanistan, their national government? How much money do they
collect?
General McChrystal. Sir, I don't have that figure right now
either.
[The information referred to follows:]
The entire budget for the National Government of Afghanistan
(expenditures) in 2008 was $2.7 billion and the total revenue was
$887.5 million. Afghanistan also had $1.74 million which comes from
unspent funds from the 2007 budget as well as new financing from
various donors, including the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund,
the Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan, the World Bank, and Asian
Development Bank. These figures come from the Defense Intelligence
Assessment report, Afghanistan: Defense Economic Assessment.
Senator Graham. Well, it's under $1 billion. So, the
American people need to understand that we're about to build
150-160,000-man Afghan army, which I think is the key to
getting home, but we're going to wind up paying for it. We're
having to pay for our own Army, we're having to carry a lot of
burdens in the world. We are the arsenal of democracy. But,
Admiral, don't you think it's fair to ask our NATO allies that
it's in their self-interest to build a larger Afghan army so we
all can come home being safe? They've contributed a whopping
$100 million to this effort, is that correct?
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir, I agree with you. Again, I
think this is an area where persuasion with the allies is
crucial. The trust fund needs at least $1 billion, and we're at
$100 million--10 percent, so we have a long way to go.
Senator Graham. I may be wrong, but I think the cost of the
Afghan Army at that level's going to be $3 or $4 billion, at
the very minimum. I hope our allies understand that the outcome
in Afghanistan is important to them, just as it is to us.
Now, everyone's asked about winning. Tell me the
consequence of losing in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
General McChrystal, walk me through. What would happen if
America lost in Afghanistan and Pakistan collapsed?
General McChrystal. Sir, I think, in the near term, and
it's speculation to predict the future, but I think that what
would happen is, it would break down into civil war. I don't
believe that the Taliban would take over Afghanistan. I think
it would go back to what it was before 2001, and that would be
an ongoing civil war between different factions. I believe that
al Qaeda would have the ability to move back into Afghanistan.
I cannot imagine why they would not do that. I think that if
there was then that kind of safe haven in Afghanistan, with the
ongoing problem in Pakistan, I think Pakistan would find
winning its insurgency very difficult, if not impossible,
because that is----
Senator Graham. Would it probably lead to the collapse of
the civilian government in Pakistan?
General McChrystal. Sir, I think it's very likely. Of
course, that's a nuclear-armed state, so you have nuclear
weapons under questionable control at that point. Sir, I think,
wider, the entire region is affected by that.
Senator Graham. Admiral, do you agree with that assessment?
Admiral Stavridis. I do. I would add, as you just alluded
to, at a minimum, the extreme demoralization of the NATO
Alliance for having failed. So I'd add that to the list of bad
outcomes.
Senator Graham. As Senator McCain and Chairman Levin
indicated, the American people need to understand this is going
to be difficult, it's going to be more expensive, more lives
are going to be lost, but I hope we understand, as a Nation,
the consequences of losing. The benefits of winning are real,
but the consequences of losing are equally real. That's why I
support President Obama's efforts to interject more troops.
Do you feel constrained at all, General McChrystal, to ask
for more troops? Is there any political restrain upon you to
ask for more troops if you think they're necessary? Do you
think you could make that request without any concerns?
General McChrystal. Sir, I'm not in the job yet, so I'm
speculating on that. In a meeting yesterday, Admiral Mullen
said if I was confirmed, to ask for what I need, that's almost
a direct quote. He looked me in the eye and said that. So, I
believe that, if I have a requirement, I can look Admiral
Mullen in the eye and tell him, ``That's what I need.''
Senator Graham. Do you think that's true of the
administration, also?
General McChrystal. Sir, I don't know.
Senator Graham. Don't know. Fair enough.
Detainee policy. Senator Levin brought up an example of
where we had gotten off script in Afghanistan. I think, General
McChrystal, you've done a lot to put us back on script there.
But, Senator McCain mentioned a dynamic that the country needs
to get braced for. I think there's almost 700 detainees in
Bagram. A percentage, under 100, but close to 100 percent, are
foreign fighters that I don't think will ever be sent to the
Afghan legal system, because they don't want to try them, and
that we're not going to find a third country to repatriate
them. Don't you think we need a comprehensive detainee strategy
regarding Afghanistan, future detainees who are foreign
fighters, as well as what we do with the people in Guantanamo
Bay, that it all goes together?
General McChrystal. Sir, I think we need a comprehensive
detainee strategy, not just Afghanistan, but worldwide, for
anyone.
Senator Graham. Yes, including Iraq.
General McChrystal. Absolutely, sir.
Senator Graham. Okay. Thank you all for your service. I
look forward to working with you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Graham.
Senator Webb.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate all three of you individuals coming by my
office and visiting with our staff and with me. We've been able
to have a lot of good discussions. I regret that we are unable,
because of the Senate schedule, to have individual hearings on
each of you, although I'm not sure you share that regret.
[Laughter.]
I remember when I went for my confirmation hearings, years
ago, it was usually one individual in front of the entire
committee.
General Fraser, I look forward to working with you in a
very energetic way, following on some of the discussions that
we had and I also had with Admiral Stavridis before,
particularly focusing on the impact of these transnational gang
operations emanating from the area that you are going to be
responsible for, but back up into American cities. It's a huge
problem, and it's one that we are only now beginning to
address.
Admiral, I want to make a point for the record here, that I
have some real concerns about what has happened to the NATO
Alliance, not with respect to Afghanistan, but I guess the only
phrase you can really use is international sprawl. If you look
at the NATO that I worked with particularly when I was
Assistant Secretary of Defense, I spent a lot of time in NATO,
doing mobilization issues. It was really a different NATO. We
have, on the one hand, I think, become a much more unilateral
guarantor among the NATO countries for security issues, and, on
the other, we have brought countries into the NATO Alliance,
that traditionally could only be called ``protectorates.'' They
really don't add, quite frankly, to the security of the United
States to have them as members of NATO. We add to their
security. All we have to do is take a look at what happened in
the situation in Georgia last year and to contemplate what that
would have looked like if they had actually been a NATO member,
to understand the implications of that. There's not time today
to have a full discussion of that, but I want you to know
that's on my radar screen, and I will look forward to
discussing it with you further.
General McChrystal, first I would like to ask you--you
commented that you would agree that our goal, in terms of
increasing the ANA, would be higher even than is what is now
proposed. Is that correct?
General McChrystal. Sir, I believe that it would.
Senator Webb. What would you say--I'm not asking you to
pick a number out of the air, but would you agree with Senator
Lieberman's approach on this?
General McChrystal. Sir, I believe we have to look at it. I
think some significant growth over what is already approved is
probably going to be required, but I'd like to get on the
ground to get a better idea.
Senator Webb. You and I had something of a discussion about
this, but can you tell me the largest national army that the
Afghans have ever had?
General McChrystal. Sir, I----
Senator Webb. In size? The numbers that I've see were
approximately 80,000 to 90,000, with Soviet backing; and, of
those, only a marginal percentage really effective as a valid
national army. We are talking about more than doubling what
they have been able to do at any time in their past. Are you
comfortable that that actually is achievable?
General McChrystal. Sir, I know that it would be a
challenge, for lots of reasons. Afghanistan has about 34-
million-person population, but it also is struggling with about
28-percent literacy. As you develop the leadership core, you
have the challenge that you have to teach people.
Senator Webb. But, also a national army is a component of a
viable national government.
General McChrystal. Sure.
Senator Webb. We saw this in Lebanon, when I was a
journalist there in the early 1980s, where they attempted to
create a national army, but because of the strong factions that
had their own militia, it was basically impossible to have a
national government that had that sort of reach. Do you think
you're going to be able to do that?
General McChrystal. Sir, I think it's one of the things
that must be done. I believe that one thing the ANA can do, it
can be one of the leaders of creating a more national view of
the government. Right now, one of the good things about it is,
it is viewed as national, not as of a certain sect.
Senator Webb. Do you have an idea about how these monies
are going to be paid to this national army? I don't mean how
they are going to be raised, but actually how we're going to
transmit these monies in a situation where we all agree there's
high-level corruption in the government--I'm speaking
principally in terms of transparency, so that we know actually
where our money is going?
General McChrystal. Sir, I don't, but I absolutely agree
with you on the importance.
Senator Webb. Okay. General, you and I talked about another
issue, and I want to address it here. It relates to Corporal
Tillman's situation, and his family's situation. I know you
would agree, with your background, that the definition of
``leadership'' goes well beyond battlefield competence, it goes
to stewardship toward the people who have served under us. You
would agree with that, would you not?
General McChrystal. Absolutely, sir.
Senator Webb. To their families?
General McChrystal. Absolutely.
Senator Webb. We have a situation here that I think is
highly unusual in our history. I really mean that. You did
mention other notable Americans who died of friendly-fire
incidents on the battlefield--General McNair, Stonewall
Jackson. I actually had an ancestor who fought under Stonewall
Jackson and died at Chancellorsville. But, this is a situation
where a very special American, with a unique intellectual and
athletic background, forewent millions of dollars in order to
serve his country, and there was a period where I believe the
Army failed the family, when the knowledge was going up through
the chain of command that this was a friendly-fire incident.
I've been contacted by their family again, once your name
was forwarded. I'm going to read from a 2005 letter from Pat
Tillman's father, who is an attorney. He is very learned in
these matters. He had been briefed by the Army in 2005. He
said, ``No investigator worth a damn would have made the
presentation I sat through unless they had an agenda different
from the truth. The initial investigation was changed.
Conflicting testimony was disregarded. Key evidence was
destroyed and/or omitted. Witnesses, probably with supervision
of superiors, changed their testimony. No one has been
confronted with their conduct. The issue of importance is the
integrity of the military''--this is from Pat Tillman's father,
not from me, although I would agree--``from the lieutenant
colonel on the ground all the way up and past General Jones.''
The Inspector General of DOD acted on this. In their
review, they said, ``Corporal Tillman's chain of command made
critical errors in reporting Corporal Tillman's death and in
assigning investigative jurisdiction in the days following his
death, and bears ultimate responsibility for the inaccuracies,
misunderstandings, and perceptions of concealment. Army
officials failed to properly update family members when an
investigation was initiated into Corporal Tillman's death, and
that the justification for his Silver Star contained
inaccuracies.''
His brother, who also served our country with great
sacrifice, testified, after this finding, saying that, ``The
deception surrounding this case was an insult to the family,
but, more importantly, its primary purpose was to deceive a
nation. We say these things with disappointment and sadness. We
have been used as props in a public-relations exercise.''
Secretary Geren apologized. He said, ``We, as an Army,
failed in our duty to the Tillman family and the duty we owe to
all families of our fallen soldiers.''
You have not, to my knowledge, been on record in terms of
how you personally feel about this incident, and I would like
to give you the opportunity to do that.
General McChrystal. Thank you, Senator. I do appreciate
that.
I would say up front, I agree with Secretary Geren, we
failed the family. I was a part of that, and I apologize for
it. I would say that there is nothing we can do to
automatically restore the trust, which was the second casualty
of April 22. The first was the loss of a great American, the
second was the loss of trust with a family, and, wider than
that, with some additional people.
I will say that it was not intentional, with the people
that I saw. I didn't see any activities by anyone to deceive.
That said, I do believe that the confluence of mistakes, either
because they didn't know the policy or people just didn't line
things up right--my own mistakes in not reviewing the Silver
Star citation well enough and making sure that I compared it to
the message that I sent--were mistakes. They were well
intentioned, but they added to the doubt and the sense of
mistrust, and we didn't get it right.
To provide context, as you remember, Senator, we were still
in combat when we were doing all of that. So, we were in combat
in the days after his death as we did this. We were in the
first battle of Fallujah in Iraq at the same time, so we were
making mistakes. But, I would say the people who made them also
were in a situation where you sometimes do make mistakes.
That's not an excuse, but I would say that we've learned
from it. I've learned from it.
Senator Webb. First of all, I was at the Army Infantry
School, giving a talk on lessons learned from Vietnam, the
evening that we found out that Corporal Tillman had lost his
life. I don't need to say to you the impact that had on the
leadership. But, no matter what else is going on, with the
enormity of that incident, in terms of national perceptions and
the attention that it got nationally, and the fact that you
were sending a private message, P4 message, up your chain of
command warning about the potential impact of a friendly-fire
incident, I regretfully say I think that the Army really failed
the Tillman family. I appreciate your speaking about this
today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Webb.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Fraser, you have some experience in China. What do
you think is the growing influence of China in South America?
General Fraser. Sir, from my study there, what I see is
that they have commercial interests, they have interests to
gain access to natural resources. I see them working the same
purposes in other parts of the world, also, not just influenced
on and focused on Latin America. I do not see, from my study,
that there is a military threat from that influence. All of it
right now is focused commercially. I also see an interest on
the part of Latin American Caribbean nations to gain access to
markets in China, as well.
Senator Bill Nelson. As we discussed, when you kindly came
by to visit, that SOUTHCOM is a great command, headed by a
four-star who is not only a warrior, but is also a diplomat. Of
course, Admiral Stavridis has perfected that role. It had been
done before by General James T. Hill. It's been evolving over
time. What kind of twist do you see, as you apply diplomacy,
with being a commander? Just give me some of your ideas as you
take over this command.
General Fraser. Sir, I think, from my standpoint, it's
really about partnership-building throughout. That's
partnership internationally, that's partnership with the
interagency. From a specific SOUTHCOM standpoint,
responsibility is for the military portion of that. But, it is
working with the State Department, with the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), with the other Federal
agencies involved there, also working with partner nations,
armed forces, to build the capacities, build the capabilities
that are there. So, if confirmed, I really look forward to
engaging in all those arenas very robustly.
Senator Bill Nelson. I think we're going to have to perfect
this role, wherever we are projecting United States force in
the future. General McChrystal, you and I talked about it, even
in a war zone like Afghanistan, same thing. Now it's not just
the United States military. The military can take the lead, but
it's all the other agencies of government to work in projecting
our power in order to secure the interests of the United
States.
Now, one area in your future command that is just still a
basket case--I thought I'd ask Admiral Stavridis to comment on
this--is Haiti. Then let's pick up the conversation, General
Fraser.
Admiral Stavridis. Senator, of course, you and I have spent
some time on the road together, including Haiti, and it is,
indeed, a nation in extreme distress. It's the poorest nation
in the Americas. It's among the poorest countries in the world.
It was devastated last summer by three separate major storms;
two of them, high-level hurricanes. It has severe problems with
soil erosion. I could go on and on.
What am I encouraged by there? I'm encouraged by the United
Nations peacekeeping force, which has done a superb job with
very little U.S. military engagement. I'm encouraged by what
our ambassador has done down there, Ambassador Janet Sanderson.
I'm encouraged by the recent appointment of former President
Bill Clinton. The situation is desperate, but not hopeless, is
how I would categorize it at the moment, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. I personally think that President Rene
Preval is really trying. What faces him is what faces
sufficiently motivated elected leaders elsewhere in the world,
is, underneath him is so much corruption.
What do you want to do, General Fraser, since Haiti will be
in your area of responsibility?
General Fraser. Senator, I think it's very much along the
line that I talked about earlier, and that is, a lot of the
capability-building within Haiti, I think really still involves
with an interagency approach. There's a lot of USAID, there's
the State Department role. From my role, if confirmed for
SOUTHCOM, it is really going in, assisting those agencies in
their capacities, as well as working with the armed forces in
Haiti, although they are small, to improve their capacity. It's
an overall ability to go at the poverty, to work on the
distressed incomes, just the overall capacity of the Nation. It
will be an international and an interagency approach.
I'm also, as Admiral Stavridis said, very encouraged by the
continued presence of the United Nations mission there.
Senator Bill Nelson. Admiral Stavridis, the chairman and I
and Senator Collins went to Russia, and then Poland and the
Czech Republic, and we came away convinced that, for the future
threat of an Iranian missile with a nuclear warhead against
Europe, that, in the foreseeable future, our Standard Missile-
3, and on ships placed in the Mediterranean, the Aegis system,
and then upgraded over time, could take care of that particular
threat. In the meantime, we want to make sure that our
commanders in the field have the Standard Missile-3 and the
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system. Do you want to give
us some of your ideas of this?
Admiral Stavridis. I have, of course, talked to the
chairman about this, as well as you in your office earlier. I'm
very intrigued by the findings of the three of you, and I look
forward, if confirmed, to immediately probing this, both from
an Iranian-threat perspective and from the perspective of our
military interlocutors in those countries and exploring this
idea. Then if it makes sense, which it certainly seems to,
pushing that forward as military advice to Secretary Gates, who
would then take it into the interagency. At the end of the day,
of course, this is a political/diplomatic decision that the
administration would have to take. I think it's a very
intriguing idea, as it's been outlined. I look forward, if
confirmed, to doing the military piece of that along the lines
you've described, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
When you're referring to the possibility of the option as
outlined, you're talking about the possibility of pursuing
missile defense cooperation with Russia?
Admiral Stavridis. I am. I think that's a very intriguing
idea, sir.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
There will be questions for the record. I know that I'll
have some additional questions for you, General, particularly
relative to the chronology of the detainee treatment issue in
Iraq and Afghanistan, which we talked about briefly. There will
be other questions, I assume, from other Senators, as well.
We will stand adjourned, with thanks, again, to you and
your families that provide the great support that makes it
possible for you and so many others like you to serve this
country.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to ADM James G. Stavridis,
USN, by Chairman Levin 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. They have
also clarified the responsibility of the military departments to
recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment to
the combatant commanders.
Based on your experiences in U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), do
you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions or the Special Operations reforms?
Answer. Yes, I do.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. The Goldwater-Nichols Act vastly improved the way our joint
force operates. Today, our military functions extremely well in the
joint world. I believe the next step toward increasing effectiveness of
our national security apparatus is to institute similar provisions that
encourage an interagency approach. Many working groups at the national
level have been thinking through the possibilities for this kind of
legislation, including the Project on National Security Reform. I
believe this would increase efficiency in our whole-of-government
initiatives. One of the ways to enable increased interagency
cooperation is to incentivize interagency assignments throughout the
government, and particularly within the military, similar to what
Goldwater-Nichols did by incentivizing joint assignments.
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 (DOD).
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Commander, U.S. European Command (EUCOM) and the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization's (NATO) Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR)?
Answer. The Commander of EUCOM is responsible for coordinating and
conducting all U.S. military operations and activities across the 51
independent states in the EUCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR) in pursuit
of U.S. national military objectives. This AOR includes all of Europe
(including Turkey), the Caucasus Region, and Israel. He is also
responsible for the health, welfare and security of the approximately
85,000 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 (SACT) 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 facilitates 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 am deeply honored by the President's nomination to be
SACEUR and Commander, EUCOM. Over the past three decades, I have served
in a wide variety of Navy and Joint Commands that I believe have
prepared me well for the challenges ahead if confirmed by the U.S.
Senate.
Operationally, I have served in several key operational command
positions for the Navy, including destroyer and destroyer squadron
command, and culminating in command as a Rear Admiral of a Navy Carrier
Strike Group, which conducted operations in the SOUTHCOM 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 EUCOM's AOR, as
well as NATO military issues.
Most recently, I was the Commander of SOUTHCOM, an interagency
oriented combatant command whose mission is to conduct military
operations and promote security cooperation to achieve U.S. strategic
objectives in the Americas. Although the issues are vastly different
and unique in each region, there are some basic principles that are
shared among geographic combatant command regions that I would bring to
Europe, if confirmed.
International - Building the capacity of our partners
ensures stronger defense for the United States and our allies
and takes some burden off of our troops.
Interagency - Cooperation is important to address the
complex spectrum of issues facing any region. I am a military
officer, so if confirmed as SACEUR, I will ensure security of
the United States and our allies. However, there is more to the
region's stability than just defense. While State Department
does Diplomacy and U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) works on Development, we of course focus on Defense. I
believe our success will depend on all of us working together
in a robust interagency approach.
Cultural understanding - In order to truly cooperate
successfully with our allies, we must walk in their shoes and
understand their culture. This is a lesson learned from my time
at SOUTHCOM.
Strategic communication - important in any part of the
world - The United States must get our message out in a way
that resonates with our international allies, as well as our
own citizenry.
Counternarcotics and Counterinsurgency - Dealing with
the challenges of narcotics has clearly been a large part of my
portfolio at SOUTHCOM and there are lessons learned that I
could bring to Europe and Afghanistan. I do not believe in the
term ``war on drugs,'' but rather on a shared international,
interagency, and even private-public approach to dealing with
this issue.
Other specific experiences and background include:
Ph.D. in International Relations from the Fletcher
School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, where my work
was partially focused on NATO.
I have been involved in multiple NATO operations
throughout my career, including operations in Haiti, the
Balkans, and Afghanistan.
Working knowledge of Spanish and French, and am
currently studying Portuguese.
Lived in Europe for 3 years in my youth and have
traveled extensively throughout the region.
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, or NATO SACEUR?
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 our allies to understand the magnitude
and interdependent issues within the region. I will seek the
cooperation of the Alliance leadership to work together to engage on
vital regional issues. I will also continue to study the languages and
culture of the region to better understand the populations with which I
would be engaging.
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, EUCOM/NATO SACEUR,
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 Secretary of Defense
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 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, and Eurasian 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.
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 the EUCOM 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 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 other combatant commanders, in particular Commander,
U.S. Central Command.
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. Commander, International Security Assistance Force.
Answer. The EUCOM Commander has no formal relationship with
Commander, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF); however, COM
ISAF is ``dual-hatted'': 1. As the Commander U.S. Forces in Afghanistan
he reports to Commander, U.S. CENTCOM (national C2); 2. The SACEUR
exercises command authority over the Commander ISAF via the Commander,
Joint Forces Command Brunssum in the Netherlands (operational C2).
Question. The Supreme Allied Commander for Transformation.
Answer. Both NATO's Strategic Commanders, SACEUR and SACT, carry
out roles and missions assigned to them by the NAC or in some
circumstances by NATO's Defence Planning Committee. SACEUR and SACT
work together to ensure the transformation of NATO's military
capabilities and interoperability that support Allied Command
Operations.
Question. The U.S. Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic
Council.
Answer. There is not a direct command relationship between the U.S.
Permanent Representative to the NAC and either the EUCOM Commander or
the SACEUR. The NAC provides direction to NATO military authorities and
the U.S. Permanent Representative is one of 28 members of the NAC. The
EUCOM Commander works with the U.S. Permanent Representative on matters
of mutual interest, such as EUCOM military operations and security
cooperation activities that support U.S. objectives and 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 51 independent
states in the EUCOM AOR. In a foreign country, the U.S. Ambassador is
responsible to the President for directing, coordinating and
supervising all U.S. Government executive branch employees in the host
nation, except those under the command of a United States area military
commander. 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 that support the
Ambassador's approved in-country U.S. strategy for engagement. 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.
Question. U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan
Answer. As the EUCOM Commander, I have no formal relationship with
the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan. In my role as SACEUR, while no
formal relationship exists, I would expect to periodically meet
informally with the various NATO nations and partner nation ambassadors
to Afghanistan--for which the U.S. Ambassador is 1 of 42--to garner
their perspectives, as well as address their questions.
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. As SACEUR, one major challenge to be confronted is
successfully conducting the Alliance military operations in support of
Trans-Atlantic Security, including ISAF in Afghanistan, Kosovo Force
(KFOR), Operation Active Endeavor, and Operation Allied Protector. All
of NATO's forces, from Kosovo to ISAF to those conducting counter-
piracy and other missions, deserve the best guidance and planning as
well as the necessary resources and support to conduct operations. Of
these operations, ISAF will likely prove to be most important to our
security as well as pivotal to the Alliance's further adaptation of
strategies, capabilities, and internal processes to address the myriad
of 21st century risks and threats confronting our Nations. ISAF not
only reflects the Alliance's will to address the instability in a
country destabilized by extremism and terrorism, but it reflects the
Alliance's will and capability to conduct operations at strategic
distance outside the traditional NATO area. Success in Afghanistan will
contribute to stabilizing a very important region and demonstrate that
NATO in the 21st century is politically prepared and militarily capable
of dealing successfully with risks and threats to Trans-Atlantic
Security at strategic distances far from the borders of the U.S. or
European members.
Second, we face the challenge of resetting the NATO-Russia
relationship and building a predictable, mutually-beneficial
relationship that strengthens security. Military cooperation with
Russia should figure prominently in the reset of this strategic
relationship. This relationship has been stressed by policy differences
over the years, and continues to be a complex relationship given the
comprehensive nature of U.S.-Russia engagement across the full spectrum
of regional and global security matters. It is a strategic relationship
that we must get right, and one that the Russians must demonstrate that
they value in both words and deeds. There is great opportunity in the
U.S.-Russia relationship as well as great challenge. In many cases we
share common strategic challenges that present opportunities for
beneficial engagement, such as countering the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction. I look forward to working in support of overall
U.S. national security objectives to help forge a constructive,
reliable, and predictable relationship with Russia.
Third, the Heads of State and Government tasked the NATO Secretary
General to develop a new strategic concept for the Alliance. The last
concept was developed in 1999. A new NATO strategic concept is
crucially important to forging a common perspective on the regional and
global security environment; the risks and challenges we face in the
21st century such as energy security, cyber defense, or counter
proliferation; the role Alliance members want NATO to play in
addressing these risks based on a common perception and common goals;
and the strategies, capabilities, and internal processes necessary to
successfully be prepared. The Alliance will engage in debate on these
important issues. My initial assessment is that the military
authorities will seek a balance of collective defense and global
operations. Once the political leaders reach consensus, further
development of military tasks and defining capabilities will be no easy
task and must be done with a realistic understanding of the means
available. I look forward to contributing my military advice to the
development of a new NATO Strategic Concept, a concept that will drive
and frame NATO's role in the international security sphere for years to
come.
Finally, French reintegration into the NATO military structure
would also be a key area of focus. As France has always been a very
active partner in NATO's ongoing operations, their reintegration is
nominally only a ``formal'' step to capture their current
participation. Their further involvement in NATOs military command
structure will provide an avenue for greater involvement--especially in
the planning processes.
In addition to the above stated challenges, I believe there will be
additional challenges facing the next EUCOM Commander such as defense
cooperation in Eastern Europe and further progress in the Balkans,
especially Kosovo.
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 complement 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 prospective Alliance countries
along with strategic partners in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Ukraine
and Georgia, considered exceptionally important countries in the EUCOM
AOR, will continue the trend of bilateral relationships and capacity
building. EUCOM continues to assist both countries with their NATO-
oriented defense transformation and institution-building efforts, which
have begun to bear fruit with peacekeeping presences in Kosovo,
Operation Active Endeavor, and Africa.
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 SACEUR and EUCOM
Commander must establish clear priorities and provide a strategic
vision to guide transformation, foster relationships, and set the
conditions for successfully implementing the full spectrum of measures
necessary to contribute to security. 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 has provided for peace and security in Europe for 60 years
because of an unwavering commitment to the founding principles and the
understanding that the best solution will always be found in working
together. The strategic landscape is continually evolving and SACEUR
must continually engage military and political leaders to understand
the range of perspectives inherent in an Alliance of 28 members. He
must effectively communicate key elements required for military success
both today and in the future. It is imperative the SACEUR work closely
with the 28 nations of the Alliance, Partnership for Peace nations, and
other special partners to forge common understanding of the challenges
we face together and the measures necessary to address them together.
If confirmed, my approach will be collegial, international, and
interagency focused. I will also work hard to build effective strategic
communications, which I believe are key to our work throughout the
spectrum of challenges.
nato commitment to afghanistan mission
Question. The NATO ISAF has grown and will include some 68,000 U.S.
troops by this fall and more than 32,000 soldiers from NATO and other
allies. NATO ISAF is responsible for providing security throughout
Afghanistan and assisting the Government of Afghanistan in extending
its authority.
What challenges do you foresee for NATO ISAF as the
administration's new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan is
implemented?
Answer. The new U.S. strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan has been
briefed to the NAC on numerous occasions by senior U.S. political and
military officials. It is clear that NATO Allies support the new U.S.
strategy, welcome the increased resources to be provided by the United
States, and want to work with the United States in a NATO-framework as
well as bi-laterally to support the range of political and military
initiatives associated with the new strategy. NATO nations recognize
the importance of ISAF and its contribution to the overall efforts of
the International Community in Afghanistan. Enhancing security in
Afghanistan through both ISAF operations and further developing the
capacity of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police
(ANP) is essential to all other efforts in Afghanistan and the region
and will be the greatest initial challenge of implementing the
strategy.
Question. How confident are you that NATO is prepared to sustain
its long-term commitment to ISAF given the challenging security
situation in Afghanistan? If confirmed, are there additional steps you
would recommend in order to help sustain that commitment?
Answer. From all that I can see thus far--but without the benefit
of actually speaking to any allies personally--I am confident that NATO
is capable and willing to fulfill and sustain its commitment to ISAF.
The NATO Alliance took a significant step when it decided to conduct
military operations in Afghanistan. That it did so reinforces its
commitment to wider security and 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 resilience. The Alliance
has given no indication 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. If
confirmed as SACEUR, I will continue to devote a high priority to force
generation working with NATO nations and partners to maintain the
appropriate forces and resources for the ISAF operation.
Question. National caveats restricting the use of certain NATO
members forces in Afghanistan continue to impede ISAF operations and
are a source of friction within the alliance.
What is your assessment of the impact of national caveats on NATO
ISAF operations and how can their impact be reduced?
Answer. In a perfect world, there would be no caveats, as they
constrain the commander's ability to plan and limit capabilities to
execute operations. Some caveats will reflect limitations imposed on a
nation's forces by that country's constitution. Others reflect the
military reality of a nation's inability to sustain its forces outside
a particular geographical area, it is that inability which is the
constraint, not the caveat that reflects it. Others apply to very small
numbers of troops or personnel, contributions that show political
commitment and solidarity, but which are at the limits of what some are
capable of contributing. Where caveats have a sizeable effect on the
commander's flexibility to achieve his mission, either through their
content or the number and capabilities of the forces they affect, then
we should devote all our efforts to addressing the issues which
stimulated them in the first place, thereby removing them. I will work
with national Chiefs of Defense individually and work with the NAC to
explain the operational impact of national caveats and the importance
of removing as many of them as possible.
command structure in afghanistan
Question. The Commander, ISAF, has been dual-hatted as Commander,
U.S. Forces Afghanistan, and reports to both the SACEUR and the
Commander, U.S. Central Command. In addition, Secretary Gates has
recently created a three-star position of Deputy Commander, U.S.
Forces-Afghanistan (USFOR-A) to handle day-to-day operations in
theater.
What is your assessment of the command structure for ISAF and for
USFOR-A?
Answer. In general, the current ISAF command structure combines the
military doctrine of `unity of command' with the special requirements
arising from the multinational composition of ISAF--the key to
successful allied operations. I support the Secretary of Defense and
his recent decision to establish a three-star position of Deputy
Commander, USFOR-A to handle day-to-day, tactical operations in
theater. The operations in Afghanistan are complex for many reasons.
The additional commander and headquarters will prove to be advantageous
to the conduct of operations in theater. At the same time, this new
structure will allow the ISAF Commander and Commander of USFOR-A to
focus on the strategic level, working with other components of the
Afghan Government and the organizations of the international community.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to these
command structures?
Answer. Without having witnessed ISAF operations first hand, but
having been briefed numerous times, my initial reaction is that this
new structure is about right. All military structures undergo minor
changes and modifications with time to correspond to unique
characteristics of specific operations. I am sure this new structure
will be no exception. Naturally, if confirmed, I will assess it
personally.
Question. In your view, should the three-star position of Deputy
Commander, USFOR-A, also be dual-hatted within the NATO ISAF command?
Answer. The dual-hatting of a U.S. commander as a NATO commander
should be based on the inherent operational benefits of such an
approach, the impact of unity of effort, and the resource implications
associated with this command arrangement. At the same time, these
benefits must exist for both the United States and its allied forces in
the operation and in the NATO chain of command. In the end, a decision
on amending the NATO chain of command in Afghanistan is both a military
decision and a political decision, and requires approval by the NAC.
This can be one of the issues we look at in the future--how successful
the structure has been in its initial setup and whether we believe it
would increase synergy to expand/dual-hat the role to include NATO ISAF
Command. Assessing this will be primary order of business for me if
confirmed.
Question. As additional U.S. forces flow into southern Afghanistan,
what adjustments, if any, should be made to the theater and regional
command to take into account the larger U.S. presence?
Answer. NATO has a system which takes into account the composition
of ISAF's command structure based on national contributions to combat
forces. As U.S. forces increase, so will its representation in the ISAF
command structure. However, we should take into account the
multinational nature of this operation and should be cautious not to
create the impression of a unilateral command structure. The
significant increase of U.S. forces in Afghanistan will have an impact
on the tempo of operations and the number of concurrent operations in-
theater, along with the associated logistical and support aspects of
the forces. I would not wish to pre-judge the situation on the ground
or preempt the recommendations of tactical and operational commanders
in the field--views and recommendations that may well be provided in
the future from the tactical level to COMISAF to the strategic level.
As SACEUR, I would seek the advice and recommendations of subordinate
commanders and work with the Nations individually and collectively in
the military committee and NAC to gain their support.
building the afghan national security forces
Question. The administration's new strategy calls for fully
resourcing the growth of the ANA and the ANP to 134,000 and 82,000
personnel, respectively, by 2011. Some observers, however, believe that
the currently planned end strength levels for the ANA and the ANP will
be insufficient over the long-run to provide security throughout
Afghanistan.
Do you believe that the realities on the ground in Afghanistan
necessitate growing the Afghan National Security Forces beyond the
currently-planned end strengths of 134,000 for the ANA and 82,000 for
the ANP?
Answer. The administration's new strategy does call for a rapid
build-up of the ANA and the ANP to 134,000 and 82,000 personnel
respectively over the next 2 years. U.S. and NATO support to these
approved strengths should be in our current focus. However, the new
strategy also allows for additional enlargements as circumstances
warrant. As Afghan Forces mature, we can work with the Afghan
Government and our Allies to re-evaluate these end strengths.
Question. The Combined Security Transition Command Afghanistan
(CSTC-A) has the mission to provide training, advice, and assistance to
Afghan security forces.
What is your assessment of CSTC-A?
Answer. CSTC-A is a U.S.-led organization under the command of U.S.
Forces--Afghanistan and subsequently U.S. Central Command. Therefore, I
leave any judgment on improving their performance to those capable
commanders. From all I can see thus far, I believe CSTC-A has been a
critical part of the success achieved in Afghanistan in terms of both
building a capable ANA and taking on the additional tasks of developing
the ANP. Together the ANA and ANP contribute to current NATO-led and
coalition-led operations. More importantly, they represent the future
capacity of the Afghan Government to secure and protect its citizens
from the threat posed by extremists without further international
assistance.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have, if any, to improve
the effectiveness or efficiency of the Combined Security Transition
Command Afghanistan?
Answer. As CSTC-A is a U.S.-led program outside my remit as either
SACEUR or EUCOM commander, I do not have specific plans for enhancing
the effectiveness or efficiency of CSTC-A. However, I will work with
great interest to see how NATO nations may wish to work more closely
with CSTC-A in training the ANA and ANP. Heads of State and Government
tasked NATO to develop proposals on a possible NATO Training Mission--
Afghanistan, similar to the current NATO effort in support of U.S.-led
coalition training in Iraq. NATO military authorities are examining
options on how to proceed on the basis of determining what would be
NATO's added value. I believe NATO does have added value in the
training of ANA and ANP, and I believe this is a very important new
tasking for the Alliance to consider. I will be working closely with
General Petraeus on this specific issue, which is crucial to the
overall effort in Afghanistan.
Question. Witnesses at committee hearings have cited a number of
challenges impeding the acceleration of expanding the Afghan National
Security Forces, including: 1) a lack of training or mentoring teams to
embed with Afghan units; 2) a lack of equipment; and 3) developing
leadership among officers and noncommissioned officers.
What do you view as the greatest challenge to accelerating the
growth of the Afghan National Security Forces?
Answer. These are all major challenges impeding expansion. However,
I share General Petraeus's opinion that the greatest challenge is the
lack of training teams to embed with Afghan units. We currently have 54
Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams (OMLTs) in place, which does not
meet the current requirement of 66 OMLTs. By December 2010, it is
estimated that we will have 70 OMLTs in place, but actually require 91.
The expansion of the Afghan National Security Forces over the next 2
years is directly tied to the number of partner nations we can get
contributing to the fight. The sooner we can expand the Afghan National
Security forces and build their capacity to secure Afghan territory,
the sooner U.S. and allied forces can begin to withdraw. Additionally,
the issues of illiteracy, lack of sufficient time to train effective
leaders, and an operational tempo for the Afghan Army and Police all
further impact the training and development of their military.
Question. If confirmed, how would you recommend addressing this
challenge?
Answer. This is one area with opportunity for greater cooperation
with our Allies and partners. If confirmed, I would work with the
Allies and partners to find ways in which they can contribute to the
NATO Mission in Afghanistan, such as rapidly filling the remaining
training teams (OMLTS) and developing the institutional military
training schools necessary for the continued professional development
of the Afghan military. A number of allies and partners are willing to
contribute additional military forces to operations in Afghanistan, but
lack the capability to operate safely and effectively with coalition
forces. I would work to build the capacity of these countries to enable
them to deploy interoperable and effective forces to Afghanistan. In
addition, Furthermore, with the establishment of the NATO Training
Mission-Afghanistan (NTM-A), Allied Command Operations will have an
opportunity to play a greater role in supporting the training of the
Afghan police--an area in critical need of improvement. There are
excellent law enforcement capabilities in Europe like the Caribinieri
and the Gendarmerie that could deploy to train the Afghan National
Police. I will continue to work with Chiefs of Defense and leaders of
Allied nations to fully resource the ISAF mission. EUCOM has a robust
security cooperation program, including exercises, high-level visits,
State Partnership Program, and component activities that can be
leveraged to influence and enable further participation in ISAF as
well.
Question. The European Union has launched the European Union Police
Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL) to contribute to establishing a
sustainable and effective Afghan police force by providing mentoring,
advising and training at the national, regional, and provincial levels.
In your view, what should be the relationship between CSTC-A and
EUPOL for building the Afghan National Police?
Answer. Again, as CSTC-A is under the command of U.S. Forces-
Afghanistan and subsequently U.S. Central Command, I leave any judgment
on its activities to those capable commanders. While both organizations
are valuable contributors to ANP development, I cannot speak to the
details of their relationship. In general terms, all organizations and
national efforts need to be integrated where possible and coordinated
to the greatest extent. This is an area I will pursue if confirmed.
Question. What more should NATO and EUPOL do to improve the
capabilities and effectiveness of the police?
Answer. I understand great effort is being made to find synergy
between all national and international actors. While EUPOL is
responsible to the EU, it is the responsibility of the ISAF mission to
foster and maintain a productive relationship with all major security
and sector reform actors in Afghanistan in order to bring coherency to
all efforts. NATO leaders acknowledge that development of the ANP is a
critical element of security and stability in Afghanistan, but police
training is not identified as a key military task in the Operational
Plan for ISAF operations. Some NATO nations are conducting police
training on a bilateral basis. The EUPOL Mission mentors and advises
the Afghan Ministry of Interior, but with only 400 personnel they have
limited ability to assist the regions and provinces. NATO military
authorities are examining options on how to contribute further,
possibly through a NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan.
nato training mission in afghanistan
Question. At the NATO Summit in Strasbourg/Kehl in April, NATO
Heads of State agreed to establish the NATO Training Mission in
Afghanistan. However, there continues to be a shortfall in the number
of Operational Liaison and Mentoring Teams (OMLTs) available to embed
with Afghanistan units.
What should be done to encourage NATO allies to provide more OMLTs?
Are there steps that NATO or the United States should take to assist
NATO members in generating more training teams?
Answer. The United States should continue to work with Allies and
partners to fully resource the ISAF mission, whether they provide
OMLTs, forces, equipment, or funding. The United States should also be
prepared to provide immediate assistance--be it training, equipment, or
other forms of support--to partners and Allies that are willing to
contribute OMLTs (and other forces) to Afghanistan. EUCOM will continue
to leverage security cooperation activities to build partner capacity,
enabling deployment of forces to ISAF. For example, through the State
Partnership Program, EUCOM has arranged the augmentation of partner
nation OMLTs with a limited number of National Guard personnel. This
has proven to be a highly effective means of enabling Allies and
partners to deploy additional OMLTs to Afghanistan. By expanding upon
existing capacity-building programs and pursuing new and more agile
ways of recruiting, training and equipping partners, we will enhance
the contributions of all partner nations in Afghanistan.
counternarcotics
Question. What is your assessment of the current U.S. and NATO
strategies for combating the production and trafficking of illegal
narcotics in Afghanistan? What changes, if any, would you make in those
strategies?
Answer. Clearly the illicit drug trade is a critical issue that
must be addressed in order to reach our objectives in Afghanistan. This
is a complex issue that requires significant resourcing and there is no
singular solution. From what I have learned so far, the Afghan
authorities are working closely with international partners to execute
the Afghan National Drug Control Strategy. This five pillar approach
includes efforts in institution building, judicial reform, law
enforcement, alternative livelihoods, and demand reduction. My
impression is that recent efforts to disrupt the flow of funds from the
drug trade to insurgents, including NATO's expanded authority, will be
beneficial. I am hopeful that my experiences in dealing with counter-
narcotic issues in the SOUTHCOM region may be helpful in allowing me to
work with partners and develop new ideas and approaches.
Question. In December, Secretary Gates approved an expanded set of
rules of engagement for U.S. forces combating narcotics in Afghanistan.
NATO has reportedly approved a comparable expansion of the rules of
engagement for NATO forces operating in Afghanistan.
Please discuss your understanding of the reasons behind these
changes in the counternarcotics rules of engagement.
Answer. NATO Defense Ministers in October 2008 approved expanded
authorities for ISAF to address both the illegal narcotics business and
its facilitators because of the support rendered to the Taliban. Each
year the narcotics trade provides $100 million directly to the
insurgency, in addition to fueling corruption, undermining the rule of
law, and impeding long-term economic growth of legitimate agriculture
and business. Prior to the decision at the Defense Ministerials, ISAF
assistance was primarily in-extremis support, while some nations
provided additional support on a bilateral basis and through their
Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). Recognizing the nexus between
the narcotics trade and the insurgency, ISAF forces are now authorized
to take direct and deliberate action against drug laboratories and
traffickers providing support to the insurgents.
Question. What is the impact of these changes in the rules of
engagement to the best of your knowledge?
Answer. Since the approval of enhanced ISAF counternarcotics (CN)
authorities in early 2009, over 40 CN operations, the majority of which
were Afghan-led, have been conducted. To date, several tons of drugs
with an Afghan domestic value of over $4 million and over 50 tons of
various precursor chemicals needed to process Opium have been seized
and destroyed. Apart from these initial effects on the capabilities to
produce and deal with drugs, CN operations in Afghanistan clearly
underline the United States and NATO will and capability to effectively
engage the narcotics network, which is fueling the insurgency.
Question. In March 2009, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan carried
out a joint counternarcotics operation. The operation was part of a
U.N. initiative, called the Rainbow Strategy, aimed at getting the
three countries to carry out joint patrols and share intelligence on
the members of the drug trade that process opium poppy into heroin and
smuggle the drug to markets in Europe. The NATO Secretary General has
discussed his desire to boost these joint efforts to counteract the
illegal drug trade and trans-border organized crime from Afghan
territory.
What are your views on the possibility of NATO and U.S.
opportunities to conduct joint efforts, including with Iran, to counter
narcotics trafficking in Afghanistan?
Answer. The illegal narcotics industry is a transnational threat
that reaches far beyond the borders of Afghanistan. With more than 90
percent of the world's opium originating in Afghanistan, countering the
production and trafficking at the source is a key aspect of reducing
the global impact of the drug trade. Most of the opium-producing areas
of Afghanistan are along the Iranian and Pakistani borders, so joint
efforts such as the Rainbow Strategy are encouraging and further
similar efforts will be beneficial.
afghan national solidarity program
Question. One program that contributes to enhancing development and
empowering governance at the local level in Afghanistan is the National
Solidarity Program (NSP). This program provides block grants directly
to locally-elected Community Development Councils, which are
responsible for identifying, planning and managing their own
development projects. Funding for the NSP comes from the World Bank/
International Development Association, bilateral donors, and through
the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund. According to its website,
the NSP has provided more than $500 million in payments to 21,000
Community Development Councils, which have financed more than 39,000
subprojects to improve access to infrastructure, markets, and services.
Are you familiar with the National Solidarity Program in
Afghanistan?
Answer. Yes, I am. The National Solidarity Program (NSP) is an
effective tool enabling community councils to participate in decisions,
planning, and management of local development projects. With funding
from a variety of international sources, including the Afghan
Reconstruction Trust Fund and bilateral national donations, combined
with facilitating partners, the NSP has reached 34 districts and 359
provinces. With tangible benefits to the population, including the most
impoverished and vulnerable, NSP builds local governance capacity and
ultimately extends the reach of the government.
Question. Would you support expanding the National Solidarity
Program as a means of building local governance and strengthening
development?
Answer. The NSP is one of many valuable efforts to support
reconstruction, development, and governance throughout Afghanistan. In
my view, it makes sense to build on this success and continue the
program from what I understand about it at this point.
civilian casualties
Question. What is your assessment of the impact of civilian
casualties on the success of the coalition's counterinsurgency
operations in Afghanistan?
Answer. U.S. and allied forces always try their very best to avoid
civilian casualties through prudent planning and conducting operations
with extreme care and the highest concern for innocent lives. In
contrast, the extremists we combat in Afghanistan actually target
innocent civilians as a means of terrorizing and intimidating the
Afghan people to achieve their aims. Civilian casualties are
inconsistent with our aims since the Afghan people are our center of
gravity. Civilian casualties, however, are in fact a tactic
deliberately employed by the Taliban to achieve their aims. The Taliban
intentionally operates among civilians as part of its strategy to
undermine public trust of coalition forces, and has frequently used
innocent civilians as human shields. We will take all actions to avoid
civilian casualties in what is an extremely complex operating
environment.
Question. In your view, what additional steps, if any, need to be
taken to address the issue of civilian casualties in Afghanistan?
Answer. ISAF takes every precaution to avoid civilian casualties
and makes adjustments to the existing tactical directive as the
situation on the ground permits and necessitates. Ultimately, reducing
or eliminating ISAF caused civilian casualties requires a fully trained
and equipped Afghan National Security Force capable of conducting
operations and ensuring the security of the population. This is an
issue I will work upon with great diligence, as any counterinsurgency
effort must place the security and confidence of the people squarely at
the center of the equation.
france
Question. What is your assessment of the impact of France rejoining
the integrated military structure?
Answer. I believe that the full reintegration of France back into
the integrated military structure of the Alliance is a very positive
thing for NATO. France was a founding member of NATO and has
contributed greatly throughout its history. France's full participation
will only strengthen the Alliance and further build European defense
capabilities.
Question. Do you support giving France the position of SACT? Why or
why not?
Answer. As a major contributor to the Alliance's integrated
military structure, France has been given a major command inside the
Alliance--one of two NATO strategic commands. This decision, agreed to
by Alliance members, reflects the contributions of France to the
military structure in terms of manpower, resources, and budget as well
as their contributions to NATO operations. I support the idea of
Strategic Commander-Transformation as a French military officer and I
understand the importance the French military accord to NATO's
transformation policy and believe it will be a very good and effective
arrangement.
nato enlargement
Question. What are your views on whether NATO would benefit from
further rounds of enlargement?
Answer. This is a purely political issue, one that is the remit of
the NATO nations. Heads of State and Government have reaffirmed that
NATO's door remains open, as reflected in Article 10 of the Washington
Treaty. My understanding of the North Atlantic Treaty is that any
European nation that is willing and capable of undertaking the
commitments and obligations of being a member state is welcome to join
the alliance, should all members agree. This was articulated in the
Alliance's Declaration on Alliance Security, approved at the
Strassbourg-Kehl Summit in April of this year.
Question. What criteria should the United States apply in
evaluating candidates for future NATO enlargement?
Answer. NATO considers and accepts new members in accordance with
the Washington Treaty, the Alliance's 1995 Study on NATO Enlargement,
and the NATO Membership Action Plan. With careful consideration, they
developed over 30 separate political, economic, defense, military,
financial, security, and legal criteria, which each NATO aspirant is
expected to meet. The United States, as a NATO member, uses these same
criteria to evaluate candidates. The successful integration of new
members and their contributions to the Alliance demonstrates this
process is working. In the end, new NATO members must be contributors
to security--not consumers of security--as well as meet all the
criteria as outlined above that provides for a country to enter the
Alliance.
Question. In your view, is there a limit to how far NATO can be
enlarged and still be an effective military organization capable of
making decisions and acting in a timely fashion?
Answer. Expansion of the Alliance is a result of deliberate action
taken by each member's government, which follows a collective decision
of the Heads of State and Government to accept new members. NATO
maintains an open door policy according to all of the documentation and
study I have undertaken thus far; in particular, Article 10 of the
Washington Treaty states clearly that NATO membership is open to all
European nations. Democratic reform, defense reform, and
interoperability all play a key role in a country's eligibility to be a
member.
georgia
Question. In your view, how should the United States and NATO
proceed on the issue of NATO membership for Georgia?
Answer. NATO has clearly stated that Georgia and the Ukraine will
become NATO members, though the timing and path have not been
determined. Georgia is currently in a process of Intensified Dialogue
with NATO, and continues to participate in PfP activities and supports
NATO military operations. Based on the political decisions in the NAC,
the NATO military will have a supporting role in advancing defense
reforms in Georgia and developing interoperability. EUCOM, as guided by
U.S. Government policy, will work in concert with NATO Allies, to
assist with the military and security related part of this reform. This
is an important part of advancing Georgia's partnership with NATO.
Question. Would you support further U.S. military assistance to
Georgia to help it rebuild its military?
Answer. I think it is reasonable for Georgia to possess a capable
military for its own defense and to participate in coalition
operations. I agree with current, prudent policy to focus our security
cooperation with Georgia on fundamental intellectual issues like
training, doctrine, and personnel management--the recent PfP exercise
in Georgia was an example of this. This provides a measured and
meaningful way to help a country that has helped us in Iraq and has
voiced its willingness to assist the United States in Afghanistan.
Question. In your view, is there a way to implement military
assistance in a manner that does not provoke Russia and do you consider
that to be advisable?
Answer. As we discussed earlier when we were speaking about
cooperation with Russia, the key to this will be to pursue common
interests with Russia, while being transparent concerning our
cooperation with Georgia. Prudent transparency concerning our
assistance to Georgia would help Russia to see that ultimately we are
merely trying to help catalyze regional stability and enable Georgia to
do its part in working against many of the same transnational threats
that worry both Russia and the United States The NATO-Russia Council,
for example, is a good mechanism to provide this kind of transparency.
russia
Question. How do you see the NATO-Russia relationship evolving in
the future?
Answer. The conflict between Russia and Georgia last year led NATO
to temporarily suspend the NATO-Russia council but has since been
reinstated. Decisions about NATO-Russia relations, and subsequent
military engagements, are made at the political level. However, I
believe that the NATO-Russia relationship will be a high priority for
the Alliance at both the political and military levels. NATO and Russia
have numerous arrangements in place to discuss a broad security agenda,
enhance confidence and mutual security, as well as build the capability
for joint military operations. Since the end of the Cold War, the
relationship has been marked with successes like the joint operations
in Stabilization Force (SFOR), Kosovo Force (KFOR), and Operation
Active Endeavor, and political differences such as those over Kosovo,
Georgia, Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, and Missile
Defense. The relationship will continue to evolve at a pace determined
by the success in breaching these differences and forging common
perspectives and ultimately common approaches to security. I do believe
that both NATO and Russia believe that the relationships with one
another are vital, and see utility in the restarting of the
relationship to address common concerns.
Question. What steps, if any, should NATO take to help mitigate
Russian concerns about further enlargements of NATO?
Answer. It is expected that Russia will continue to voice concerns
about further enlargement of NATO. NATO's leaders have made clear they
desire a constructive partnership with Russia. NATO does not see
enlargement as a choice between good relations or poor relations with
Russia. NATO enlargement is not a zero-sum security equation,
accomplished at the expense of Russia's or other countries' security.
It is designed to support the expansion of the community of democracies
and market economies, and strengthen regional security. However, the
Russian government has a different view. NATO clearly wants to use the
full range of cooperation and partnership under the NATO-Russia
framework to build a constructive relationship with Russia, and use
this very same framework to address the issues where NATO and Russia
have different perceptions.
Question. What do you believe are appropriate objectives for U.S.-
Russian security relations, and what do you believe are the areas of
common interest between the United States and Russia in the security
sphere?
Answer. The United States and Russia share many areas of common
interest. We have ample opportunity to engage with the Russians on
strategic arms reduction and arms control, military-to-military
engagement, energy security, humanitarian assistance, counterterrorism,
counterpiracy, counterproliferation, and counternarcotics.
Interoperability is a fundamental requirement for successful
operations, and the U.S./NATO and Russia should be prepared for
missions our political leaders may task us to conduct jointly or within
the same framework of an action by the international community. NATO-
Russia military activities 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. These activities will play an important part
in developing common approaches with Russia as well as the trust and
confidence in these approaches to addressing a wide variety of risks
and threats together.
Furthermore, if confirmed as EUCOM Commander, I envision EUCOM's
objectives for engaging Russia to be two-fold. First, we want to ensure
compliance with national policy in anything we plan to do with respect
to military-to-military engagement with Russia. The EUCOM staff has
already taken steps in developing a plan intended to re-invigorate the
military-to-military programs, albeit at a cautious and measured pace.
Second, and probably more important, we want to address those areas of
mutual understanding that support the interests of both the United
States and Russia.
european missile defense options
Question. The Obama administration is currently reviewing the
previously proposed deployment of missile defenses in the Czech
Republic and Poland, and is also considering a variety of options and
possible alternatives to that proposed deployment, to include using the
Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptor either on Aegis BMD ships or on
land. One consideration is that the proposed deployment in Poland and
the Czech Republic, which neither nation has yet ratified, would not
provide coverage of Southeastern portions of NATO Europe, some of which
are already within range of Iranian missiles. Such incomplete coverage
would be inconsistent with the central NATO principle of the
indivisibility of security of all NATO members. Another consideration
is the desire to have cost-effective and operationally effective
missile defense systems.
Do you agree that it is in our security interests to explore the
full range of options and alternatives for possible future missile
defense capabilities in Europe that would meet the security interests
of NATO and our other allies and partners in the region?
Answer. Yes, based on what I know at this time and without the
benefit of actually discussing this with allies, I do agree. 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.
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 (Aegis with SM-3) and transportable land-based assets
(THAAD and Patriot) 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. In addition, The United States
is working towards synergistically integrating its ballistic missile
defense capabilities with current and emerging NATO missile defense
capabilities and concepts. We need multi-layered missile defense
capabilities stationed and operational in the region before a threat
fully emerges to ensure our common European allies and partners'
security.
missile defense cooperation with russia
Question. Secretary of Defense Gates has stated his interest in
pursuing cooperation with Russia on missile defense relative to
potential future Iranian missile threats, including the possibility of
Russia sharing radar data from its Gabala and Armavir radars. NATO
communiques have repeatedly expressed support for missile defense
cooperation between the United States and Russia.
Do you agree that it is in our security interests to pursue missile
defense cooperation with Russia relative to potential future Iranian
missile threats?
Answer. Yes, I do, based on my preliminary understanding of the
situation. I believe Missile Defense is a potential area of cooperation
with Russia that is well worth exploring.
Question. Do you believe that such cooperation could help in our
efforts to dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons and long-range
ballistic missiles?
Answer. Yes, I do believe the potential exists to achieve such an
effect, although this of course is a diplomatic issue outside of my
specific purview.
nato-russia council
Question. The NATO-Russia Council (NRC) has served as an important
venue for discussions and cooperation between NATO and Russia,
including missile defense cooperation such as the Theater Missile
Defense exercise program. Recent NATO communiques have expressed
support for expanded cooperation through the NATO-Russia Council,
including on missile defense.
Do you believe the NATO-Russia Council has valuable potential as a
forum for NATO-Russian cooperation, including cooperation on missile
defense?
Answer. Yes, I do. The NRC's role is to provide a forum for
consultation, cooperation, and consensus building between NATO and
Russia. The NRC has facilitated discussion and cooperation on a broad
range of issues over the past years. The NATO-Russia program of
cooperation has included activities in the past in the sphere of
theater missile defense cooperation. This area has been a long standing
priority activity for both NATO and Russia. I believe that the NRC will
continue to play an important role as a vehicle for discussion and
cooperation in this sphere and in other areas of mutual interest.
Question. Do you support continuation of the Theater Missile
Defense exercise program within the NRC?
Answer. NATO nations approve the NATO-Russia annual work plan,
including all aspects of cooperation--civilian and military--between
NATO and Russia. The Alliance is restarting the relationship with
Russia after a lengthy suspension and the NATO nations will be making
decisions on the priority areas of work and cooperation. I would not
want to make a judgment on the role and place of a specific exercise
program until the appropriate political authorities had determined the
political scope, breadth, timing, and objectives for restarting the
relationship. Clearly, military cooperation will have a role, but it
will be a supporting role and one that serves the overall objectives of
the U.S. national security policy and Alliance decisions.
patriot battery to poland
Question. The United States and Poland have agreed that the United
States will deploy a U.S. Patriot air and missile defense battery to
Poland, although the terms and details remain to be worked out.
Do you believe that it could be of benefit to NATO nations for the
United States to deploy a Patriot battery to Poland, potentially on a
rotating basis, as a NATO training battery, to improve the skills of
NATO forces on the Patriot system?
Answer. Yes, from what I currently understand and without the
benefit of speaking to our allies, I do believe that deploying U.S.
Patriot battery rotations to Poland for training and exercises could
benefit NATO nations, assuming Poland continues with its planned future
acquisition of a Patriot system.
kosovo
Question. What do you see as the major challenges in Kosovo,
including in connection with the stand down of the Kosovo Protection
Corps and the establishment of the Kosovo Security Force?
Answer. The security situation in Kosovo remains calm and the
progress and success in Kosovo has led NATO to decide to move to the
next stage in the mission, Deterrent Presence, which includes a
significant reduction of forces in place. The UN Interim Administration
Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) is drawing down, and the European Rule of Law
Mission (EULEX) has now achieved full operating capability. Following
its deactivation in January, the Kosovo Protection Corps remains on
track for its official stand-down in June and the Kosovo Security Force
is on schedule to reach Initial Operating Capability in September with
an effective strength of around 1,500. An extensive training program is
in place which includes the first 400 civilian recruits. However,
shortages in the trust fund and donations will have a tangible impact
on delivering a force equipped to carry out its tasks and we may have a
trained force that remains incapable of fulfilling its role in Kosovo.
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. This matter is largely a political issue outside the
purview of the role of the SACEUR. My understanding is that NATO has an
established arrangement with the EU for supporting EU military
operations called ``Berlin Plus''. This has worked effectively and has
improved EU-NATO coordination. The political level relationship also
has improved, but probably not to the level of expectations by some
countries. I understand this matter is seen as an important priority at
the political level. If confirmed, I intend to explore areas for
cooperation in the military sphere in a complementary way.
Question. In your view, what should be NATO's position with regard
to European efforts to strengthen the European Security and Defense
Policy and build military capacity within the European Union?
Answer. NATO's position will be decided at the political level.
Without detailed information on existing capabilities, I am not
prepared to take a position on development of EU military capacity.
From a purely military perspective, however, every initiative
strengthening or improving the military capabilities of our European
allies should be welcomed; and if confirmed, this is an area in which I
would seek to develop complementary activities.
Question. What is your view of the future of NATO-EU cooperation in
areas relating to security, defense, and crisis management? Should NATO
do more to institutionalize cooperation between the two organizations?
Answer. Future cooperation in these areas first depends on further
development of the political relationship between NATO and the EU. It
is my understanding that the ``Berlin Plus'' arrangement has been
effective and I would prefer to Reserve judgment about future
possibilities until I have the benefit of experience in the European
theater and NATO. As I mentioned earlier, this is an interest area of
mine and if confirmed I would pursue it in a collegial and
complementary way.
building partner capacity within the eucom area of responsibility
Question. In the past few years, Congress has provided DOD a number
of temporary authorities to provide security assistance to partner
nations. These include the global train and equip authority (section
1206) and the security and stabilization assistance authority (section
1207). Some have argued that security assistance has traditionally been
a State Department responsibility and that these programs ought to be
transferred from DOD to the Department of State.
What should be our strategic objectives in building the capacities
of partner nations?
Answer. In the Guidance for Employment of the Force (GEF), the
President has established theater strategic objectives for the EUCOM
AOR. Building partner capacity is one of many means through which EUCOM
achieves its Theater Objectives, while supporting US national
objectives in the AOR. In general, capable, well-resourced Allies and
Partners are critical enablers for all eight of EUCOM's Theater
Objectives. Specifically, building partner capacity in the EUCOM AOR
supports the following objectives:
NATO is capable and willing to conduct out-of-area
operations
Partner nations have the capacity to provide for their
own security and to sustain regional stability
Local crises are prevented from becoming regional
conflicts
Do these objectives differ by region, e.g. do our objectives within
the EUCOM AOR differ from those in the SOUTHCOM AOR?
Answer. Yes, each Geographic Combatant Command has specific theater
strategic objectives outlined in the GEF and its own theater strategy.
The GEF objectives for the EUCOM AOR and EUCOM's theater strategy are
specifically tailored to the opportunities and challenges found in
Europe and Eurasia.
Question. What is your understanding of the purpose of the section
1206 global train and equip authority?
Answer. The purpose of section 1206 is to provide combatant
commanders the ability to respond to urgent and emergent threats or
opportunities in their AORs by building the capacity of allies and
partners to conduct counterterrorism operations or support stability
operations in which U.S. military forces are participating. The law
requires the Secretary of Defense to coordinate with the Secretary of
State when executing global train and equip authority.
Question. What is the relationship of the global train and equip
authority to other security assistance authorities, such as DOD
counternarcotics assistance and foreign military financing?
Answer. Global train and equip authority complements other security
assistance authorities. It enables combatant commanders to respond to
urgent situations or opportunities in the near-term and render
assistance to allies and partners that cannot be provided under other
authorities. When appropriate, it can and should be used in combination
with other security assistance authorities as part of a comprehensive
approach to building partner capacity.
Question. What should be done to ensure that the global train and
equip authority does not duplicate the efforts of these other
assistance programs?
Answer. Avoiding duplication of effort with other assistance
programs involves two key measures. The first is adherence to the
criteria of the global train and equip authority established in the law
and DOD policy. The second is robust internal and interagency
coordination in the development of proposals for funding under the
global train and equip authority.
Question. What is your understanding of the purpose of the security
and stabilization assistance authority (section 1207)?
Answer. The purpose of section 1207 is to facilitate non-military,
interagency support to reconstruction, stabilization and security
activities in foreign countries. It is an important tool in EUCOM's
efforts in the Balkans and the developing Eastern European countries.
interagency organization model
Question. While you were the Commander of U.S. SOUTHCOM, the
SOUTHCOM command structure was reorganized into an interagency model,
where officials detailed from other agencies, such as the State
Department, USAID, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), are
embedded as staff members within the command. U.S. Africa Command has
adopted a similar organizational structure.
What were the reasons behind the decision to alter the command
structure of U.S. SOUTHCOM and the lessons learned after a little more
than a year of operation under this model?
Answer. As a Combatant Command, warfighting will always be the core
competency at SOUTHCOM. However, SOUTHCOM reorganized to become a more
interagency-oriented organization to address the specific challenges
and opportunities in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The Secretary of Defense authorized this reorganization in
September 2007, and SOUTHCOM's efforts were also highlighted as one of
the Top 25 DOD Transformation Priorities. A principal driver for the
reorganization stemmed from my assessment of the regional security
environment, based upon the underlying conditions that foster the
security challenges of the SOUTHCOM area of focus, such as narco-
trafficking and other illicit-trafficking activities, and organized
crime and gangs. Exacerbated by conditions of poverty, income
inequality, and social exclusion, these security challenges are
transnational in terms of impact and manifestation, and cross roles and
mission lines of U.S. Government departments and agencies.
I am a strong supporter of the ``3 D'' approach--State does
Diplomacy, AID does Development, and DOD does Defense. I believe that
our ability to work together, and for us in DOD to be helpful to our
partners, is a key element in providing security for our country. Our
approach at SOUTHCOM is designed to ensure we do that in the best and
most efficient way.
In this regard, the new SOUTHCOM organizational structure is
designed to allow the command to collaborate proactively with the U.S.
Government interagency community and with partner nations in the
region--ultimately improving collective responses to regional and
transnational security challenges.
Question. What staffing support did you receive from other
government agencies?
Answer. SOUTHCOM has received a reasonable level of support from
the interagency. There are 22 interagency personnel assigned to and
working full-time at SOUTHCOM headquarters. Additionally, there are 13
part-time liaison officers with full access and to the headquarters
building and use of SOUTHCOM credentials for email, data sharing and
web page browsing. Beyond these 35 personnel, there are some 40
interagency personnel (in Miami; Washington, DC; and elsewhere) that
have habitual relationships with SOUTHCOM via assignments by their home
agencies (and many have either visited the headquarters or conducted
brief 1-2 week orientation assignments).
The Department of State continues to take an active role in
SOUTHCOM's transformation. Ambassador Paul Trivelli has been assigned
as the Civilian Deputy to the Commander and retains the role of
Political-Military Advisor. USAID has also assigned a Senior
Development Advisor to the command. The SOUTHCOM Security and
Intelligence Directorate is led by a two-star U.S. Coast Guard Admiral.
Question. Based on your experience with this new interagency
command structure, if confirmed, what changes, if any, would you
consider regarding the command structure for EUCOM? What metrics would
you use to make a determination?
Answer. Although some principles associated with the concept of
functioning with an interagency approach have universal applicability
and utility, every command and region of the world is unique. The
changes my team and I made at SOUTHCOM to the command structure may not
necessarily be the best approach for operations in the European
theater. If confirmed, I would assess the security environment and
challenges in that region and take a hard look at the current command
structure at EUCOM to ensure that it is maximized for effectiveness and
efficiency. At this point, and based on what I know now, I do not
anticipate undertaking significant organizational changes at EUCOM.
nato transformation
Question. What is your assessment of the role of Allied Command
Transformation in effecting positive change among NATO member nations?
Answer. The role of SACT is to identify, facilitate and advocate
the continuous improvement of Alliance capabilities to maintain and
enhance the military relevance and effectiveness of the Alliance. SACT
leads the transformation of NATO's military structure, forces,
capabilities, and doctrines to improve interoperability and the
military effectiveness of NATO. SACEUR and SACT work in cooperation,
not competition, to realize effective change across the alliance.
Question. What will you do, if confirmed, to ensure that military
capability and interoperability remain top priorities for NATO?
Answer. Military capability and interoperability should remain top
priorities for NATO. Without the necessary military capabilities, armed
forces will not be able to provide an effective contribution to whole-
of-government efforts. From the Alliance's perspective,
interoperability is the key to any multinational operation because in
today's world, armed forces can no longer operate in an isolated
manner, but have to share a very dynamic battle space and critical
information. Ongoing operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kosovo
provide ``real world'' experience upon which to base our future plans.
If confirmed, I would ensure that our ability to work together will be
enhanced by these experiences.
united nations convention on the law of the sea
Question. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) is currently pending in the Senate.
What are your views on U.S. accession to UNCLOS?
Answer. Like the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
Chief of Naval Operations, I support U.S. accession to the Convention
on the Law of the Sea.
Question. From a national security standpoint, what do you see as
the advantages and disadvantages to being a party to UNCLOS?
Answer. As the CNO has testified, the Law of the Sea Convention
provides a robust legal regime for global operations by U.S. Armed
Forces. It codifies navigation and overflight rights and high seas
freedoms that are necessary for mobility of our forces. It is
completely in line with and supports the U.S. National Security
Strategy. To date, 157 nations are signatories to the convention and I
believe it is in our national security interests to do the same. Our
current non-party status constrains our efforts to develop enduring
maritime relationships with Partner Nations. It also inhibits our
efforts to expand the Proliferation Security Initiative and elevates
the level of risk for our Sailors as they undertake operations to
preserve navigation rights and freedoms. We need to eliminate seams as
much as possible when we operate in difficult circumstances in the
maritime environment with like-minded partners--the Law of the Sea
Convention would allow us to do that.
u.s. military basing in europe
Question. Current DOD plans provide for the drawdown of U.S. Army
forces in Europe to 32,000 U.S. soldiers by no later than 2013.
However, General Craddock, the Commander, EUCOM, has recommended that
the two brigades currently scheduled for redeployment back to the
United States remain in Europe, keeping U.S. forces based there at a
force of around 42,000.
Do you support maintaining the current U.S. force presence in
Europe beyond 2013? Why or why not?
Answer. EUCOM and its forces have undergone significant
transformation in recent years, transformation that was necessary in
light of the changing geopolitical and security environment. That
transformation continues today and will continue in the future as we
continue to monitor and assess the security environment and U.S.
requirements to ensure our safety, security, and protection of our
national interests.
The decisions that were made in the past regarding U.S. force
presence in Europe were made based on an assessment of the geopolitical
and security realities at the time. It would be prudent of me, if
confirmed as the EUCOM Commander, to conduct a fresh assessment of the
security environment and make recommendations to the Secretary of
Defense on the best mix of U.S. forces in Europe now and in the future.
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 high-quality dependent education programs provided by the DOD
Dependent Schools. 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 long-term challenges for
EUCOM in preserving and enhancing the quality of life for assigned
personnel while force redeployments to the United States proceed?
Answer. We are demanding a great deal from our force today and must
remain focused on our warriors and their families. As we adjust our
basing posture in Europe to become more operationally effective, we
must also take the opportunity to address and enhance our Quality of
Life posture as well. If confirmed, I will support existing EUCOM
programs and processes that leverage our partnership with supporting
agencies and Service components to build effective quality of life
programs for our military families, and continue to focus on improving
support to sustain our military personnel and their families. EUCOM
servicemembers and their families (some facing their second or third
deployments) deserve a quality of life commensurate to the Nation they
serve. If confirmed, quality of life programs is one of the first
topics I will discuss with the component commanders.
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, family housing, and
commissary and exchange facilities continue to serve military
personnel?
Answer. Every year EUCOM hosts a DOD renown Quality of Life
conference to discuss Quality of Life requirements and shortfalls with
military members of all ranks and their families. If confirmed, I will
continue the practice of listening directly to the men and women of the
command on what we are doing right and where we need to improve. I
would continue to work closely with our Quality of Life Partners to
focus resources where needed. For example, I am aware that EUCOM has
worked extensively with DODEA to ensure that our military families'
dependents are receiving a quality education, and to substantially
improve school investment to restore our aging school infrastructure.
It is essential we retain and sustain this level of effort in the
coming years. The EUCOM team, comprised of Service component and HQ
EUCOM policy and technical experts, will continue to partner to ensure
full support for our warriors and their families.
sexual assault prevention and response in eucom
Question. Numerous cases of sexual misconduct involving military
personnel have been reported 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
investigations and emotional support. Assertions have been made that
their Command failed to respond appropriately by providing basic
services, including medical attention and timely disposition of their
charges.
What is your understanding of the resources and programs in place
in EUCOM to offer victims of sexual assault the medical, psychological,
investigative, and legal help that they need?
Answer. I am not aware of any shortfalls or deficiencies in command
leadership, personnel, or training to prevent or respond to sexual
assault in the EUCOM AOR. I will certainly look at the totality of
these programs as a significant command responsibility.
I understand the entire EUCOM AOR has robust resources and programs
in place to offer victims of sexual assault the medical, psychological,
investigative, and legal help required. If confirmed, I will work with
Service component commanders to ensure they continue to have the
appropriate resources and support to manage sexual assault prevention
and response training programs. In addition, I will ensure every
measure is in place to support victims.
Question. What is your view of steps the command has taken to
prevent sexual assaults in EUCOM?
Answer. From the briefings I have received, I believe that EUCOM
works directly with Service components and their leadership in building
robust training programs to prevent sexual assault. All military and
civilian members across the command have mandatory training
requirements on an annual basis focused on prevention. Education has
proven to be critical in preventing sexual assault, therefore EUCOM
will continue to educate all of our military and civilian members
annually.
Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the training and
resources in EUCOM to investigate and respond to allegations of sexual
assault?
Answer. Across the EUCOM AOR, I am told there are adequate training
and resources in order to investigate and respond to allegations of
sexual assault. If confirmed, I will work with the component commanders
to ensure we continue to emphasize the importance of training and
resources to investigate and respond to allegations of sexual assault.
Question. Do you consider the current sexual assault policies and
procedures, particularly those on confidential reporting, to be
effective?
Answer. I am not aware of any problems with current sexual assault
policies and procedures.
Question. What problems, if any, are you aware of regarding the
manner in which the confidential reporting procedures have been put
into effect?
Answer. I am not aware of any problems in this regard.
mental health of servicemembers and stress on the force
Question. The committee is concerned about the stress on military
personnel resulting from lengthy and repeated deployments and their
access to mental health care to deal with this increased stress. The
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently said that the shooting
of five servicemembers at a stress control clinic by a troubled Army
sergeant in Iraq speaks to ``the need . . . to redouble our efforts''
and ``the issue of multiple deployments'' and increasing dwell time
``to try to improve to relieve that stress.'' This tragic incident, as
well as increasing suicide rates in every Service, are clear reminders
that servicemembers, particularly those who have been deployed multiple
times, are under tremendous stress and need access to mental health
care.
In your view, are there sufficient mental health assets in EUCOM to
address the mental health needs of the military personnel and their
families?
Answer. I understand there is a shortfall in health care
professionals to assist military personnel and their families. However,
this shortfall is being addressed in the fiscal year 2010 budget under
the Warrior and Family Mental and Behavioral Health Support Program.
EUCOM has requested $12.5 million in fiscal year 2010 for additional
mental health care professionals to evaluate and counsel military and
family members.
Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to address the
mental health needs of military personnel and their families in EUCOM?
Answer. Following budgeting actions, I would ensure all mental
health professionals are hired in an expeditious manner.
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. EUCOM and
SACEUR?
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.
Question. 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?
Answer. Yes, I do.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
basing of forces in europe
1. Senator McCain. Admiral Stavridis, the Department of the Army
announced today the cancellation of plans to build three Brigade Combat
Teams (BCTs) at Fort Bliss, TX; Fort Stewart, GA; and Fort Carson, CO,
as well as announcing that White Sands Missile Range, NM, will no
longer receive a BCT from Europe in fiscal year 2013 as originally
planned. This is the latest decision in a 5-year process by the
Department of Defense (DOD) to realign the military's global force
posture in order to respond to emerging threats and missions. In your
opinion, how many Army BCTs should be stationed in Europe?
Admiral Stavridis. From what I have seen so far, the Army
cancellation of plans to build three BCTs is not directly tied to the
delay in a BCT moving from Europe to New Mexico. I am aware of a
proposal within the Department to review the earlier decision to move
two BCTs from Europe to the continental United States (CONUS), in light
of the realization that the strategic landscape has changed between the
time of the original decision to return those two BCTs to CONUS and
present day. However, I also understand that the ongoing Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR) has a focus group looking specifically at Ground
Forces in Europe as a directed issue. The results of this study will
validate what is the correct number of BCTs to station in Europe in
order to work within the resource constraints of the Department while
facilitating an acceptable amount of strategic risk.
Some of the decisions that were made in the past regarding U.S.
force presence in Europe and have yet to be completely realized were
made based on an assessment of the geopolitical and security realities
at the time. Should I be confirmed as the European Command (EUCOM)
Commander, I will look forward to working with the Secretary of Defense
on the best mix of U.S. forces in Europe now and in the future.
2. Senator McCain. Admiral Stavridis, what is the military
rationale for this number?
Admiral Stavridis. As I stated in my response to Question #1,
should I be confirmed as the EUCOM Commander, I will look forward to
working with the Secretary of Defense on the best mix of U.S. forces in
Europe now and in the future.
However, the current rationale to review EUCOM ground force
requirements is predicated on the projected security environment unique
to the EUCOM AOR. The demand signal is to have a force in Europe
capable of deterring, dissuading, and engaging adversaries from a
position of U.S. strength in Europe. This forward presence assures our
allies and sustains the U.S. leadership in NATO. It also maintains
strong relationships with key alliance partners in Europe and Eurasia
which is important to enabling global access and strategic reach.
Moreover, forward stationed U.S. forces fulfill an expeditionary
mission just as CONUS based forces do as part of the general global
force management pool. However, their persistent forward presence in
Europe affords them an inherent capability to conduct theater security
cooperation in the margins of their Global Force Management (GFM)
rotations, thereby increasing the capability of European partner
nations to export security from Europe for missions in ISAF and Iraq.
If confirmed, I plan to coordinate with the ongoing efforts of the
QDR to adequately assess the right defense posture to maintain in
Europe, particularly with respect to ground forces, in order to ensure
that EUCOM has the forces it needs to meet mission requirements.
3. Senator McCain. Admiral Stavridis, do you agree with the current
DOD plan to relocate two BCTs in 2012 and 2013 from Europe to locations
in the United States?
Admiral Stavridis. I am aware of a proposal within the Department
to review the earlier decision to move two BCTs from Europe to CONUS,
in view of the opinion that the strategic landscape has changed between
the time the original BCT decision was made and today. However, I also
understand that the ongoing QDR has a focus group looking specifically
at Ground Forces in Europe as a directed issue. The results of this
study will validate the correct number of BCTs to station in Europe in
order to work within the resource constraints of the Department while
facilitating an acceptable amount of strategic risk.
If confirmed, I plan to continue to work with the Department of the
Army, the Joint Staff, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense
efforts on the directed issue for Ground Forces in Europe as part of
the ongoing QDR.
4. Senator McCain. Admiral Stavridis, do you concur with the recent
decision by the Air Force to remove tactical fighters from Europe?
Admiral Stavridis. I support the Defense Department's plan to
sustain U.S. air superiority through the program as articulated in the
Secretary's Defense Budget recommendation announcement. This plan
includes a retirement of tactical aircraft from among the oldest in the
U.S. Air Force inventory, as well as significant investment in a fifth
generation tactical fighter capability.
From what I have seen so far, I do not believe the fighter
reductions have been ultimately decided to the particulars of how many
should be stationed at each location. If confirmed, I intend to fully
coordinate any fighter modernization program with the U.S. Air Forces
Europe component, as I believe it is important to find the right
balance between sustainment of current capability and delivery of
future systems.
5. Senator McCain. Admiral Stavridis, in your opinion, what major
military units and at what locations in Europe would you need to
successfully carry out the missions of EUCOM?
Admiral Stavridis. I believe military units in Europe need to be of
sufficient capacity and capability to conduct missions across the
spectrum of military operations: from `Phase 0' engagement and security
cooperation activities to major combat operations. Military forces in
Europe provide a critical layer to the strategic depth and defense of
the homeland forward, and remain available to the DOD global force
management pool for out-of-area operations. These military units need
to remain on the leading edge of technological capability in order to
effectively lead our partners and allies. Our locations in Europe
should continue to support not only these forward assigned forces but
should reinforce our critical partnerships with European nations
committed to the global security effort. These locations are visible
demonstrations of U.S. commitment to our host nations and enable the
global access and strategic reach the United States requires in order
to support other geographic regions from the position of stability and
strength in Europe. Additionally important are the support units and
facilities required to provide high quality of life for European
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
6. Senator McCain. Admiral Stavridis, concerning basing of forces
in Europe, United States Army Forces in Europe is planning to spend
over $320 million to relocate its headquarters from Heidelburg,
Germany, to Weisbaden, Germany. If confirmed, will you take a look at
this plan to ensure it is in the best interest of your forces in Europe
and the U.S. taxpayers? Please report back to this committee whether,
in your professional opinion, this is a wise and prudent investment.
Admiral Stavridis. I am aware that the ongoing QDR has a focus
group looking specifically at Ground Forces in Europe as a directed
issue and that options regarding the Wiesbaden consolidation are being
examined. The results of the QDR study on this issue will validate the
way ahead in light of operational requirements and considering the
fiscal constraints the Department faces regarding the basing of our
forces in Europe.
If confirmed, I will ensure we adequately steward our Nation's
resources while improving efficiencies in our organizational construct.
I will also report back to the committee following the completion of
the QDR study.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
russian transformation
7. Senator Collins. Admiral Stavridis, despite a recession and
massive cuts throughout his government, Russian President Dmitri
Medvedev has vowed to increase defense spending by nearly 26 percent to
about $37 billion, and to transform Russia's Soviet-era defense
industry into a modern technological power. Media reports indicate
Medvedev intends to cut Russia's officer corps from 355,000 to 150,000,
and dismiss more than 200 generals, 15,000 colonels, and 70,000 majors.
How will Russia's transformation factor into the upcoming QDR?
Admiral Stavridis. Regardless of media reports of Russian
transformation, the fact of the matter is that the European and
Eurasian security environment is in complicated transition--coping with
anxiety associated with the perception of unpreparedness to address
21st century challenges, coupled with unresolved 20th century security
problems, and a global economy suffering the worst crisis in almost 100
years. The August 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict drew into question not
only the vision of a post-Cold War Europe, but the fundamental post-
Cold War approach to security. Russia is an international prestige-
seeking state focused on economic growth. It wants to solidify its
economic progress and strives to be perceived as a modern great power.
Our relationship, and those of our allies and partners, with Russia is
a significant security determinant on the continent. Prudent policy
dictates that we conduct a strategic review of those relationships and
our role within them, within the NATO Alliance, and on the continent.
If confirmed, I plan to coordinate with ongoing efforts of the QDR
to ensure the Europe and Eurasia security environment is sufficiently
addressed and that EUCOM is properly positioned in that environment.
______
[The nomination reference of ADM James G. Stavridis, USN,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
May 12, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
The following named officer for appointment in the United States
Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance
and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601:
To be Admiral
ADM James G. Stavridis, 5127.
______
[The biographical sketch of ADM James G. Stavridis, USN,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
------
Resume of ADM James George Stavridis, USN
15 Feb 1955 Born in West Palm Beach, FL
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
19 Oct 2006 Admiral, Service continuous
to date
Assignments and duties:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Naval Academy (Instructor). June 1976......... Aug. 1976
Naval Amphibious Base, Coronado, Aug. 1976......... May 1977
San Diego, CA (DUINS).
Service School Command, Naval May 1977.......... June 1977
Training Center, Great Lakes,
IL (DUINS).
USS Hewitt (DD 966) (Anti- July 1977 Apr. 1979
Submarine Warfare Officer).
Surface Warfare Officers School Apr. 1979......... Aug. 1979
Command Newport, RI (DUINS).
USS 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).
USS Valley Forge (CG 50) Oct. 1984......... Aug. 1987
(Operations Officer).
Office of the CNO (Assistant for Sep. 1987......... July 1989
Long Range Requirements).
Surface Warfare Officers School July 1989......... Oct. 1989
Command Newport, RI (DUINS).
XO, USS Antietam (CG 54)........ Oct. 1989......... July 1991
National War College (Student).. July 1991......... July 1992
Office of the Secretary of the July 1992......... Mar. 1993
Navy (Special Assistant and
Speechwriter).
Ships Material Readiness Group, Mar. 1993......... June 1993
Newport, RI (DUINS).
CO, USS Barry (DDG 52).......... June 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......... July 2004
Group 12.
Office of the Secretary of July 2004......... Oct. 2006
Defense (Senior Military
Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense).
Commander, U.S. Southern Command Oct. 2006......... To date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Capstone, 2001-2
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. 1995-Dec. CDR/CAPT
Policy Branch) (J5). 1997
Office of the Secretary of July 2004-To date VADM
Defense (Senior Military
Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense).
Commander, U.S. Southern Command Oct. 2006-to date ADM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
[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 ADM 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.)
James G. Stavridis.
2. Position to which nominated:
Commander, United States European Command and Supreme Allied
Commander Europe.
3. Date of nomination:
May 12, 2009.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
February 15, 1955; West Palm Beach, FL.
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, 23.
Julia, 18.
8. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed in the service record
extract provided to the committee by the executive branch.
None.
9. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
U.S. Naval Institute, Surface Navy Association, Council on Foreign
Relations.
11. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, and any other special recognitions for outstanding
service or achievements other than those listed on the service record
extract provided to the committee by the executive branch.
None.
12. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to appear and testify upon request before any duly
constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly
constituted committee of Congress, to give your personal views, even if
those views differ from the administration in power?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
James G. Stavridis.
This 2nd day of April, 2009.
[The nomination of ADM James G. Stavridis, USN, was
reported to the Senate by Chairman Levin on June 9, 2009, with
the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on June 10, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Lt. Gen. Douglas M.
Fraser, USAF, by Chairman Levin 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. No.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. I do not have any recommendations for modifications to the
Goldwater-Nichols provisions. If confirmed and if I see a need for
modifications, I will not hesitate to make appropriate recommendations.
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 (SOUTHCOM), to the following:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Commander is responsible to the President and the
Secretary of Defense for accomplishing the military missions assigned
to him and exercising command authority over forces assigned to him by
the Secretary of Defense.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Deputy Secretary of Defense performs duties as
delegated by the Secretary and exercises the duties of the Secretary in
his absence. The Commander communicates regularly with the Deputy
Secretary and provides the information and support the Deputy Secretary
needs to accomplish his job.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Answer. The Commander does not have a direct command relationship
with the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The Commander routinely
interacts with, exchanges information, and coordinates with the Under
Secretary on strategic policy issues.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
Answer. The Commander does not have a direct command relationship
with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. The Commander
does interact with, exchange information, and coordinate with the Under
Secretary as needed to set and meet intelligence requirements for the
command's area of focus.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Affairs.
Answer. The Commander does not have a direct command relationship
with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Affairs, but routinely exchanges information and coordinates on issues
of mutual concern.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations
and Low Intensity Conflict and Interdependent Capabilities.
Answer. The Commander does not have a direct command relationship
with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low
Intensity Conflict. The Commander routinely exchanges information and
coordinates on issues of mutual concern.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense
and America's Security Affairs.
Answer. The Commander does not have a direct command relationship
with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and
America's Security Affairs but routinely exchanges information and
coordinates on homeland defense matters.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. The Chairman serves as the principal military advisor to
the President and the Secretary of Defense and is a key communication
link between the combatant commanders and the President. The SOUTHCOM
Commander keeps the Chairman apprised of significant events and issues
in his area of focus to enable the Chairman to perform his critical
role.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. The Secretaries of the Military Departments are responsible
for organizing, training, and equipping forces in their departments for
assignment to the combatant commanders. They are responsible for the
administration and support of these forces. The commander does not have
a direct command relationship with the Service Secretaries, but
routinely exchanges information and coordinates on issues of mutual
concern.
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 organizing,
training, and equipping forces for assignment to the combatant
commands. The Commander routinely discusses issues and concerns with
the Service Chiefs and works closely with them to understand service
capabilities, discuss combatant command requirements, and effectively
employ service capabilities in conducting the U.S. SOUTHCOM mission.
Question. The other combatant commanders, particularly U.S.
Northern Command.
Answer. The Commander, SOUTHCOM maintains a close relationship with
the other combatant commanders, especially U.S. Northern Command
(NORTHCOM), closely coordinating issues of mutual concern, maintaining
frequent contact, and exchanging information. When directed or
specified by the Secretary of Defense, the relationship between
combatant commanders becomes formal for the planning and execution of
specific operational plans.
Question. U.S. Chiefs of Mission within the SOUTHCOM area of
responsibility.
Answer. The Commander does not have a formal relationship with the
Chiefs of Mission. The respective U.S. Ambassador is responsible for
directing and supervising all U.S. Government activity in the host
nation, with the exception of those military activities under the
combatant commander's direction. The Geographic Combatant Commander
routinely discusses and coordinates issues and concerns of mutual
interest with the Chief of Mission within the host nation. The
combatant commanders direct and coordinate U.S. military activity
throughout their areas of responsibility, negotiating force protection
arrangements with Chiefs of Mission, as appropriate. If confirmed, I
intend to maintain close coordination and contact with the Chiefs of
Mission throughout the SOUTHCOM area of focus. In addition, I will
continue to host annual subregional conferences with the Chiefs of
Mission to exchange regional information and perspectives.
Question. Director of National Drug Control Policy, Executive
Office of the President.
Answer. The Commander does not have a direct command relationship
with the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The
Commander interacts with, exchanges information, and coordinates with
the Director as needed to set and meet counternarcotics requirements
and policy for the command's area of focus.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Commander, SOUTHCOM?
Answer. The Commander, SOUTHCOM is responsible for directing the
missions assigned by the President and the Secretary of Defense, to
include conducting military operations, logistical support, and joint
training of assigned military forces. The Commander, SOUTHCOM is
responsible for conducting these operations within his assigned area of
focus which includes 31 nations and 10 territories.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I am honored the President nominated me to be the
Commander, SOUTHCOM. Over the past 3\1/2\ decades, I have served in a
variety of Air Force and joint assignments, in both operational and
staff positions. If confirmed, these experiences have prepared me well
to meet the challenges and opportunities of commanding SOUTHCOM.
I commanded a fighter squadron in the Pacific, a combined air
operations group in the United States, including periods of combat
operations during Operation Southern Watch, a combined air wing
supporting worldwide airlift and providing forces for combatant command
operations, the Space Warfare Center, and simultaneously commanded four
organizations in Alaska, including a binational NORAD region, a PACOM
subunified command, a NORTHCOM joint task force, and a USAF numbered
air force. My current position has given me the experience and insight
of helping to direct the operation of a geographic combatant command.
In addition to this experience, I served in various staff positions on
the Headquarters, U.S. Air Force staff, the Office of the Secretary of
Defense staff, the U.S. Pacific Command staff, and the Air Force Space
Command staff. These jobs have enabled me to observe and participate in
joint, international, and interagency strategy and policy development
as well as have given me the opportunity to engage with international
partners across the Asia Pacific, to include military engagement with
representatives from Chile and Mexico.
In addition to military experience, I lived in Bogota, Colombia,
for 3 years and graduated from high school there. While I need to
regain proficiency, I have a working level knowledge of Spanish. As a
result of my time in Colombia, I have maintained a life-long interest
in and affinity for Latin America and the Caribbean. I also visited
Central America while assigned to 12th Air Force in the mid-1980s and
visited Central and South America in early 2002 as part of a Capstone
trip.
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,
SOUTHCOM?
Answer. If confirmed, I will engage with key leaders and personnel
within the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. Government to
better understand United States policies and interests in the SOUTHCOM
area of focus. I will engage with government and military leaders of
the Nations throughout the region to understand their perspectives and
concerns. I will engage with experts in academia, the media, and think
tanks around the United States and in Latin America and the Caribbean
to understand the complexities of the issues impacting the region. I
will engage with the commanders of other U.S. combatant commands to
better understand operational integration across combatant command
seams. Finally, I will continue to study and enhance my proficiency in
Spanish and familiarize myself with Portuguese.
major challenges
Question. If confirmed as the Commander of SOUTHCOM, 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 be
pursuing these missions amidst an economic downturn and the threat of a
pandemic, and at a time when the region appears to be moving away from
democracy in some nations and growing increasingly unstable in other
nations.
In your view, what are the major challenges and problems you would
confront if confirmed as the next Commander, SOUTHCOM?
Answer. I do not foresee any imminent conventional military threat
to the United States in the region. However, other security challenges
are present, including narcoterrorism, illicit trafficking, crime, and
natural disasters. In addition, transnational radical extremist
organizations in the region are actively engaged with fundraising and
logistics support for their parent organizations.
Narcoterrorist networks are active throughout the region. These
networks include domestic narco-terrorists, such as the FARC in
Colombia and the Shining Path in Peru. These groups undermine
democratic governments, terrorize populations, impede economic
development, and hinder domestic and regional stability.
Global illicit trafficking remains a significant transnational
security threat in the region. Illicit trafficking undermines domestic
and regional stability in much the same manner as narco-terrorism.
Islamic radical terrorist networks are also active, primarily
involved in fundraising and logistical support for parent organizations
based in the Middle East, such as Hizballah and Hamas.
Still another challenge to watch is the nexus between these two
groups in which well resourced narco-traffickers coordinate their
activities with terrorist networks and vice versa.
Underlying the security challenges mentioned above, poverty, income
inequality, and lack of opportunity drive social unrest and corruption,
fostering many of the region's public security challenges. These
conditions make societies vulnerable to the influence of illicit
activity--such as drugs, crime, gangs, and illicit immigration. Such
conditions are aggravated by the region's economic downturn.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges and problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the U.S. interagency and
partner nations to enhance our mutual capability to address the
region's security challenges. The challenges we face affect all the
Nations in the region and require collaborative, interagency and
international solutions. I will continue to evaluate, assess, and
execute SOUTHCOM's comprehensive regional plan to address the illicit
trafficking problem plaguing the region. I will continue to reach out
to the militaries in the region, encourage regional engagement and
train, exercise, and partner as appropriate, to address regional
security concerns. In addition, I will continue to reach out to those
militaries in countries that have been distancing themselves from the
United States to encourage military engagement.
Finally, if confirmed, I will maintain a command focus on the
detention facility in Guantanamo Bay to ensure all laws, regulations,
and policies are followed until the last detainee departs the facility
and the detention facility is closed.
Question. What actions would you propose to counter the growing
threat to democracy in the region?
Answer. I think the key to countering the threat to democracy in
the region is continuing to improve the security, stability, and
adherence to the rule of law by nations in the region. SOUTHCOM can
improve security and stability in the region by continuing to build
partner nation security capacity consistent with the command's Theater
Security Cooperation program. Improving security and stability creates
the conditions necessary for improving adherence to the rule of law,
which in turn fosters and preserves democracy. SOUTHCOM is only a part
of the solution, however, because effectively countering threats to
democracy requires the United States to continue a whole-of-government
approach. If I am confirmed, I will work closely with the other Federal
agencies and our regional partners to support and encourage the
continued growth of democracy in the region. In addition, I will
constantly evaluate and assess the command's Theater Security
Cooperation program, adjusting it as required, to support U.S. and
regional efforts to support democracy. My intent, if confirmed, will be
to continue the command's efforts to make SOUTHCOM an indispensable
regional partner.
Question. What is your assessment of the strengths and weaknesses
of military-to-military exchange programs and contacts in the SOUTHCOM
area of responsibility (AOR)?
Answer. I think SOUTHCOM maintains a strong military-to-military
exchange program. They use the full set of available tools to conduct
their program, including a robust State Partnership program, an
innovative Partnership of the America's maritime engagement operation,
and continuing military exchanges, totaling 845 events in 2008. If
confirmed, I will work hard to enhance and increase these important
military-to-military programs.
interagency organization model
Question. The SOUTHCOM structure was reorganized into an
interagency model, where officials detailed from other agencies, such
as the State Department, U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID), and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), are embedded
as staff members within the command. U.S. Africa Command has adopted a
similar organizational structure.
Please discuss your views of this new command structure model.
Answer. From my understanding, SOUTHCOM reorganized to become a
more interagency-oriented command in order to better meet its mission.
Many of the underlying challenges in the region fall under the lead of
other U.S. agencies and the complexity of coordinating and working to
address these challenges only reinforces the need for coordinated
interagency solutions.
As I understand it, this new organization enables SOUTHCOM to
collaborate proactively with U.S. executive branch agencies and
departments and with partner nations in the region--improving
collective responses to regional and transnational security challenges.
The new structure also created the position of Civilian Deputy to the
Commander, who is a Senior Foreign Service Officer from the State
Department and a former Chief of Mission from the area of focus.
In my view, this new command structure assists SOUTHCOM in
synchronizing its activities with ongoing whole-of-government
approaches in the region, and ensures it continues to conduct military
operations with an unbroken and capable military chain of command and
authority.
Question. Based on your understanding of this new interagency
command structure, if confirmed, what changes, if any, would you
consider making regarding the command structure and what metrics would
you use to make a determination?
Answer. If confirmed, I will examine the organization closely to
understand its operation and assess its effectiveness. My study of
SOUTHCOM indicates the command, through a directorate specifically
designed to assess its processes and activities, regularly evaluates
its effectiveness and makes changes as needed to improve its capability
to direct its operations.
counternarcotics efforts
Question. Each year the Department of Defense (DOD) spends several
hundred million dollars to counter the flow of illegal drugs into the
United States, yet the availability of drugs on the street has not been
significantly reduced, and some countries continue to face internal
security challenges in responding to this threat. Much of these funds
are executed within the SOUTHCOM AOR, and some have questioned the
effectiveness and focus of our counternarcotics programs.
What is your assessment of the ongoing counternarcotics operations
within the SOUTHCOM AOR?
Answer. As I understand it, while many challenges remain,
counternarcotics operations in the SOUTHCOM area of focus are providing
a positive impact on the comprehensive U.S. Government program.
If confirmed, what changes, if any, would you propose?
Answer. If confirmed, I will regularly assess the situation and
evaluate ways to improve SOUTHCOM's role in the program. Based on my
initial impression, I will continue SOUTHCOM's work to strengthen its
already strong coordination and communication with U.S. Federal
agencies and with partner nations. I will continue to engage with our
partner nations and help them improve their counternarcotics
capabilities. I will continue to build on command successes to date,
continue to enhance our national and international efforts to
anticipate and adjust to changes in illicit drug activity, and continue
to improve counternarcotics cooperation and focus across the region, as
well as with other combatant commands.
Question. How would you recommend that the success of the
Department's counternarcotics programs be measured?
Answer. No single DOD measure can effectively gauge the success of
a counternarcotics program which encompasses diverse elements from
across the U.S. and international governments. As the lead agency for
counternarcotics detection and monitoring in the source and transit
zones, the DOD concentrates on successful detection of illicit drug
activity and, as appropriate, supports resultant endgame operations.
Last year, for example, SOUTHCOM's Interagency Task Force stopped more
than 228 metric tons of cocaine and helped facilitate the capture, by
U.S. law enforcement or partner nation organizations, of 317 drug
traffickers. In addition, the DOD trained and provided logistical
support to partner nations' militaries and law enforcement agencies,
substantially improving their counternarcotic capabilities. While such
efforts are only part of a comprehensive program, they demonstrate the
positive impact the DOD is making in regional 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. DOD constantly evaluates its programs and seeks ways to
improve results. DOD's focus is on detection and monitoring operations.
Its programs complement other U.S. programs, such as the Department of
State's eradication and economic development programs. All these
programs must complement and support each other to work across the
entire illicit narcotics enterprise--production, transportation,
consumption, treatment, and education--to produce effective results. I
think the current DOD programs are appropriately synchronized with
other agency efforts, but if confirmed, I will continue to explore ways
to improve coordination and increase DOD's efficiency and effectiveness
working across interagency requirements.
Question. Compared to other missions that you would be responsible
for as Commander, SOUTHCOM, if confirmed, where would you rank
counternarcotics in terms of its contribution to our national security
and the ability of DOD to make a meaningful contribution?
Answer. One of my top priorities, if confirmed, will be supporting
the broad U.S. struggle against violent extremism. My understanding is
that some of the drug trafficking networks in Latin America have
extremist group affiliations, and at least a portion of drug
trafficking profits may be transferred by extremist network members to
their parent terrorist groups. Because of this, the counternarcotics
mission and the struggle against violent extremism are intertwined. I
think the Defense Department should continue to support U.S. and
partner nation drug enforcement efforts, working to deny narco-
traffickers the capability to maintain terrorist group affiliations
through their narcotics trade.
Question. West Africa has emerged as a key player in the
trafficking of drugs from Latin American to Europe. Latin American drug
cartels are taking advantage of poor countries like Guinea Bissau that
have weak central governments, as well as corrupt and inept law
enforcement agencies, that are unable to control their coasts and
ports.
In your view, what is the most effective way for U.S. Africa
Command and SOUTHCOM to collaborate along this seam between your
respective Commands?
Answer. From what I've studied, over the past year the Joint
Interagency Task Force-South (JIATF-S) worked closely with U.S. Africa
Command to share information and help them build an effective
counternarcotics organization. Additionally, in an effort to directly
improve the coordination between SOUTHCOM and U.S. Africa Command, the
two commanders and staffs recently held staff talks that brought
together all levels of both commands, from action officer through
senior leadership, to discuss this issue along with several other
topics. Staff counterparts across the commands work on a one-to-one
basis on everything from actionable drug interdiction information to
collaborative papers. If confirmed, I intend to continue this close
collaboration and information sharing, and where it makes sense,
coordinate activities between the two combatant commands.
Question. There has been a surge in drug-related violence in Mexico
over the past year, which has increased the risk of cross-border
violence into the United States. Much of the drug supply comes into
Mexico across its southern border. While Mexico is in the NORTHCOM AOR,
the rest of Latin America is in the SOUTHCOM AOR. So the security
situation in Mexico is an example of the need for a well-coordinated
effort between NORTHCOM and SOUTHCOM.
What is your vision of how SOUTHCOM and NORTHCOM could work
together in a fully coordinated and seamless fashion with respect to
Mexico and other security challenges?
Answer. The drug-related violence in Mexico remains unsettling. As
indicated, the flow of drugs starts in South America and passes through
Central America. I'm told that SOUTHCOM and NORTHCOM collaborate
regularly to deal with this and other security issues. For example, the
two commands held a major coordination conference last year, use
liaison officers for daily collaboration, have a Joint Operating Area
through JIATF-S where they collaborate in real time on illicit
trafficking interdiction, and share information on countries of mutual
interest under the new Unified Command Plan. If confirmed, I will
continue the close coordination between SOUTHCOM and NORTHCOM to
address illicit trafficking and other security challenges.
Question. The United States and Mexico announced in 2007, the start
of a multiyear, bilateral security agreement called the Merida
Initiative. This Initiative aims to combat drug trafficking and other
criminal activity along the U.S.-Mexican border, as well as in Central
America. The U.S.-Mexican border is viewed as especially important for
U.S. counternarcotics efforts because Mexico is currently the primary
point of entry for cocaine and other drug shipments smuggled into the
United States.
What is your understanding of the Merida Initiative as it relates
to Central America and the role of SOUTHCOM?
Answer. My understanding is that in addition to providing
assistance to Mexico, Merida provides assistance to Central America,
Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The Central America portion of the
Merida Initiative is a comprehensive public security package that works
to tackle insecurity in Central America by more effectively addressing
criminal gangs, improving information sharing between countries in the
region, modernizing and professionalizing the police forces, expanding
maritime interdiction capabilities, and reforming the judicial sector
in order to restore and strengthen confidence in those institutions by
the citizens in the region. The SOUTHCOM's specific role in Merida is
improving maritime security capacity with such things as improved
radios and interceptor speed boats. If confirmed, I will continue to
support these programs to help build the capacity of partner nations to
improve regional security and counter illicit trafficking activities.
U.S. assistance has focused mainly on four strategic pillars: (1)
eradication of coca and opium poppy crops, (2) illegal drug
interdiction, (3) alternative development to provide coca and opium
poppy farmers other sources of income, and (4) institution-building to
train security forces and to strengthen democratic governance capacity.
Supporters of the program argue that U.S. assistance has been vital to
building foreign government counternarcotics capacities. Critics often
question the program's effectiveness to reduce the amount of cocaine
and heroin entering the United States, because the Andean region still
accounts for the production of virtually all of the world's cocaine and
increasing amounts of high-quality heroin. Some also criticize the
program for excessively emphasizing supply-side eradication and
interdiction, especially in Colombia, without sufficient focus on
economic development, institution building, and public and private
sector reform.
Question. What is your assessment of this issue and, if confirmed,
where do you believe the funds dedicated to combating the narcotics
trade in the SOUTHCOM AOR can most effectively be used?
Answer. The counternarcotics effort requires a whole-of-government
approach; no one pillar alone can accomplish the job. While SOUTHCOM
through JIATF-S and its other components is responsible for
counternarcotics detection and monitoring throughout its area of focus,
other U.S. Government agencies have the lead on supply-side
eradication, interdiction, economic development, institution building,
and public and private sector reform. I think the United States should
continue this multi-pronged approach and continue pursuing coordinated
efforts.
Question. If confirmed, how would you work with respective Chiefs
of Mission to accomplish your objectives?
Answer. If confirmed, I will communicate often and coordinate
closely with the Chiefs of Mission to accomplish U.S. objectives in the
counternarcotics effort.
building partner capacity within the southcom area of responsibility
Question. In the past few years, Congress has provided DOD a number
of temporary authorities to provide security assistance to partner
nations. These include the global train and equip authority (section
1206) and the security and stabilization assistance authority (section
1207). Some have argued that security assistance has traditionally been
a State Department responsibility and that these programs ought to be
transferred from DOD to the Department of State.
What should be our strategic objectives in building the capacities
of partner nations?
Answer. U.S. strategic objectives in building partner capacity are
to increase the capacity of the armed forces in our partner nations to
address the security challenges within their territories, increase
their capability to help each other solve cooperative security
challenges and promote security cooperation among all partner nations
in the region.
Question. Do these objectives differ by region, e.g., do our
objectives within the PACOM AOR differ from those in the SOUTHCOM AOR?
Answer. In my view, while the specific capacities desired for
specific countries or subregions within each command's AOR may differ,
the objectives of both programs are the same.
Question. What is your understanding of the purpose of the section
1206 global train and equip authority?
Answer. I understand that section 1206 authority enables combatant
commanders, in coordination with U.S. Ambassadors to host nations in
which specific 1206 activities are proposed, to build partner nation
capacity by rapidly training and equipping their armed forces to
conduct counterterrorism or stability operations against urgent or
emergent threats.
Question. What is the relationship of the global train and equip
authority to other security assistance authorities, such as DOD
counternarcotics assistance and foreign military financing (FMF)?
Answer. In my view, section 1206 authority is one of many tools
available to combatant commanders to use in a whole-of-government
approach to their region's security challenges. All these tools are
used together to enhance regional security. The DOD counternarcotics
assistance program builds partner nation capacity and coordinates
regional counternarcotic activities to counter illicit drug
trafficking. FMF helps build long-term relationships that provide
access and cooperation in the region. Section 1206 builds operational
capability in the armed forces of partner nations to enable them to
conduct effective counter-terrorism operations within their borders and
with other nations to counter emergent threats. In my view, SOUTHCOM
uses its various authorities to coordinate multiple activities with
other Federal interagency partners and Chiefs of Mission to build an
effective whole-of-government approach to regional security challenges.
Question. What should be done to ensure that the global train and
equip authority does not duplicate the efforts of these other
assistance programs?
Answer. Host country funding and FMF plans are included when
combatant commanders build a section 1206 proposal. These proposals are
coordinated directly with each host nation U.S. Ambassador to
deconflict the activities of various assistance programs. If confirmed,
I will continue this close coordination between the Defense Department
and the State Department to provide safeguards against duplicating
efforts.
Question. What is your understanding of the purpose of the security
and stabilization assistance authority (section 1207)?
Answer. I understand that section 1207 provides authority for the
Defense Department to transfer to the State Department up to $100
million per fiscal year in defense articles, services, training or
other support for reconstruction, stabilization, and security
activities in foreign countries.
terrorism threat from caribbean and central america
Question. In your view, what is the extent of the current threat of
terrorist extremists from the Caribbean and Central America?
Answer. Terrorist activity in the Caribbean and Central America is
generally limited to fundraising and logistics. While terrorism
emanating from the region is rare, the presence of individuals with
operational terrorism experience is cause for concern. Such concern is
further justified in light of the impending New York trial of
individuals from Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana, who allegedly plotted
to blow up gas pipelines into JFK Airport. If confirmed, I will keep
SOUTHCOM vigilant to detect and defend against terrorist threats to the
United States and our partners.
Question. How would you broadly characterize the terrorism threat--
low, medium, or high?
Answer. I understand that extremist organizations are active in
Latin America and the Caribbean, primarily focused on fundraising and
logistics support for parent organizations in the Middle East. However,
as the alleged plot described in the answer above indicates, there are
individuals in the region who are interested in doing harm to the
United States. For that reason, I would characterize the threat as low
to medium.
haiti
Question. The United Nations (U.N.) Security Council voted
unanimously on October 14, 2008, to extend the U.N. peacekeeping
mission in Haiti for 1 year. Haiti continues to experience turmoil and
instability.
How would you characterize the current military, economic, and
political situation in Haiti?
Answer. Haiti remains relatively calm, but security challenges
continue to impact this fragile democracy. The 2008 hurricane season
decimated Haiti with four consecutive tropical weather events. Recovery
has been slow, and another such hurricane season could be devastating
for the country. The U.N. Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH)
continues to perform well and is the major force keeping criminal
elements in check. My understanding is that several nations in the
region have participated, are actively participating, or are interested
in participating in this important U.N. mission.
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 potential for violence remains present in Haiti, but
because of the successes of the MINUSTAH forces, violence will remain
in check. As I understand it, the 7,000 plus MINUSTAH troops and 2,000
U.N. civilian police fill the gap left by inadequate force levels and
capabilities of the Haitian National Police. As long as MINUSTAH
remains in country while police forces are being recruited and trained,
violence will remain manageable.
Question. What conditions or indicators do you consider important
in determining whether there will be another wave of Haitian
emigration?
Answer. In the first quarter of calendar year 2009, I understand
that migration from Haiti increased when compared to the same period of
2008. This increase in migration was caused primarily by the downturn
in the global economy and the ravages of last year's hurricane season.
The potential for mass migration from Haiti is largely conditioned by
Haitian perceptions of how quickly they will be interdicted and
repatriated by the U.S. Coast Guard and/or other U.S. authorities. If
they perceive they will be quickly interdicted and repatriated, mass
migration, as I understand it, will be lower. Another condition that
reduces potential mass migration is Haiti's capability to ensure
individual safety and provide jobs.
cuba
Question. Recently, President Obama announced authorization for
unlimited travel and money transfers for Americans with relatives in
Cuba and an easing of restrictions on telecommunications.
What is your view of the need for review and, potentially, revision
of U.S. policies regarding Cuba?
Answer. I think U.S. policy, including our policy toward Cuba,
should be periodically reviewed. As appropriate, if confirmed, I will
be ready to implement any changes to U.S. policy.
Question. What is your opinion about the need for, and the pros and
cons of, military-to-military contact with Cuba?
Answer. In general, I think military-to-military engagement with
any nation's armed forces is valuable, consistent with U.S. law and
policy. Under current Helms-Burton legislation, any significant
military engagement with Cuba must be met with Cuban willingness to
discuss Defense Policy, military subordination to democratically
elected leadership, and military disengagement from domestic economic
policy. Currently, the only military-to-military contacts I am aware of
with Cuba are administrative ``fence-line'' meetings conducted by the
Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay and his Cuban
military counterparts. If confirmed, I will continue to assess the
value of military engagement with Cuba, consistent with U.S. law and
policy.
guantanamo bay
Question. If confirmed as Commander of SOUTHCOM, what do you see as
the major operational challenges to implementing the President's
January 22, 2009, executive order directing the closure of the
Guantanamo Bay detention facility?
Answer. From what I've studied, logistics and security are the
major operational challenges of closing the detention facility. The
specifics of the logistical and security challenges will be worked as
the final placement of detainees is determined. If confirmed, I will
ensure SOUTHCOM continues close coordination with the joint community,
the interagency, and multinational partners to provide the safe and
humane care, custody, and transport of detainees as directed by the
Secretary of Defense, consistent with U.S. law and policy.
Question. Regardless of the outcome of ongoing discussions on
closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, what is your assessment
of the value of this military base? Is it a strategic asset for
SOUTHCOM?
Answer. The U.S. Naval Station, on which the detention facility is
located, is a separate command with a separate mission from that of the
detention facility. For example, the Naval Station supports the
Department of Homeland Security in the event of a mass migration. The
Naval Station, with its airfield and port, remains an important
strategic facility for the United States and should remain open long
after the detention facility closes.
venezuela
Question. U.S.-Venezuelan relations have continued to be strained
as President Chavez continues to propagate anti-American rhetoric,
import increasing amounts of military armament, politicize the
Venezuelan military forces, and export his brand of populism to the
region.
What is your view of President Chavez's intentions in the region?
Answer. I think President Chavez seeks to establish Venezuela as
the leader of a broad anti-U.S. populist movement throughout the region
and is working to limit U.S. influence and engagement.
Question. How would you characterize the current state of military-
to-military relations between the United States and Venezuela?
Answer. I understand military-to-military relations with Venezuela
are minimal, despite SOUTHCOM efforts to maintain interaction and
dialogue. SOUTHCOM invites Venezuela to regional military events,
including international and regional military forums, but they have not
attended lately. JIATF-S maintains an opening for a Venezuelan liaison
officer; however, Venezuela has chosen not to fill that position for
over a year. If confirmed, I will continue to seek engagement
opportunities with the Venezuelan military.
Question. What role do you see President Chavez playing in national
elections throughout the SOUTHCOM's area of operations?
Answer. I think President Chavez will continue to support political
parties, grass-roots organizations and anti-U.S. candidates throughout
the region who support his populist program and his anti-U.S. stance.
Currently, lower oil prices have limited the Government of Venezuela's
ability to support this effort.
Question. How would you assess Venezuelan relations with China,
Cuba, Iran, and Russia vis-a-vis the national interests of the United
States?
Answer. I think Venezuela is strengthening its ties with Cuba,
China, Iran, and Russia. President Chavez recently visited China,
during which the PRC leadership recognized Venezuela as a ``strategic
partner.'' In addition, Iranian President Ahmadinejad has made a number
of visits to Venezuela, signing an agreement on military cooperation
and agreeing to establish several multi-billion dollar investments.
Russia has also been active with Venezuela. During a visit to Venezuela
last year, Russian Navy ships conducted a naval exercise of limited
scope with the Venezuelan Navy. If confirmed, I will monitor
developments in Venezuelan relations closely, particularly as they
relate to U.S. national security interests.
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. In October 2008, President Morales declared the U.S.
Ambassador persona non grata and also evicted U.S. DEA representatives
from Bolivia. Under President Morales, U.S. relations with Bolivia
continue to erode while Bolivia's relations with Venezuela, Cuba and
Iran improve. In addition, despite earlier cooperation with the United
States in the interdiction of narcotics, Bolivia is now the world's
third largest producer of coca. My understanding is that military-to-
military relations with Bolivia continue to deteriorate despite
SOUTHCOM and country team efforts to remain engaged. If confirmed, I
will promote limited military-to-military relationships with the
Bolivian armed forces, to include educational programs, conferences,
and seminars in line with U.S. Government policy towards Bolivia.
panama
Question. How do you assess the current political and economic
situation in Panama?
Answer. Panama is a stable country with a strong economy.
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 understanding is that Panama, within the constraints of
their resources, actively cooperates with U.S. counter-drug efforts to
stem the flow of drugs through their country.
Question. What is your assessment of how Panama is protecting and
maintaining the Panama Canal?
Answer. The Panama Canal is a significant strategic waterway and
plays a significant role in global trade. The complex endeavor of
operating and protecting the Canal is a top priority of the Panamanian
government. Addressing this challenge, I understand that Panama
continues investing in technology and security training to enhance its
defensive ability and continues working with regional allies to protect
the Canal. SOUTHCOM annually conducts Exercise PANAMAX, a joint,
multinational training exercise focused on defending the Panama Canal.
Last year, PANAMAX was SOUTHCOM's largest and most comprehensive
exercise to date with 20 participating nations.
Question. How vulnerable is the Panama Canal to attack by
terrorists, and what would be the consequences of an attack to U.S.
national security interests?
Answer. The Panama Canal is the most important infrastructure in
SOUTHCOM's area of focus. The Canal is economically important to the
world and critical to the people of Panama. Two-thirds of the goods
that pass through the Canal are moving to or from U.S. ports. The
disruption of Canal operations would create a significant impact on
global commerce as well as the U.S. economy.
Securing the Canal is a complex challenge. The Panama Canal
Authority Security Division is responsible for securing the Canal. In
addition, SOUTHCOM and many of the armed forces in Latin American work
together to ensure the Canal's security. Annually, SOUTHCOM conducts a
multinational exercise, Panamax, providing a critical training exercise
focused on defending the Canal. It is the primary example of the
regional cooperative security efforts focused on keeping the Canal
secure.
forward operating locations
Question. One of the elements of the regional counternarcotics
strategy is the SOUTHCOM's establishment of forward operating locations
(FOLs) in the source and transit zone.
In your view, what is the role that these FOLs play in the
Department's counternarcotics efforts?
Answer. Now called Cooperative Security Locations (CSLs), my
understanding of SOUTHCOM's CSLs is that they provide strategic basing
for the conduct of regional counternarcotic detection and monitoring
operations. Because forward bases are closer to the narcotic operation
source and transit areas, CSLs increase the mission effectiveness of
detection and monitoring operations because they significantly reduce
aircraft transit time to and from the search areas. The CSLs in Curacao
and Aruba, Netherlands Antilles, and in Comalapa, El Salvador remain
critical to the success of the detection and monitoring mission.
Question. In your view, does current use continue to justify the
costs of sustaining these locations?
Answer. I think the cost of supporting the CSLs is justified. As I
mentioned earlier, SOUTHCOM's task force stopped more than 228 metric
tons of cocaine in 2008. In my estimate, if SOUTHCOM were asked to
provide the same results without operating from CSLs, the cost of
operations would be significantly higher because the number of aircraft
and the number of flight hours required to accomplish the mission would
be much higher.
Question. What assurances do we have from host nations that these
locations will continue to be available to us, and under what
conditions?
Answer. Beyond the current 10 year agreements, there are no
assurances from any of the host nations. My understanding is that our
relationships with host countries, the Dutch Government (in the case of
Aruba/Curacao), the El Salvadoran Government (in the case of Comalapa),
and the Honduran Government (in the case of Soto Cano, JTF-B) are
strong. These agreements provide mutual benefit. If confirmed, I
support continuing these operating agreements.
Question. Since 1999, the United States has operated an Air Force
counter drug unit out of a Forward Operation Location in Manta,
Ecuador. However, last year, the Government of Ecuador decided the U.S.
military was no longer welcome. According to the U.S. Ambassador in
Ecuador, all U.S. personnel and equipment must be out of the country
before November. At present, no new location for a similar base has
been confirmed.
What is your understanding of the status of our transition from
Eloy Alfaro Air Base in Manta, Ecuador to an alternative location?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Government of Ecuador
fulfilled its agreement allowing the United States to conduct
counterdrug operations out of Manta through 2009. They chose not to
renew that agreement. If confirmed, I'll ensure SOUTHCOM acts as a good
tenant and leaves Manta in improved condition. From my understanding,
the current turnover plan calls for a cessation of operations by mid-
July to allow for an orderly turnover of facilities by the end of
September 2009.
I'm told that the base at Manta provided a unique set of
capabilities that are difficult to replace in a single location. I
understand SOUTHCOM is looking at several options to mitigate the loss
of Manta and, if confirmed, I will review the results of this
assessment and work to find the best solutions.
Question. What is your assessment of whether maintaining a presence
on the Pacific Coast is critical to U.S. counternarcotics activities?
Answer. As I understand it, the loss of operational reach provided
by Manta will impact the detection and monitoring in the Eastern
Pacific. Some operations can be conducted from other facilities in the
region and will mitigate some of the loss of Manta. However, operating
from different locations creates new problem sets, such as increased
transit times and operational costs. If confirmed, I will continue to
analyze the options to offset the loss of Manta and work towards the
best possible solutions.
colombia
Question. Plan Colombia has enabled the Colombian Government to
make significant gains against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia (FARC) and other paramilitary forces in Colombia, as well as
enabled the government to secure many of its previously ungoverned
areas. In recent months, there has been much discussion about the
impact of the global economic downturn on Latin America. Over the past
decade, the United States has provided over $6 billion to help the
Colombians secure their country and eliminate domestic terrorist
groups. As planned, this funding is declining in the coming fiscal
years.
What are 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 DOD programs, including the effects
of the caps on U.S. troops and contractor personnel?
Answer. From what I see, Colombia has made a great deal of progress
in its fight against narco-terrorists. The Uribe administration has
instilled a sense of hope and pride in the country and Colombia is a
strong, thriving democracy. Statistics show terrorist attacks,
homicides and kidnappings have dropped considerably and the Colombian
military is effectively prosecuting their war against the FARC. The
FARC has been pushed back and the Government of Colombia now has
security representation throughout its 1,098 municipalities. Despite
this success, the FARC and other Illegal Armed Groups still remain a
threat. While I think U.S. support to Colombia can start moving towards
a more ``smart power'' approach, I think the United States should
continue strong support to ensure Colombia's success.
Question. Do you believe the Colombian Government is capable of
sustaining the last decade's gains during this economic downturn and
the scheduled decline in U.S. security assistance?
Answer. In 2007, the Government of Colombia launched ``Plan
Consolidation,'' a whole-of-government approach to establish control of
the territory and provide social and economic development to all
Colombian citizens. To be sure, the current global economic downturn
will impact Colombia's ability to fund this plan, but I think they are
capable and committed to sustaining their hard fought gains. If I am
confirmed, I look forward to working with the committee to continue
U.S. support to Colombia.
Question. When the United States began providing increased support
through Plan Colombia for efforts to significantly reduce or eliminate
narcotics organizations operating in their country, many expressed
concern about the Colombian military's human rights record.
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, today, the Colombian military is one of the
most respected institutions in Colombia and continues to improve its
human rights record. The Ministry of Defense established a
comprehensive human rights and International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
program. Colombian military forces are required to receive 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 strengthen their human rights programs. These programs
have been instrumental in reducing the number of human rights
complaints against the Colombian military.
Colombia continues to aggressively address human rights
infractions. Recently, the Colombian Army dismissed 27 Army personnel,
including three generals, for not conforming to human rights standards.
I think Colombia will continue to aggressively pursue and tackle human
rights issues, and if confirmed, I will keep human rights as a key
element of SOUTHCOM's interaction with Colombia.
Question. What remains to be done and how would you approach the
issue of respect for human rights in the Colombian military?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to keep human rights as a key
element of SOUTHCOM's interaction with Colombia.
western hemisphere institute for security cooperation
Question. The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation
(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.
What is the relationship between SOUTHCOM and WHINSEC?
Answer. WHINSEC does not fall under SOUTHCOM's authority but is one
of many valuable tools available to strengthen military-to-military
relations in the region. I also understand the Commander of SOUTHCOM is
a member of WHINSEC's Board of Visitors. If confirmed, I look forward
to joining this distinguished group.
Question. In your view, does WHINSEC promote the national security
interests of the United States in the Western Hemisphere?
Answer. WHINSEC provides important training, education, and
relationship building opportunities that are absolutely vital to
advancing security cooperation in the Western Hemisphere. These
objectives support the U.S. goal of building lasting partnerships and
promoting broad national security interests. In my view, Congress was
correct when it wrote in section 1257 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 that WHINSEC ``is an invaluable
education and training facility which the DOD should continue to
utilize in order to help foster a spirit of partnership and
interoperability among the United States military and the militaries of
participating nations.'' If confirmed, I will continue SOUTHCOM's
support of WHINSEC.
Question. In your view, how does SOUTHCOM participate in command
oversight and curriculum development?
Answer. SOUTHCOM regularly reviews the curriculum to ensure it
matches and supports SOUTHCOM theater security cooperation objectives
and regional priorities. I understand the command recommends changes,
as required.
Question. In your view, what more, if anything, does WHINSEC need
to do to emphasize human rights in its curriculum?
Answer. From what I understand, WHINSEC has a very comprehensive
human rights program and maximizes the quality and quantity of human
rights instruction in its curriculum. If confirmed, I will continue to
monitor and assess the human rights curriculum, stressing the value of
WHINSEC attendance for Western Hemisphere militaries and police forces.
Question. In your view, 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. From all accounts, WHINSEC is a very transparent
institution. In my view, WHINSEC should maintain this transparency and
continue its open program of encouraging individuals and groups to
visit the school whenever desired. Maintaining a transparent, open
program can help minimize accusations against the school.
iranian influence in latin america
Question. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee
in January 2009, Secretary Gates expressed real concern about Iranian
``subversive activity.'' He went on to say ``[t]hey're opening a lot of
offices and a lot of fronts behind which they interfere in what is
going on in some of these countries.''
What do you assess to be the intent of Iranians in Latin America
and are governments in Latin America welcoming the Iranians?
Answer. Like Secretary Gates, I am concerned about Iran's meddling
in Latin America. Iran is a state sponsor of terror. I'm told that Iran
has increased its diplomatic efforts in the region and has initiated
trade relations with many countries in the region. I think Iran's goal
is to decrease U.S. influence in the region and support those countries
with an anti-U.S. message.
Most of the governments in the region appear to welcome Iran as a
potential economic partner. For example, President Ahmadinejad has had
numerous visits to Venezuela, and there have been numerous multi-
billion dollar investments between the two countries in recent years.
Question. In your view, is there a connection between the Iranians
and the drug trade?
Answer. I have not been told of any direct connection between Iran
and the drug trade in the SOUTHCOM area of focus.
sexual assault prevention and response in u.s. southern command
Question. Numerous cases of sexual misconduct involving military
personnel have been reported 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 assert that their command failed to respond
appropriately by providing basic services, including medical attention
and criminal investigation of their charges.
What is your understanding of the resources and programs in place
in SOUTHCOM to offer victims of sexual assault the medical,
psychological, and legal help that they need?
Answer. I am told that SOUTHCOM has an active Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response program in place that affords victims all the
help they need. The command has a Zero Tolerance Policy and ensures all
incidents are handled using the exact procedures outlined in DOD
directives and policy, which promote sensitive care, confidential
reporting for victims of sexual assault, and accountability for those
who commit these crimes.
SOUTHCOM has a dedicated Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC)
who is trained to respond to allegations of sexual assault and provide
victim advocacy. The SARC is knowledgeable of reporting requirements
and victims' rights regarding medical care, investigation, legal
assistance and restricted reporting, and maintains direct personal
contact with all military assistance providers. Because SOUTHCOM is
located in a large urban area, the SARC also maintains contacts with
local social services agencies.
Question. What is your view of steps taken to prevent sexual
assaults in SOUTHCOM?
Answer. From my perspective, SOUTHCOM has a positive command
climate that emphasizes civility and mutual respect. The command took
specific action to prevent incidents of sexual assault, including
establishing a sexual assault prevention training and awareness
program, encouraging victims to report incidents of sexual assault
without fear, ensuring leaders understood their roles and
responsibilities regarding response to sexual assault incidents, and
establishing a toll-free help line for reporting Sexual Assault and
Harassment. In regards to victim care and response, the command ensures
sensitive and comprehensive treatment to restore victims' health and
well-being, thoroughly investigates allegations of sexual assault, and
takes appropriate administrative and disciplinary action. If confirmed,
I will continue SOUTHCOM's zero tolerance policy, actively support its
programs, and regularly monitor and assess its operations and
resources.
Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the training and
resources in SOUTHCOM to investigate and respond to allegations of
sexual assault?
Answer. I am told that SOUTHCOM provides its personnel the
resources needed to investigate and respond to sexual assault
allegations. The Army, as the Headquarters executive agent, uses a
comprehensive Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program Training
Support Package to provide training to all military personnel, which is
further enhanced by senior leader emphasis. SOUTHCOM recently
participated in the Army's 2009 Sexual Assault Prevention Summit in
Washington, DC, ensuring that key people received world-class training
during the summit.
Do you consider the current sexual assault policies and procedures,
particularly those on confidential reporting, to be effective?
Answer. Yes. I am told that the policies and procedures, outlined
above, are effective.
Question. What problems, if any, are you aware of regarding the
manner in which the confidential reporting procedures have been put
into effect?
Answer. In my view the policies and procedures in place are strong.
mental health of servicemembers and stress on the force
Question. The committee is concerned about the stress on military
personnel resulting from lengthy and repeated deployments and their
access to mental health care to deal with this increased stress. The
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently said that the shooting
of five servicemembers at a stress control clinic by a troubled Army
sergeant in Iraq speaks to ``the need . . . to redouble our efforts''
and ``the issue of multiple deployments'' and increasing dwell time
``to try to improve to relieve that stress.'' This tragic incident, as
well as increasing suicide rates in every Service, are clear reminders
that servicemembers, particularly those who have been deployed multiple
times, are under tremendous stress and need access to mental health
care.
In your view, are there sufficient mental health assets in SOUTHCOM
to address the mental health needs of the military personnel and their
families?
Answer. As I understand it, the majority of forces that deploy
within the SOUTHCOM region rely on their parent service for medical
care during post-deployment, including the very important post-
deployment monitoring of mental health. During deployment, the SOUTHCOM
Surgeon closely monitors all command mental health issues and helps
ensure that SOUTHCOM provides necessary immediate support.
The approximately 1,500 personnel assigned to the SOUTHCOM
Headquarters have their medical needs met through a small U.S. Army
Health Clinic. I have been told that no organic mental health
professionals are assigned to this clinic and that patients are
referred to civilian providers to address their mental health needs.
Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to address the
mental health needs of military personnel and their families in
SOUTHCOM?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the emphasis on ensuring that
military personnel and their families have adequate access to mental
health services, including programs on suicide prevention and substance
abuse prevention and treatment. I will work to improve the coordination
between headquarters SOUTHCOM's military doctors and local civilian
providers to ensure that we understand and address the mental health
needs of our personnel.
united nations convention on the law of the sea
Question. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) is currently pending in the Senate.
What are your views on U.S. accession to UNCLOS?
Answer. As an official policy matter, I defer questions associated
with the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention to the Chief of Naval
Operations. However, as a joint officer, I support the U.S. accession
to the Convention.
Question. From a national security standpoint, what do you see as
the advantages and disadvantages to being a party to UNCLOS?
Answer. The Law of the Sea Convention codifies navigation and
overflight rights and high seas freedoms that are essential for the
global mobility of our Armed Forces. From a national security
standpoint, UNCLOS does not hinder military forces; rather, it directly
supports our National Security Strategy. It is my understanding that as
a matter of customary law the United States is already in compliance. I
also understand that Article 298 of the Convention permits the United
States to completely exempt its military activities from dispute
resolution.
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, SOUTHCOM?
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.
Question. 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?
Answer. Yes, I do.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
drug trafficking
1. Senator Collins. General Fraser, media reports indicate the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and other Colombian traffickers
are shipping more drugs from Colombia overland across Panama to avoid
tighter control of the Pacific and Caribbean coastal waterways by the
Panamanian and U.S. naval forces, further suggesting that Panama could
become the next narcotics battleground. If confirmed, will you have the
resources you need in order to counter these adversarial efforts to
shift from sea to shore lines of communications?
General Fraser. I am very concerned about the change in illicit
trafficking patterns through Panama and, for that matter, the rest of
Central America. Drug trafficking organizations look for the paths of
least resistance and are finding them in Central America. They exploit
borders and under-governed areas. To counter their activity, the United
States can work with nations in the region to build and pursue a
comprehensive regional approach that includes international
partnerships and a U.S. ``whole-of-government'' effort. I understand
that U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) actively supports U.S. Government
and international counternarcotics efforts in the region by building
partner nation capacity and capability. If confirmed, I will continue
this approach and look for ways to enhance SOUTHCOM's support to U.S.
and international programs.
While I need more time to study this issue, I'm told that SOUTHCOM
could make a relatively significant impact on trafficking in Panama and
Central America with nominal increases in resources, including greater
support for partner nation Maritime Patrol Aircraft, enhanced support
for Joint Combined Operations Centers in the region and further
development and support for vetted host nation response forces.
2. Senator Collins. General Fraser, increased enforcement activity
on both sides of the southwest border may be prompting the Mexican drug
cartels to exploit maritime coastal smuggling routes. In recent months,
the Coast Guard and the Drug Enforcement Agency have successfully made
drug interdictions in the Brownsville ship channel (two undocumented
men on a raft with 240 pounds of marijuana), as well as Corpus Christi
and remote portions of South Padre Island. What actions are being taken
to deny the cartels' use of these coastal smuggling routes?
General Fraser. While Mexico is a part of the U.S. Northern Command
(NORTHCOM) area of focus, I understand that SOUTHCOM works closely with
NORTHCOM to counter illicit trafficking and its effects in Mexico.
Central America is facing similar challenges because it is used by
traffickers as the major transit-zone for moving narcotics into Mexico.
I'm told that SOUTHCOM is engaged with NORTHCOM to integrate partner
nation and U.S. surveillance and communication assets in ongoing
efforts to counter illicit trafficking. Additionally, SOUTHCOM is
working with Partner Nations to train and equip security forces in the
region. If confirmed, I will continue these efforts. In addition, I
will continue to seek congressional support for many of the regional
initiatives, such as the Merida Initiative and ongoing SOUTHCOM efforts
to build partner nation capabilities.
______
[The nomination reference of Lt. Gen. Douglas M. Fraser,
USAF, follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 23, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
The following named officer for appointment in the United States
Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of
importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601:
To be General.
Lt. Gen. Douglas M. Fraser, 7505.
______
[The biographical sketch of Lt. Gen. Douglas M. Fraser,
USAF, which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Lt. Gen. Douglas M. Fraser, USAF
Lt. Gen. Douglas M. Fraser is Deputy Commander, U.S. Pacific
Command, Camp H.M. Smith, HI.
General Fraser earned his commission upon graduation from the U.S.
Air Force Academy in 1975. His operational assignments include Europe,
the Pacific, Air Combat Command and Air Force Space Command. Prior to
this current assignment, he was Commander, Alaskan Command, U.S.
Pacific Command; Commander, 11th Air Force, Pacific Air Forces; and
Commander, Alaskan North American Defense Region, with headquarters at
Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK.
The general is a command pilot with more than 2,700 flying hours,
primarily in the F-15A/B/C/D, F-15E, and the F-16.
______
Resume of Career Service of Lt. Gen. Douglas M. Fraser, USAF
Education:
1975 Bachelor of Science degree in political science, U.S. Air
Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO.
1979 Squadron Officer School, Maxwell Air Force Base, AL.
1987 Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell Air Force Base, AL.
1987 Master's degree in political science, Auburn University at
Montgomery, AL.
1992 National War College, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, DC
2005 Joint Flag Officer Warfighting Course, Maxwell Air Force Base,
AL.
Assignments:
August 1975-July 1976, student, undergraduate pilot training, Vance
Air Force Base, OK.
September 1976-March 1977, F-15 student, 405th Tactical Training
Unit, Luke Air Force Base, AZ.
June 1977-May 1980, F-15 pilot, 36th Tactical Fighter Wing, Bitburg
Air Base, West Germany.
June 1980-June 1983, F-15 squadron weapons officer, 405th Tactical
Training Wing, Luke Air Force Base, AZ.
July 1983-June 1985, flight commander, 49th Tactical Fighter Wing,
Holloman Air Force Base, NM.
July 1985-July 1986, aide to the Commander, 12th Air Force,
Bergstrom Air Force Base, TX.
August 1986-June 1987, student, Air Command and Staff College,
Maxwell Air Force Base, AL.
July 1987-July 1989, fighter programmer, Directorate of Programs
and Resources, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC.
July 1989-May 1991, member, Chief of Staff of the Air Force Staff
Group, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC.
July 1991-June 1992, Commander, Weapons and Tactics Flight, 18th
Operations Support Squadron, Kadena Air Base, Japan.
June 1992-October 1992, Director of Operations, 44th Fighter
Squadron, Kadena Air Base, Japan.
October 1992-July 1993, Commander, 12th Fighter Squadron, Kadena
Air Base, Japan.
August 1993-June 1994, student, National War College, Fort Lesley
J. McNair, Washington, DC.
July 1994-July 1996, analysis assistant, Office of Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Requirements, Washington, DC.
July 1996-June 1997, Director, Chief of Staff of the Air Force
Operations Group, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC.
July 1997-January 1999, Commander, 366th Operations Group, Mountain
Home Air Force Base, ID.
February 1999-January 2000, executive assistant to the Commander in
Chief, U.S. Pacific Command, Camp H.M. Smith, HI.
January 2000-April 2002, Commander, 3rd Wing, Elmendorf Air Force
Base, AK.
April 2002-June 2003, Commander, Space Warfare Center, Air Force
Space Command, Schriever Air Force Base, CO.
May 2003-October 2005, Director of Air and Space Operations,
Headquarters Air Force Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base, CO.
October 2005-April 2008, Commander, Alaskan Command, U.S. Pacific
Command; Commander, 11th Air Force, Pacific Air Forces; and Commander,
Alaskan North American Defense Region, Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK.
April 2008-present, Deputy Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, Camp
H.M. Smith, HI.
Flight information:
Rating: Command pilot
Flight hours: More than 2,700
Aircraft flown: F-15A/B/C/D, F-15E, and F-16
Major awards and decorations:
Distinguished Service Medal
Defense Superior Service Medal with oak leaf cluster
Legion of Merit
Meritorious Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters
Air Force Commendation Medal with oak leaf cluster
Air Force Achievement Medal
Effective dates of promotion:
Second Lieutenant - June 4, 1975
First Lieutenant - June 4, 1977
Captain - June 4, 1979
Major - Oct. 1, 1986
Lieutenant Colonel - April 1, 1990
Colonel - Feb. 1, 1995
Brigadier General - July 1, 2001
Major General - Aug. 1, 2004
Lieutenant General - Oct. 11, 2005
(Current as of May 2008)
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Lt. Gen.
Douglas M. Fraser, USAF, in connection with his nomination
follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Douglas M. Fraser.
2. Position to which nominated:
Commander, United States Southern Command.
3. Date of nomination:
April 23, 2009.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
April 16, 1953; Casper, WY.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Rena Kate Fraser (maiden name: Doty).
7. Names and ages of children:
Heather C. Lyman, 31.
Ian D. Fraser, 28.
Hannah E. Green, 17.
8. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, honorary
or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local
governments, other than those listed in the service record extract
provided to the committee by the executive branch.
None.
9. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member - Air Force Association
Member and local Flight Captain (2001-2003) - Order of the
Daedalians
Member - National War College Alumni Association
Member - Air Force Academy Association of Graduates
Member - Command Bar Stool Association (1984-1993)
11. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, and any other special recognitions for outstanding
service or achievements other than those listed on the service record
extract provided to the committee by the executive branch.
None.
12. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to appear and testify before any duly constituted
committee of the Senate?
Yes.
13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly
constituted committee of Congress, to give your personal views, even if
those views differ from the administration in power?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-E of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Douglas M. Fraser.
This 23th day of March, 2009.
[The nomination of Lt. Gen. Douglas M. Fraser, USAF, was
reported to the Senate by Chairman Levin on June 9, 2009, with
the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on June 10, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to LTG Stanley A. McChrystal,
USA, by Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers
supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Commander, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF)?
Answer. Commander, ISAF is responsible for executing NATO's
strategy in Afghanistan as delineated in OPLAN 10302. Commander, ISAF's
responsibility is to ensure that ISAF forces are utilized in the most
effective manner possible in order to accomplish its objectives under
U.N. mandate as well as meet the reporting requirements of Supreme
Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR) (as Commander of NATO Operations).
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Commander, U.S. Forces-Afghanistan (USFOR-A), and how do those
duties and functions relate to those of the Commander, NATO ISAF?
Answer. The Commander of the United States Central Command
(CENTCOM) is my immediate commanding officer in the U.S. chain of
command. Pursuant to title 10, U.S.C., section 164, he exercises
combatant command authority which includes the command functions of
giving authoritative direction over all aspects of military operations,
joint training and logistics, over all U.S. forces in Afghanistan, less
those under NATO Operational Control to ISAF. Commander, CENTCOM
provides the national level logistics and administrative support to
USFOR-A to accomplish its mission as the National Support Element (NSE)
for U.S. forces under NATO Operational Control to ISAF.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. My operational experience in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other
locations from 2002-2008 have provided me extensive experience in the
region--and this conflict. While the operational focus of my most
recent command (JSOC) focused primarily on counterterrorist operations,
our integration with wider counterinsurgency efforts provided me almost
continuous interaction with units and commands of every type and at
every level.
At the strategic level, my assignments (2002-2003 and 2008-present)
on the Joint Staff as the Vice Director, J-3 and then Director, Joint
Staff have provided me insights into strategic issues and
decisionmaking processes.
Finally, since 2001 I have had unique opportunities for extensive
interaction with a wide range of U.S. Government interagency partners
and had British Forces in my Joint Task Force in Iraq for almost 5
years.
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,
ISAF, and/or Commander, USFOR-A?
Answer. Yes, I need to better understand the NATO construct and the
nuances of being a NATO commander. As for USFOR-A, I need to better
understand the NSE and NCE responsibilities.
relationships
Question. Please describe your understanding of the relationship of
the Commander, ISAF/Commander, USFOR-A, to the following:
NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe.
Answer. Commander, ISAF is a subordinate commander, through Joint
Forces Command Brunssum, to NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe
(SACEUR). SACEUR is one of NATO's two strategic commanders and is the
head of Allied Command Operations. As such, he is responsible for the
command and control of all NATO military operations, to include
identifying forces required for the mission and requesting those forces
from NATO countries, as authorized by the North Atlantic Council and as
directed by NATO's military committee.
Question. NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Transformation.
Answer. As the other strategic commander within NATO, Supreme
Allied Commander Transformation (SAC-T) and SACEUR work in tandem to
promote the evolution of NATO's military capabilities and the requisite
interoperability of those capabilities. Commander, ISAF coordinates
with SAC-T to leverage the expertise of ACT in order to maximize the
effectiveness of pre-deployment training efforts and capture lessons
learned of our NATO forces once in theater.
Question. NATO Military Committee.
Answer. The Military Committee (MC) is charged with providing the
North Atlantic Council (NAC) military advice on policy and strategy. As
such, there is not a direct command relationship between Commander,
ISAF and the MC. However, it is critical that Commander, ISAF provide
honest and timely assessments of the situation so that the MC can make
informed recommendations for the NAC.
Question. Commander, U.S. Central Command.
Answer. The Commander of CENTCOM, as my immediate commanding
officer in the U.S. chain of command, exercises combatant command
authority over USFOR-A and provides the national level logistics and
administrative support for USFOR-A to accomplish its mission as the NSE
for forces under NATO Operational control to ISAF.
Question. Commander, Combined Joint Task Force 82, Afghanistan.
Answer. Operational control of forces assigned to ISAF is exercised
through Regional Commanders. The United States is the designated lead
for Regional Command (RC)-East, and as such, Commander, ISAF exercises
control over U.S. forces assigned to RC-East via Combined Joint Task
Force-101. The 82nd Airborne Division is currently transitioning with
the 101st Airborne Division and is expected to complete Transfer of
Authority (TOA) by 1 June 2009. The COMUSFOR-A functions as the
National Command and NSE for all forces under the command of CJTF-82.
Question. Commander, Combined Special Operations, Joint Task Force,
Afghanistan.
Answer. Commander, ISAF has no command relationship, other than a
coordinating role through the DCOS Operations. However, as Commander of
USFOR-A, the forces assigned to CJSOTF fall under the command of
Combined Forces Special Operations Component Command-Afghanistan
(CFSOCC-A) which falls under the tactical control of USFOR-A. This
allows Commander of USFOR-A to integrate the Foreign Internal Defense
(FID) tasks planned and executed by CFSOCC-A with the counterinsurgency
(COIN) plans and tasks executed by ISAF. Since counterterrorism, FID
and counternarcotics (CN) must be integrated with COIN for operations
in Afghanistan to be successful, having CFSOCC-A under the tactical
control of USFOR-A helps him synchronize the COIN fight successfully.
Question. Commander, Combined Security Transition Command-
Afghanistan (CSTC-A).
Answer. CSTC-A is responsible for planning, programming, and
implementing the generation and development of the Afghan National
Security Forces (ANSF). CSTC-A is operationally controlled by and
receives tasks and orders from USFOR-A. CSTC-A also has coordinating
authority with ISAF in order to synchronize ANSF development with the
COIN mission.
Question. United Nations Special Representative in Afghanistan.
Answer. Commander, ISAF and the United Nations Special
Representative work together in close coordination and partnership. The
role of Commander, ISAF is to create a security environment that
enables government capacity building and development efforts by UNAMA
and other international agencies that ultimately will benefit the
Afghan Government and its people.
Question. U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan.
Answer. The U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan is the President's
Senior Representative in the country. Commander, USFOR-A serves as the
senior military advisor to the U.S. Ambassador. Commander, USFOR-A and
the Ambassador work closely together to integrate civilian-military
efforts across all lines of operation.
afghanistan-pakistan strategy and major challenges
Question. What role, if any, did you play in the formulation of the
administration's new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan announced in
March?
Answer. In my position as the Director of the Joint Staff, I
supervised and provided guidance to Joint Staff directorates and
offices to ensure the Joint Staff effectively coordinated with OSD,
Services, combatant commands, and the interagency in the development of
the new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy. I also provided my inputs to the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the formulation of the new
strategy as he formulated his best military advice for the President.
Question. Do you agree with the strategic goals set out in the new
strategy?
Answer. I agree with the strategic goal and associated strategic
objectives outlined in the new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy.
They dovetail closely with the assessment that the Chairman
provided to the President through the Secretary of Defense.
Increasing the strategic calculus to include Pakistan assesses the
region as a whole in order to address common transnational challenges
that face both Afghanistan and Pakistan, namely al Qaeda and other
terrorist organizations.
The United States has a vital national interest in addressing the
current and potential security threats posed by extremists in
Afghanistan and Pakistan. The strategy identifies a realistic and
achievable strategic goal and strategic objectives in the near- to mid-
term in order to reduce the threat.
The strategic goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and
its safe havens in Pakistan, and to prevent their return to Pakistan or
Afghanistan is essential to the long-term security of the United
States, our allies, and the region.
The strategy calls for the resources necessary for a fully-
resourced counterinsurgency. It promotes a whole-of-government
integrated counterinsurgency approach to address challenges in the
region. As a result, significantly more resources will be devoted to
the civilian efforts in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. It also calls
for a regional approach requiring increased international engagement
and participation as the international community must work with
Pakistan to help disrupt the threats to security along Pakistan's
western border.
Question. Has NATO adopted those goals?
Answer. During the recent 60th Anniversary Summit in Strasbourg/
Kehl, NATO Heads of State reiterated the four principles of NATO's
strategic vision for Afghanistan: long-term commitment, Afghan
leadership, a comprehensive approach and regional engagement. The U.S.
strategy includes these principles and in particular it calls for a
``whole-of-government'' methodology to achieve a comprehensive
approach.
Question. What are the major challenges and problems you foresee,
if confirmed as the next Commander, ISAF/Commander, USFOR-A, in the
implementation of that strategy?
Answer. I believe we face three major challenges. The first of
these is to secure the population and separate them from the
insurgents. Only where we can prevent insurgents from controlling the
population through intimidation and coercion can we provide an
opportunity for the Government of Afghanistan, with our support, to
establish full legitimate governance and stability.
Second, we must work to improve governance at every level in order
to facilitate development and other activities that will strengthen the
legitimacy of, and popular support for, the Government--and reduce
insurgent control or influence.
The third major challenge is to increase the capacity of ANSF (Army
and Police). Ultimately, security in Afghanistan must be provided by a
combination of military and police forces of sufficient strength in
personnel, equipment, and training to cover security missions ranging
from national defense to local policing.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges and problems?
Answer. If confirmed it would be my intent to review current
assessments and strategy, ensuring we produce an Integrated Civilian-
Military Plan to fully integrate efforts. Within that plan, I would
anticipate designating development of ANSFs as our highest priority
task, and focusing all our forces on effective execution of
counterinsurgency operations.
security situation in afghanistan
Question. What is your assessment of the security situation in
Afghanistan and the nature, size, and scope of the anti-government
insurgency?
Answer. The Afghanistan insurgency is Taliban dominated, but
comprised of multiple groups including al Qaeda pursuing various short
and long term goals. Their common goals are to expel foreign forces
from Afghanistan, undermine local and international perceptions of
security and to ultimately undermine the authority of the Afghan
Government. There is some operational cooperation between the Taliban
and other insurgent networks. However, insurgent group identities are
often blurred by overlapping operating areas and cooperation amongst
tactical commanders in some areas of Afghanistan. Since 2004, the
Taliban-led insurgency has continued to increase in scope, and its
influence has expanded in some geographic areas despite significant
losses in leadership and military engagements. In addition to the
increasing quantity of attacks, insurgents have increased tactical
proficiency and have adapted to coalition countermeasures.
Violence levels have increased significantly over the last year.
The increased U.S. force deployments in RC-South will likely result in
higher violence levels in 2009 because of ISAF initiated operations
against Taliban controlled areas. While some insurgents will choose to
directly engage coalition forces in contested areas, most will either
reintegrate into the local population or relocate to more permissive
areas in Afghanistan.
Question. What is the nature and extent of the al Qaeda threat in
Afghanistan?
Answer. Reports indicate that the scale and scope of al Qaeda's
operational presence on-the-ground in Afghanistan has increased--but
remains limited in size. However, their partnership and support to
Taliban insurgents cannot be discounted. Despite significant leadership
losses and increased pressure on its safe havens in Pakistan's
Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), al Qaeda maintains the
capability to plan, direct, and support attacks against coalition
forces in Afghanistan in 2009. Even with these losses, several
Afghanistan-focused operatives and trainers remain at large and al
Qaeda's senior leadership structure is largely intact. Al Qaeda
exploits multiple lines of facilitation (handlers) routes into the
FATA, relying on facilitation networks for recruits' travel to the
region.
Question. What is your understanding of the extent to which the
Taliban and al Qaeda cooperate in Afghanistan?
Answer. Despite occasional tensions between Pakistan-based al Qaeda
senior leaders and the Quetta-based Taliban Senior Shura council, the
two organizations maintain a mutually beneficial relationship
characterized by tactical-level cooperation between al Qaeda operatives
and Taliban commanders in Afghanistan. The nature of their relationship
is unlikely to change. This relationship, based on historical ties
(Osama Bin Laden), and overlapping regional goals, is durable--although
continuing differences over strategic goals persist and intermittently
provoke tensions between the two groups. Al Qaeda also continues to
provide tactical expertise and training to Afghan insurgents, focused
on suicide bombings, IEDs, Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Devices,
and some logistical support.
coalition capabilities
Question. Do you believe that the current level of ISAF troops and
equipment in Afghanistan is sufficient to carry out the ISAF mission?
If not, what are the current shortfalls in troops and/or equipment
required for that mission?
Answer. The Combined Joint Statement of Requirements (CJSOR)
established the total force requirements for ISAF. Shortfalls exist
which hamper ISAF's ability to carry out the mission to the full extent
possible. Current shortfalls include various HQ elements, rotary wing
support, lift and medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) capabilities, and
airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) assets.
If confirmed and once in theater, I will be in a better position to
review the specific requirements for the mission and recommend
adjustments to the CJSOR as appropriate.
Question. Do you believe our NATO allies should be doing more to
eliminate the shortfall in resourcing the NATO ISAF mission
requirements?
Answer. I appreciate the contributions and sacrifices of our allies
and partners in this complex mission. Having stated that, I do believe
that our allies could do more to meet the requirements in the CJSOR. If
confirmed, one of my roles as Commander, ISAF will be to actively
campaign for capabilities and forces through the chain of command and
when the opportunity presents itself with allied leadership.
Question. If NATO members are unable to contribute additional
military resources to the ISAF mission, do you believe those countries
should contribute to the Afghanistan mission in other ways, and if so,
how?
Answer. By accepting the mission in Afghanistan, the Nations that
comprise NATO have agreed to share the burden of the mission and each
one contributes military and civilian resources. Where nations are
unable to contribute additional military resources to the CJSOR, I
would ask that they contribute civilian advisors and assistance such as
police trainers and governance mentors, as well as financially, through
such mechanisms as the ANA Trust Fund. These aspects of the mission are
just as critical to the overall success of the strategy in Afghanistan.
command structures in afghanistan
Question. What is your assessment of the current command structures
for ISAF and for USFOR-A? What changes, if any, would you recommend to
those command structures?
Answer. I provide the following response without the benefit of
having served inside the ISAF command structure. However, I believe
that one area in which the current command structure falls short is the
ability of Commander, ISAF to concentrate on strategic and higher-level
operational tasks, due to his direct role in providing day-to-day
tactical-level direction to the Regional Commands.
I would recommend, in coordination with SHAPE, a relook of this
command arrangement, with a possible three-star level headquarters
within the ISAF command structure to assume the role of directing the
counterinsurgency operations of the regional commands. Such a
headquarters would allow Commander, ISAF to concentrate on strategic
level tasks, the complexities of the civil-military integration, and
engaging with the Afghan Government, UNAMA, and the international
community.
Question. What is the justification for a U.S. chain of command
separate from the NATO chain of command?
Answer. A U.S. chain of command separate from NATO provides unified
command and control of U.S. efforts outside the NATO mandate, such as
ANSF development, detention operations, and counter-terrorism
operations. A separate U.S. command in theater provides unified
execution and oversight of Title 10 responsibilities and national
support for logistical, administrative, and intelligence activities.
Question. Is it your understanding that if you are confirmed as
Commander, USFOR-A, all U.S. forces in Afghanistan would be under your
command?
Answer. Yes, with very few exceptions the details of which are
classified, all U.S. forces are under my command. However, the command
relationships are varied depending on the unit and its mission. For
instance, while the majority of the combat forces conducting
counterinsurgency operations are under the Operational Control of ISAF,
I would still have Administrative Control (funding, justice, logistics,
and intelligence activity supervision) over those units. Some units
conducting operations under OEF mandate would be under my Operational
Control. In addition, I would have Tactical Control of select
counterterrorism elements; while, CENTCOM retains Operational Control
over them.
Question. The position of a three-star Deputy Commander, USFOR-A,
has been established to oversee the day-to-day operations in
Afghanistan.
Do you believe there is a need to dual-hat the Deputy Commander,
USFOR-A, within the ISAF command structure to ensure proper
coordination of ISAF forces throughout Afghanistan?
Answer. I believe the optimal solution is to dual-hat the Deputy
Commander, USFOR-A as the commander of a NATO, 3-star operational
headquarters. This solution would allow one commander to direct ISAF
tactical operations and ensure unity of effort where appropriate with
USFOR-A/OEF operations. I recognize that this is a NATO decision and
currently under consideration.
building the afghan national security forces
Question. The administration's new strategy calls for training and
equipping the Afghan National Army to a level of 134,000 and the Afghan
National Police to a level of 82,000, by 2011.
In your view will the currently-planned end strength levels for the
ANA and ANP be sufficient to provide security and stability in
Afghanistan or should these end strength levels be increased? If so,
what levels would you recommend for the ANA and the ANP?
Answer. The ANSF today (approximately 86,000 ANA and 82,000 ANP) is
not of sufficient size to provide long-term security and stability for
the people of Afghanistan. While I would need to make an on-the-ground
assessment, at this time I do not believe the current authorized ANSF
force levels (134,000 ANA and 86,800 ANP) are sufficient to provide
this security.
There are two ongoing studies that will help inform our
recommendations and decisions regarding the future size and
capabilities of the ANSF. The European Community (EC) has commissioned
a study, expected to be complete in mid-summer 2009, to assess the
required capabilities of the Afghan National Police. The Secretary of
Defense also directed that a detailed analysis, led by CENTCOM and the
Joint Staff, be conducted in order to help us make informed
recommendations on options for future end-strength and capabilities for
both the ANA and the ANP. This study with assessed courses-of-action is
due back to the Secretary by mid-June 2009. If confirmed, I will use
the results of both of these studies and my own assessment to make
recommendations to Secretary Gates on the future size and capabilities
of the ANSF.
Question. Traditionally, Foreign Internal Defense (FID) and the
security force assistance mission have been the responsibility of
Special Operations Forces (SOFs). Army and Marine Corps general purpose
forces (GPFs), however, have provided the bulk of the troops advising
and assisting Afghan National Army and Police forces.
What is your assessment of the differences between SOF and GPFss in
performing the security force assistance mission?
Answer. Both SOF and GPFs have a role in the development of the
ANSF. Both must be involved in the training, partnering, and mentoring
of ANSF at the appropriate unit level. Effective and steady ANSF
development focused on bringing Afghan forces to a level where they can
operate across the shape, clear, hold, build continuum with minimal to
no U.S./coalition support is a critical and essential aspect of the new
strategy.
The specialized nature of SOF in the FID role provides unique and
focused skills and training needed by ANSF as they become more advanced
in their development as a security and COIN force. GPFs bring an order
of magnitude of capacity to the security force assistance mission that
does not exist within our SOF. The skills and expertise of GPFs along
with the larger size of these units provides the opportunity to ensure
the ANSF are grounded in the essential basics of a professional
military force as well as the opportunity to engage across a larger
footprint of ANSF units on a sustained basis.
I believe the first foundation of any quality COIN force is a well-
trained and disciplined soldier/policeman who understands the basics of
his profession. GPF and SOF forces together provide that building block
approach for ANSF development.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have, if any, to employ
SOFs and GPFs to advise and assist the Afghan National Army and Police?
Answer. I support the current employment of both SOF and GPF in
training, partnering, and mentoring the ANSF. SOF provides mentors for
the Afghan National Army Commando Kandaks (battalions) as well as some
infantry kandaks. They also provide mentors for the Afghan Public
Protection Force (APPF), a pilot program. GPFs provide mentors for the
Afghan National Army and mentors along with civilian police experts for
the Afghan National Police. Combined Security Transition Command-
Afghanistan (CSTC-A) coordinates the efforts of SOF and GPF in order to
ensure unity of effort.
Question. If confirmed, what changes would you recommend, if any,
with respect to the organizational, training, equipping, or deployment
policies of GPFs performing the security force assistance mission?
Answer. If confirmed I would work with CENTCOM, SHAPE, CJCS and our
Service chiefs to ensure that all units that deploy to Afghanistan can
conduct the full range of counter insurgency tasks as well as support
ANSF development. As of this year, all U.S. maneuver units are
deploying with this dual capability. I would work to ensure that our
allies and partners prepare and deploy their maneuver forces to do the
same.
I would encourage increased language and cultural awareness
training for all forces. I would seek 1 year tours for ministerial-
level mentors and trainers like their ANA and ANP counterparts in order
to establish the necessary relationships with their Afghan partners.
Question. There remains a shortfall in the number of Operational
Mentoring and Liaison Teams (OMLTs) for training the Afghan National
Army and for similar embedded training teams for building the
capabilities of the Afghan National Police.
What should be done to encourage NATO allies to provide more OMLTs?
Answer. I believe that there is already progress on the part of
NATO to increase the number of OMLTs being provided. At the recent NATO
Summit, Allied Heads of State and Governments all agreed on the
importance of providing mentoring teams for Afghan security forces.
There are several Allies, as well as non-NATO partners, who have
pledged additional OMLTs to fill shortfalls, and although we don't have
as many as we need yet, we're heading in the right direction.
Question. What is your assessment of the Afghan National Police?
What more should be done to build the ANP?
Answer. The Afghan National Police continue to be challenged by
corruption, lack of training, and overall capability. Minister of
Interior Atmar recognizes these shortcomings and has identified
acceleration of training, elimination of corruption, and force growth
as his top priorities for the police. I recognize that Police training
and reform is a joint effort between the U.S. Departments of State and
Defense, and the European Union Police Mission--Afghanistan (EUPOL). If
confirmed I will work closely with Ambassador Eikenberry to support
Minister Atmar's priorities to ensure that police training, reform and
growth are properly aligned with other larger rule of law and security
efforts.
The most critical shortcoming for ANP training has been the
shortage of trainers and mentors. President Obama's decision in March
to deploy 4,000 additional trainers to Afghanistan will help to address
this shortfall. We must also continue to encourage our NATO partners to
provide police mentors--especially in the districts where they are the
battlespace owners and where we can create a real synergy of effort to
develop a quality, respected police force. The United States is already
adopting this strategy with our COIN Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) in the
east and south providing additional police mentors.
Question. What more can NATO and the European Union Police Mission
in Afghanistan do in your judgment to improve the effectiveness of the
police?
Answer. Reports indicate EUPOL has to date done well in the
training of police forces and staffs on a provincial level. We must
continue to support the organization and encourage greater capacity as
they bring law and order, rule of law, and other police expertise to
this effort. However, it is readily apparent that the true front lines
of this conflict are on the district and urban police levels; Afghan
police officers are suffering a much higher casualty rate at the hands
of the insurgent forces than their Army counterparts. NATO recognizes
this and recently approved the concept of a NATO Training Mission-
Afghanistan (NTM-A) geared towards the police force. This concept will
allow nations to contribute police trainers, and in fact some Allies
have already pledged personnel even though the details of this concept
are still being vetted. I completely concur with the U.S.
recommendation for NTM-A to take on police institutional training and
will aggressively encourage its application and development.
challenges for accelerating the growth of the afghan national security
forces
Question. Witnesses at committee hearings have cited a number of
challenges impeding the acceleration of expanding the ANSFs, including:
(1) a lack of training/mentoring teams to embed with Afghan units; (2)
a lack of equipment; and (3) the challenge of developing leadership
among officers and noncommissioned officers.
What in your assessment is the greatest challenge to accelerating
the growth of the ANSFs?
Answer. I concur that the greatest international community
challenge to accelerating the growth of the ANSF is the requirement for
mentors for these forces. I also concur that the greatest Afghan
challenge is the development of leadership for the expanded forces.
Question. If confirmed, how would you recommend addressing this
challenge?
Answer. The President's decision in March to deploy the 4/82 BCT to
provide additional mentors for the ANSFs will allow us to meet our ANA
embedded training team requirements for the 134K Army and will
significantly increase the number of ANP police mentor teams. U.S. COIN
BCTs are also assuming responsibility for police mentors in districts
within their battlespace. We must continue to encourage our NATO
partners to provide additional district mentors in order to build
synergy for security within the battlespace and increase the number of
districts with police mentor coverage. I also recommend encouraging
NATO to use the proposed NTM-A as an opportunity to enhance its
training and mentoring of the ANP.
Expanding the leadership capacity of the ANSF requires training and
experience. Both the ANA and ANP have leadership development programs
in place and if confirmed I will work with CSTC-A and the Ministries to
identify efficiencies in both programs and also identify other ways to
mitigate their leadership challenges. However, we must also recognize
that leader development requires time and we must balance the pressing
need for additional growth and progress in leadership with this reality
in order to build forces that are self-sustaining over the long-term.
afghan public protection program
Question. A pilot program called the Afghan Public Protection
Program (APPP) has been launched in Wardak Province to empower local
communities to provide for their own security, reportedly modeled on
the Sons of Iraq program. Some experts have expressed concern, however,
that the program risks strengthening local warlords.
What is your assessment of the APPP?
Answer. As mentioned, and as a pilot program, the APPP is still in
its early stages but assessments of the APPP up to this point have been
positive. This pilot program has been closely coordinated among the
Afghan Ministries of Interior and Defense, USFOR-A, and local Afghan
authorities and community leaders. If confirmed, I would assess this
program as part of the overall efforts to improve security.
Question. What concerns, if any, do you have about the program? If
confirmed, how would you seek to address those concerns?
Answer. Connection to and the ability to secure the local
population are key to the success of the program. We must ensure,
without creating new tensions, the Ministry of Interior has the
capability to provide the proper level and quality of oversight, the
appropriate selection and training of the APPP, and the mutual
commitment of community leaders and local authorities. Currently, the
APPP is deployed in one district under the direct control of the local
police chiefs with guidance and management provided by the MOI as well
as the district and provincial governors. U.S. forces continue to
provide oversight and mentoring to the pilot program. Further, all
members of the APPP are carefully selected through a collaborative
community vetting process that involves not only village elders and
shura leaders but key stakeholders from Government of Afghanistan.
Ensuring the APPP is and remains connected to ANP at the local level is
critical to avoid a return to `armed bands of warlords'. If confirmed I
would review this process, and if it is effective, intend to continue
it.
counternarcotics
Question. What is your assessment of the current U.S. and NATO
strategies for combating the production and trafficking of illegal
narcotics in Afghanistan? What changes, if any, would you make in those
strategies if you are confirmed?
Answer. The U.S. and NATO military strategies and actions to combat
the production and trafficking of illegal narcotics in Afghanistan are
more robust now than before, but we clearly need to continue to
improve. The corrosive effects of narcotics undermine all efforts to
improve security, governance, and development in Afghanistan. A nexus
exists between narcotics and the insurgency as well as corruption and
criminality. Recent decisions by the NATO Defense Ministers and the
Secretary of Defense, at the request of the Afghan Government, provided
the guidance and authorities for both ISAF forces and the U.S. military
to target the trafficking and production of narcotics where the nexus
exists. Additionally, the recent change to DOD's international
counternarcotics policy enabled more robust support and integration of
capabilities with civilian law enforcement agencies operating in
Afghanistan.
I understand the U.S. Government's intent to rebalance its
counternarcotics strategy and I support this effort because I don't
think that crop eradication alone is the right approach. I believe we
need a multi-pronged approach that targets laboratories, traffickers
and movement of drugs, and facilitators at the same time we work to
provide alternative income opportunities for farmers.
Question. In December, Secretary Gates approved an expanded set of
rules of engagement for U.S. forces combating narcotics in Afghanistan.
NATO has reportedly approved a comparable expansion of the rules of
engagement for NATO forces operating in Afghanistan.
What is your understanding of the reasons behind these changes in
the counternarcotics rules of engagement and the impact of these
changes in the rules of engagement?
Answer. It is clear that a nexus exists between the insurgency and
the narcotics trade in Afghanistan. Prior to fall 2008, the U.S.
military's rules of engagement made it problematic to target those
engaged in the drugs trade and providing support to insurgents. Also,
military support to host nation and civilian law enforcement agencies
was restricted by military commanders' interpretation of DOD's
counternarcotics policy. The refinement of that policy was requested by
the CENTCOM commander and in December 2008 a new policy was signed out
that now fosters the integration of military support to law enforcement
activities against the narcotics trade in Afghanistan. The guidance
from the NATO Defense Ministers' meeting in November of 2008 resulted
in the refinement of ISAF's Operational Plan (OPLAN) counternarcotics
annex (Annex RR) rules of engagement to ``take action in concert with
the Afghans against facilities and facilitators of the narcotics trade
supporting the insurgency.''
Question. When recently asked about what U.S. and NATO forces had
done to stop the flow of opium and heroin, the Afghan Minister for
Counternarcotics reportedly said ``nothing.'' This response is deeply
concerning particularly in light of the significant investment the
American people have made in training Afghan counternarcotics forces.
Please discuss your assessment of U.S. and NATO operations to stop
the flow of opium and heroin.
Answer. In 2009 year to date, the Afghan security forces supported
by ISAF and USFOR-A have made progress interdicting the narcotics trade
with respect to last year. Destruction of labs, seizures of drugs and
precursor chemicals, and targeting of facilitators have increased.
However, the full impact of these interdiction efforts is not yet
known. Our multi-pronged approach to CN must include a comprehensive
assessment process.
Question. In March 2009, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan carried
out a joint counternarcotics operation. The operation was part of a
U.N. initiative, called the Rainbow Strategy, aimed at getting the
three countries to carry out joint patrols and share intelligence on
the members of the drug trade that process opium poppy into heroin and
smuggle the drug to markets in Europe. The NATO Secretary General has
discussed his desire to boost these joint efforts to counteract the
illegal drug trade and trans-border organized crime from Afghan
territory.
Please discuss your views on the possibility of NATO and U.S.
opportunities to cooperate with Iran in countering the narcotics trade
in Afghanistan.
Answer. Counternarcotics in Central Asia is a regional problem. In
addition to Afghanistan, the negative effects of the drug trade are
felt in Iran and Pakistan. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC) has cited the Iranians as being the most successful at
interdiction in the region, seizing more than one-third of the opium
smuggled out of Afghanistan through Iran (Source--UNODC report and
recent comments by the UNODC Executive Director). These and other
successful lessons could be shared between the Iranian and Afghan
border security and law enforcement officials. This could be positive
development and help improve stability in the region. As Commander,
ISAF I would work through Afghan officials to find opportunities to
support the Afghanistan's participation in this type of regional
cooperation.
mission focus of special operations forces
Question. Some observers have contended that U.S. Special Forces
operations and resources have been focused on ``direct action''
strategies aimed at killing or capturing insurgents, while foreign
internal defense efforts emphasizing the protection of the Afghan
people and training the Afghan security forces have taken a back seat.
What do you believe should be the proper balance between U.S.
Special Forces operations and resources committed to direct action
versus foreign internal defense, including intelligence, force levels,
and logistics?
Answer. Striking the appropriate balance between direct and
indirect actions is critical. SOF is often wrongly perceived as focused
on direct action, when in fact a top priority role for SOF in
Afghanistan has always been its foreign internal defense role in
partnering and training ANSFs. SOF is one contributing element to that
goal, along with CSTC-A and our international partners. We work ``by,
with, and through'' the Afghan Government, because that is the only way
to build necessary and sustainable capacity.
Question. In your view, what should be the role of direct action
operations in Afghanistan? Do you believe that direct action operations
can defeat the Taliban?
Answer. Disruption of terrorist and extremist groups relies in part
on direct and focused counterterrorism actions. SOF units are trained
and equipped to be the most lethal and precise operators in achieving
this mission. Direct action remains an important aspect of disrupting
our enemies, but it is neither the only role, nor the most important
role, of SOF in Afghanistan. SOF is agile and adaptive, with unique
skills in engaging indigenous and tribal groups, enabling our strategic
communications through psychological operations, and targeting
developmental and economic improvements through civil affairs officers.
Direct action operations alone can not defeat the Taliban but is
crucial to the overall COIN strategy.
Question. Do you believe that U.S. Special Forces have enough
experts in the foreign internal defense mission in Afghanistan and are
being used fully to train Afghan security forces to protect the
population and win ``hearts and minds''?
Answer. By their very nature, SOF units are comparatively small in
size and scope. They are specially trained to build and partner with
indigenous security forces and to operate independently under austere
conditions. We must optimize the limited SOF resources available to
maximize their impact in theatre by ensuring that they are used for
those activities that support our strategic priorities and capitalize
on SOF specialties.
In February 2009, a new one-star SOF command was established to
plan and synchronize direct and indirect activities to achieve a
balanced approach to COIN across Afghanistan.
Combined Forces Special Operations Component Command Afghanistan
(CFSOCC-A) operates at the strategic-operational level and brings
important resources and capacity to efforts in Afghanistan. These
include high-level strategic guidance, synchronization of SOF
throughout the Afghan theatre, enhanced support to SOF units, liaison
with ISAF, the U.S. Embassy, and other key elements of our national and
international effort.
reconstruction efforts and provincial reconstruction teams
Question. If confirmed, what would be your role as Commander, ISAF,
and COMUSFOR-A in reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan?
Answer. I would work to establish an integrated ``whole of
international community and whole of U.S. Government approach'' to
reconstruction. I would work to establish comprehensive linkages
between all lines of effort (security, governance, development, and
strategic communications) the Government of Afghanistan, the
Afghanistan National Development Strategy (ANDS) and the priorities of
the Afghan people. I would ensure the efforts of our military forces
are linked to those of the Afghan Government, UNAMA, USAID, other
national development agencies, and NGOs. I would also work to ensure
that our efforts are sustainable, meaning that they are Afghan led and
maintained, and respond to Afghan priorities. This requires capacity
building at all levels of the Afghan Government and must include
constant engagement with local Afghan leaders and communities.
Question. What is your assessment of the performance of the
Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in Afghanistan?
Answer. I believe that the PRTs are of tremendous value and that
they are making a difference across Afghanistan, many working with
extremely limited resources. I'm aware that Congress legislated a
report on measuring progress in the U.S. PRTs in the 2009 NDAA and that
this report is still in final coordination within the interagency. I
look forward to its submission in order to help us better refine
measures of effectiveness. If I am confirmed, assessing PRTs is one of
my highest priorities with the intent of determining how we can improve
on a concept that has had some remarkable successes.
Question. What improvements, if any, do you believe need to be made
in the operations or coordination of the U.S. and NATO PRTs in
Afghanistan?
Answer. As outlined earlier, if confirmed I need to conduct an
assessment. My current belief is that we need to improve collaboration
among all stakeholders to better synchronize our collective efforts.
This collaboration includes the PRTs, the United States and other
partner embassies, the Government of Afghanistan, and international
aid/development organizations. I believe the most immediate need is
linking these capacity building efforts down to the local level in
partnership with the increases in forces this year. These efforts must
operate in parallel so that capacity building and development efforts
can be executed as soon as clearing operations permit.
Question. What improvements, if any, do you believe need to be made
in the coordination of military and civilian efforts to provide
reconstruction relief and development and to enhance the governance
capacity of the Afghan Government?
Answer. There is an ongoing effort within the interagency to
increase the number of civilian experts to build capacity in governance
and development. I am also aware that the international community, the
Government of Afghanistan, and the interagency are currently looking at
the overall requirements for increased civilian capacity from the
national down to the local levels. We are working with the interagency
on how best to support and employ these civilian experts on the ground.
We will not succeed if all we do is establish security and a strong
military and police. The most crucial component is to get international
and U.S. civilian experts on the ground to improve capacity in
governance and development where we've made gains in security.
national solidarity program
Question. One program that contributes to enhancing development and
empowering governance at the local level in Afghanistan is the National
Solidarity Program (NSP). This program provides block grants directly
to locally-elected Community Development Councils, which are
responsible for identifying, planning and managing their own
development projects. Funding for the NSP comes from the World Bank/
International Development Association, bilateral donors, and through
the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund. According to its website,
NSP has provided more than $500 million in payments to 21,000 Community
Development Councils, which have financed more than 39,000 subprojects
to improve access to infrastructure, markets, and services.
What is your understanding of the value of NSP in Afghanistan?
Answer. The Government of Afghanistan created the National
Solidarity Program (NSP) to allow local populations to identify, plan,
manage and monitor its own development projects. As an important means
of promoting rural development, the NSP empowers rural communities to
make livelihood-effecting decisions. Its goal is to reduce poverty by
strengthening a national network of self-governing community
institutions which plans and implements development projects against
local priorities.
The value of the NSP, as I understand it, is that it builds
capacity at the community level and elevates and improves base
competencies of local communities in financial management, procurement,
technical skill, and transparency. Additionally, the Community
Development Councils include and integrate women and other
traditionally marginalized groups into the decisionmaking cycle at the
local level. I believe its greatest value is that it strengthens
society, empowers communities, and establishes trust and confidence in
the government's ability to assist the people of Afghanistan.
Question. Would you support expanding NSP as a means of building
local governance and strengthening development?
Answer. Yes, I would support expanding NSP as a means of building
local governance and strengthening development, primarily because the
Government of Afghanistan, as a sovereign nation, has implemented this
initiative to address internal challenges. Since its inception in mid-
2003, the NSP has become the Government of Afghanistan's main
instrument for restoring and reconstructing the village social and
economic infrastructure and is operating (or being established in) 359
of 364 districts and provincial centers throughout the 34 provinces in
Afghanistan.
One of the U.S. strategic objectives is to promote a more capable,
accountable, and effective central government in Afghanistan that
serves the Afghan people and can eventually function, particularly with
regard to providing internal security, with limited international
support. This program appears to be an effective method to help achieve
that end.
civilian casualties
Question. In your view, what can be done to reduce the levels of
civilian casualties resulting from operations by coalition forces?
Answer. In addition to the tragic loss of life, I am acutely aware
of the negative repercussions resulting from civilian casualties. Any
time an innocent person is killed our mission becomes harder and our
men and women in Afghanistan fully understand this dynamic. We have
procedures in place to make every effort to avoid civilian casualties
because our purpose is to protect the population. However, we are
fighting an enemy who conducts operations specifically designed to
produce casualties that can be attributed to coalition forces. If
confirmed, I intend to reiterate guidance on the use of force--
emphasizing the importance of not alienating the population--and to
continue to review ways to avoid civilian casualties.
Question. What more needs to be done to address the level of
civilian casualties in Afghanistan?
Answer. As stated above, if confirmed I intend to continually
refine our ways to avoid civilian casualties. In the event that they do
occur, I believe it essential to rapidly engage Afghan Government and
local community leaders, make rapid compensation where appropriate and
conduct joint investigations with Afghan authorities to ensure that the
local population sees us as a responsible partner in their security and
progress and that we have a common understanding of the events and how
we can work together to avoid them.
treatment of detainees
Question. Section 1403 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006 provides 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.
If confirmed, will you take steps to ensure that all relevant
Department of Defense directives, regulations, policies, practices, and
procedures applicable to U.S. forces in Afghanistan fully comply with
the requirements of section 1403 and with Common Article 3 of the
Geneva Conventions?
Answer. Yes, I will. The United States has treated, and will
continue to treat enemy combatants humanely and, to the extent
appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner
consistent with the principles of international law and Common Article
3. They are provided with proper shelter and medical care. Each is
allowed to exercise his religious beliefs, and is provided food
consistent with his religious requirements.
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. I do support the standards outlined in the documents you
quote and I will ensure that we continue to operate a safe, humane,
legal, transparent and professional enemy combatant detention operation
that adheres to our obligations under U.S. and international law, and
reflects the highest standards and values of the American people.
U.S. policy requires that all detainees--at all times--be treated
humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military
necessity, in accordance with the principles of the Third Geneva
Convention of 1949.
Question. How would you ensure a climate that not only discourages
the abuse of detainees, but that encourages the reporting of abuse?
Answer. U.S. policy condemns and prohibits torture and abuse of
detainees. U.S. personnel are required to follow this policy and
applicable law. All credible allegations of illegal conduct by U.S.
personnel will be taken seriously and investigated.
Unfortunately criminal acts take place on the battlefield, just
like they do in normal society. Fortunately, through improved training
and education, substantiated allegations of abuse have decreased over
time.
When new allegations arise in the future, I will continue to hold
individuals accountable, investigate fully, and take appropriate
disciplinary action. I will ensure that all in my chain of command
understand they have a duty to report suspected abuse.
Question. In the past 2 years, significant changes have been made
in Iraq in the way detention operations have been conducted in a
counterinsurgency environment, including through the establishment of
reintegration centers at theater internment facilities.
Are you familiar with these changes in detention operations for
conducting counterinsurgency operations ``inside the wire''? If so,
what do you consider to be the main lessons learned from the changes to
detention operations in Iraq?
Answer. The primary reason why we have been successful with
``inside the wire'' detention operations over the last few years is
because of your support with the large increase in resources made
available for our detention operations. Over the past year, the
Department of Defense has constructed a Theater Internment Facility
Reintegration Center (TIFRIC), which incorporates a detainee work
program to teach valuable, marketable skills to enable detainees to
reintegrate into Iraqi society. We have used detention facilities to
learn why Iraqis join the insurgency so that the insurgents can be
rehabilitated and turned into allies instead of enemies. We segregated
extremists, nurtured moderates, and ensured first-rate care and custody
for every detainee. We set out to counteract the motivations to join al
Qaeda or the insurgency--such as cash incentives and fears of
reprisal--and provide detainees with an alternative.
The TIFRIC and other detention facilities now provide rehab
programs offering real skills and education like carpentry, textile
manufacturing (sewing Bucca Bears and Cropper camels), painting, and
limited use of automation, reinforced with moderate clerics messaging
has made the difference. In addition our enhanced family visitation
programs take advantage of the detainees' web of relatives, friends,
and tribesmen who then also benefit from his rehabilitation.
The critical first step in this successful program is to identify
extremists and separate from moderates to enable rehabilitation of
moderates and their eventual reintegration into society. We use
military intelligence trained experts to analyze the detainee
population and identify the radicals.
Once separated from extremists, we empower and rehabilitate
moderates through education, vocational training, and paid work
programs to give them the incentive and means to reintegrate into
society.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to incorporate
those lessons learned into detention operations in Afghanistan?
Answer. Although Afghan society is in many respects different than
Iraqi society, I believe many of the lessons learned from conducting
Iraqi detention operations can be applied to Afghanistan.
If confirmed, I will establish, or where already in place,
strengthen rehabilitation programs to:
Separate and segregate the extremists.
Develop a moderate understanding of Islam.
Impart basic education and vocational skills.
Continue family visitation and the use of extended
family members and tribal associations to aid in a released
detainee's abstention from violence.
I will establish a new review process to determine more quickly
which detainees do not pose a substantial threat to U.S. forces and can
be released immediately
I will work to provide increased transparency to media and
international organizations, the Government of Afghanistan, the
International Committee of the Red Cross, the U.N., and families so
they can see at first hand the high standard of care, the humane
conditions, and the rehabilitation programs in order to actively
counter-act misperceptions and propaganda about our detention
facilities.
Finally, I will continue to provide care and custody with dignity
and respect for every detainee with a guard force and staff dedicated
to modeling and maintaining world class standards.
safe havens in pakistan
Question. The Intelligence Community assesses that Pakistan's FATAs
along the border with Afghanistan provide a safe haven for al Qaeda and
other extremists supporting the Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan.
What should be done to prevent cross-border incursions by al Qaeda
and the Taliban from Pakistan into Afghanistan?
Answer. Preventing all incursions is difficult due to the length
and porous nature of the border. However, practical cooperation between
Afghan, Pakistani, and international forces improves border security.
Effective military operations in the Pakistani tribal areas are key to
disrupt and eventually deny safe havens to al Qaeda and the Taliban
from which to launch these incursions.
ISAF and USFOR-A must continue to enhance the practical cooperation
among ANSF, Pakistani military and international forces and increase
the effectiveness of our counterinsurgency operations. Effective
programs like Border and Joint Coordination Centers, regular tripartite
engagements at all levels, and counterinsurgency training are essential
to continued progress.
Question. What role should ISAF forces play in countering this
threat?
Answer. ISAF operations are restricted to the country of
Afghanistan. However, ISAF conducts extensive tripartite coordination
at all levels from national command to local tactical units, which
contribute to disrupting insurgents operating from safe havens in
Pakistan. Despite political constraints from operating in Pakistan,
ISAF should and is planning improvements in border security, ISR
capacity, and tripartite coordination to interdict and disrupt cross-
border operations by insurgents based in Pakistan.
Question. What role should the Afghan National Army play in
preventing cross-border attacks by extremist militants from Pakistan
into Afghanistan?
Answer. The Afghan Border Police (ABP) have primary responsibility
for border security. The Afghan National Army provides direct support
and support in depth to the ABP. Operational Coordination Centers are
currently being established at the Regional and Provincial levels to
improve information sharing and synchronization of efforts.
Question. In your view, should the Pakistan Government be doing
more to prevent these incursions?
Answer. The Pakistani military is currently conducting operations
against extremist elements in Pakistan. We must continue to support
their efforts, encourage operations in the tribal areas against
insurgent safe havens, and persuade them to improve their military
counterinsurgency capability.
afghanistan-pakistan cooperation
Question. What is your assessment of the current level of
cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan in confronting the threat
of militant extremists in the border region?
Answer. There are encouraging signs that the Pakistani Government's
most recent efforts against extremists in Western Pakistan are, in
part, facilitated by expanded cooperation with Afghanistan and
international forces. This coordination has expanded at political and
military levels and if confirmed, I will make every effort to maintain
positive momentum.
Question. If confirmed, what recommendations would you have for
improving security cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Answer. I will continue to support the mechanisms we already have
in place such as the Tripartite Commission, border security meetings,
the Border and Joint Coordination Centers and other relationships that
enhance the cooperation of all parties involved in this fight. I will
also support other cooperative mechanisms where appropriate and the
efforts of the international community to build regional security. More
specifically, I would like to see an expansion in information and
intelligence sharing; conduct pre-planned operations that are mutually
supporting; and continue to build on the foundation of political
cooperation which is maturing every day.
sexual assault prevention and response in afghanistan
Question. Numerous cases of sexual misconduct involving military
personnel in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan have been reported 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 assert that the
Command failed to respond appropriately by providing basic services,
including medical attention and criminal investigation of their
charges.
What is your understanding of the resources and programs in place
in Afghanistan to offer victims of sexual assault the medical,
psychological, and legal help that they need?
Answer. The military Services have primary responsibility to ensure
sexual assault response personnel deployed to Afghanistan (Sexual
Assault Response Coordinators, Victim Advocates, medical and mental
health providers, and criminal investigation personnel) are well
trained to support victims and investigate and respond to allegations
of sexual assault. If resources are not readily available where the
alleged incident occurred, victims are transported to a facility were
there is appropriate victim advocate support, medical and psychological
care (regardless of service) and investigative/legal support.
I am aware that a number of recommendations were made to CENTCOM in
the Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2008 Report on Sexual Assault in
the Military, released in March. These included deploying Sexual
Assault Response Coordinators and Victim Advocates and outfitting
larger field hospitals with Sexual Assault Forensic Examination kits
for evidence collection. Initial, independent Service responses to
these recommendations may have created areas where duplicative support
structures exist. In these instances, opportunities may exist to better
pool and employ resources to optimize coverage and improve response. If
confirmed, I will look more closely at available resources and find
ways to improve support to sexual assault victims.
Also, the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military
Services is currently evaluating how effectively the Services are
implementing the DOD sexual assault policy and procedures. They
interviewed key sexual assault responders currently deployed in
Afghanistan, including chaplains, counselors, medical and legal
personnel, and Criminal Investigations Division agents regarding how
they handle cases of sexual assault. In addition, the Task Force has
surveyed Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Victim Advocates in
Afghanistan regarding the level of resources and support they have, and
regarding the effectiveness of restricted reporting in the deployed
environment. Their findings and recommendations will be reported to
Secretary of Defense later this year. If confirmed, I will ensure that
all of the recommendations are considered for implementation within
Afghanistan.
Commanders at all levels must remain committed to eliminating
sexual assault within our forces by sustaining robust prevention and
response policies; by providing thorough and effective training to all
assigned servicemembers, by identifying and eliminating barriers to
reporting; and by ensuring care is available and accessible.
Question. What is your view of steps the Command has taken to
prevent sexual assaults in Afghanistan?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I will need to assess this. I am aware
that a congressionally mandated DOD Task Force on Sexual Assault is
currently reviewing sexual assault to include an assessment of response
capabilities in Afghanistan. I look forward to their report.
Currently, it is my understanding that DOD policy guidance is in
place in theater for the prevention of sexual assault which includes
reporting procedures and command responsibilities. As we increase our
presence in the area, I will ensure that our Sexual Assault resources
are sufficient to respond to any incidents that may occur. But my
primary objective will be to implement preventive measures through
training and leadership involvement.
Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the training and
resources in Afghanistan to investigate and respond to allegations of
sexual assault?
Answer. The military Services have primary responsibility for the
sexual assault response personnel deployed to Afghanistan to ensure
they are well trained to investigate and respond to allegations of
sexual assault. My expectation is that Sexual Assault Response
Coordinators (SARCs) and Victim Advocates are designated for every
operating area and are committed to providing the best care possible
for deployed victims.
Additionally, each of the military Services have identified
investigative resources in deployed areas. However, as you may imagine,
the combat environment and deployed operations are very dynamic. The
investigative resources are often strained by other mission
requirements. Access to resources may be complicated by remoteness of
locations, availability of transportation to and from those areas or
the level of ongoing operations. I believe the DOD training network in
place now prepares them and investigators to handle sexual assault
cases in a caring, responsive and professional manner. Our ability to
respond and support victims is paramount.
Question. Do you consider the current sexual assault policies and
procedures, particularly those on confidential reporting, to be
effective?
Answer. I believe current policies and procedures have improved
care to victims of sexual assault. However, restricted reporting limits
a commanders' ability to support the victim, investigate and/or hold
alleged offenders accountable.
Restricted reporting allows a sexual assault victim to
confidentially receive medical treatment and counseling without
triggering the official investigation process. Personnel may make a
restricted report to the SARC, Victim Advocate or health care
professional. Communications with chaplains also are confidential.
Unrestricted reporting supports a sexual assault victim who desires
medical treatment, counseling but also provides for official
investigation of his or her allegations within existing administrative
reporting channels (such as their chain of command, law enforcement or
through the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC).
Although the use of restricted, or confidential, reporting doesn't
allow a commander to investigate alleged assaults, it does allow a
sexual assault victim to confidentially receive medical treatment and
counseling without triggering the official investigation process.
As our military members' confidence in the reporting and
investigative policies and procedures improve, I believe more alleged
offenders can be held accountable. The greatest effect still lies in
preventive measures and eliminating sexual assaults.
Question. What problems, if any, are you aware of regarding the
manner in which the confidential reporting procedures have been put
into effect?
Answer. In Afghanistan, I suspect that privacy for restricted and
unrestricted reporting becomes a challenge in a deployed environment
where units are small communities where accountability of personnel is
a critical task for units. It becomes more difficult for the victim to
reach out to the SARC or a victim advocate because of the need to keep
track of all personnel movements within the theater and that support
resources may not be co-located with the victim. The joint deployed
environment could present additional difficulties in case management,
delivering care and tracking services due to differences among Service
programs. It is my understanding that the DOD Sexual Assault Prevention
and Response Office is working to field a Joint Sexual Assault Database
to improve our ability to communicate between the Services. The
database is currently projected for fielding in 2010.
mental health of servicemembers and stress on the force
Question. The committee is concerned about the stress on military
personnel resulting from lengthy and repeated deployments and their
access to mental health care to deal with this increased stress. The
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently said that the shooting
of five servicemembers at a stress control clinic by a troubled Army
sergeant in Iraq speaks to ``the need . . . to redouble our efforts''
and ``the issue of multiple deployments'' and increasing dwell time
``to try to improve to relieve that stress.'' This tragic incident, as
well as increasing suicide rates in every Service, are clear reminders
that servicemembers, particularly those who have been deployed multiple
times, are under tremendous stress and need access to mental health
care.
In your view, are there sufficient mental health assets in theater
to address the mental health needs of the military personnel who are
serving in Afghanistan?
Answer. Trying to assign a number or percentage of fill to define
the sufficiency of assets does not accurately portray the complexity of
the mental health issues or the individual needs of our forces on the
ground as we continue to support operations in Afghanistan. I am aware
of multiple efforts across the DOD that are looking at the issue of
mental health assets in theater and most have shown that we need to
have a change in both provider quantity and distribution, favoring
increasing providers and stationing them closer to the line troops.
Additionally, we must continue to evaluate and increase the
availability of care for our servicemembers assigned to CSTC-A, who are
traditionally not going to be co-located with or near our U.S. bases. I
can assure you that I will work to make resilience training and mental
health care available to every man and woman under my command and I
will leave no stone unturned to get those capabilities to them as soon
as possible. The DOD has made huge strides in our combat capabilities
leveraging advanced technologies and I see no reason why we cannot
bring those lessons learned into the medical and behavioral health
arena, such as expanding our telemedicine capabilities to address the
needs of our more remote outposts. Without a doubt, these issues will
need to be handled with great care and respect for the sacrifices and
incredible work of our brave men and women who deploy to this very
challenging environment.
Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to address the
mental health needs of military personnel serving in Afghanistan?
Answer. First, let me say that the responsibility for the mental
health and fitness of the forces under my command will fall on me and
my subordinate commanders. This issue is not simply a medical matter
but a complex topic that requires a team response and a coordinated
effort. Commanders must set the right command climate, not only to
remove the stigma of asking for and receiving care for psychological
injury, but to build cohesive teams, recognize the need for prevention
and identification of problems--as well as having the right resources
in place when problems do arise. When behavioral health problems do
surface, as they do in any population of human beings--not just in
combat troops--we should be ready to address those. I am aware of the
multiple efforts underway within the DOD to increase the number of
behavioral health providers in theater. I support these efforts. In
addition, it is critical to point out that mental health is not simply
a numbers issue but an asset distribution issue as well. We need to
make sure everybody gets taken care of and not just the people on the
large bases. That means pushing behavioral health assets forward to
embed with the line units; in other cases, it may involve leveraging
our telecommunications assets to get to those very small and remote
operating bases. If I have to make more bandwidth available to support
those remote locations with mental health access then that is what I am
going to do. In any case, I plan to look at the problem carefully and
not simply go with the path of least resistance or most conventional
choice--I'll do whatever it takes to maintain a fit and ready force
both in body and spirit.
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 position, to appear before this
committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the ISAF Commander/Commander,
USFOR-A?
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. 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?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
afghanistan progress
1. Senator Collins. General McChrystal, I have long advocated for a
mechanism for measuring our progress in Afghanistan. The President has
announced his strategy; however, it is still unclear just how we intend
to measure success in Afghanistan. How do you intend to measure
progress in Afghanistan?
General McChrystal. I intend to use the core goal and objectives
articulated in the President's strategy announced at the end of March
as my guide for measuring progress in Afghanistan. Currently, under the
lead of the National Security Council, work is being done through
interagency policy coordination processes to develop benchmarks and
metrics for measuring progress against the President's strategy for
both Afghanistan and Pakistan. My responsibilities as the USFOR-A
Commander requires me to provide input into that process through
CENTCOM. I will ensure the metrics and benchmarks developed for
Afghanistan measure progress with respect to the principles of
counterinsurgency.
commanders emergency response program
2. Senator Collins. General McChrystal, General Petraeus has stated
Commanders Emergency Response Program (CERP) funds provide maximum
capability to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. These funds are used on
reconstruction projects that build goodwill and presumably reduce the
threat to U.S. forces. Do you believe that CERP funds should reside
with DOD or the State Department? Who should have oversight of these
funds?
General McChrystal. The oversight of these funds should remain with
DOD. The impact of the ability of the commander on the ground to use
his discretion in allocating these funds to support local projects is
vital. The credibility that it brings to our efforts to secure the
population also pays huge dividends by establishing a sense of trust
and loyalty which can often lend itself to developing important
intelligence on insurgents in the area, which if verified and acted
upon quickly, exponentially increases security for the population. The
close relationship between our commanders on the ground and the PRT's
allows for significant input from DoS on how and when the funds should
be used.
taliban funding
3. Senator Collins. General McChrystal, can you comment on what
portion of the funding for the Taliban comes from wealthy individuals
and ``charitable'' organizations in the Middle East versus narcotics?
General McChrystal. Based on available information we can assess
that both funding streams are major sources of significant and
consistent levels of funds to the Taliban, and will continue to do so
for the foreseeable future, based on the established networks specific
to each source. We believe that targeting one source will not be enough
to significantly disrupt the Taliban's ability to conduct operations.
north atlantic treaty organization
4. Senator Collins. General McChrystal, we discussed the role of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) during our meeting in my
office last month. Do you think NATO will embrace the counterinsurgency
strategy?
General McChrystal. Militarily, I think in many ways NATO is
already embracing the counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy through the
various missions their forces, and those of our non-NATO partners,
execute. At the same time, the political reality in NATO is such that
the phrase `counterinsurgency' is problematic. During the Strausborg/
Kiel Summit in April, the NATO Heads of State and Governments (HOSGs)
reaffirmed their commitment to Afghanistan with a Declaration, which
included the following statement: `We will fill ISAF's military
requirements and provide our commanders with the maximum possible
operational flexibility for the use of our forces.' As the Commander,
ISAF, I view that as an implied acceptance of the COIN mission, even as
it avoids using that term. Within NATO there are on-going discussions
about codifying the term `asymmetric warfare' to embody what we would
consider COIN; should it be agreed upon, I would consider that a
sufficient compromise.
5. Senator Collins. General McChrystal, has any progress been made
toward removing some of the rules of engagement (ROE) caveats that our
NATO allies operate under?
General McChrystal. In the past 6 months, there was a modest
decrease in the number of total caveats reported by our allies and
partners, from 76 to 69. Regarding ROE caveats, there are currently 26
in place by 9 nations, mainly due to national laws and/or policies
pertaining to the use of force and detention guidelines. As part of my
initial assessment once in country, I will review the caveat list to
look for potential areas where my staff can apply effort, as well as
where NATO leadership can engage with capitals to lift or reduce
caveats.
______
[The nomination reference of LTG Stanley A. McChrystal,
USA, follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
May 18, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
The following named officer for appointment in the United States
Army to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance
and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601:
To be General.
Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, 3565.
______
[The biographical sketch of LTG Stanley A. McChrystal, USA,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of LTG Stanley A. McChrystal, USA
______
Resume of Career Service for LTG Stanley A. McChrystal, USA
Source of commissioned service: USMA.
Educational degrees:
United States Military Academy - BS - No Major.
United States Naval War College - MA - National Security and
Strategic Studies.
Salve Regina University - MS - International Relations.
Military schools attended:
Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced Courses.
United States Naval Command and Staff College.
Senior Service College Fellowship - Harvard University.
Foreign languages: Spanish.
Promotions:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promotions Date of Appointment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2LT....................................... June 2, 1976
1LT....................................... June 2, 1978
CPT....................................... August 1, 1980
MAJ....................................... July 1, 1987
LTC....................................... September 1, 1992
COL....................................... September 1, 1996
BG........................................ January 1, 2001
MG........................................ May 1, 2004
LTG....................................... February 16, 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignment:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To Assignment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 1976 Feb. 1978......... Weapons Platoon
Leader, C
Company, 1st
Battalion, 504th
Parachute
Infantry
Regiment, 82d
Airborne
Division, Fort
Bragg, NC
Feb. 1978 July 1978......... Rifle Platoon
Leader, C
Company, 1st
Battalion, 504th
Parachute
Infantry
Regiment, 82d
Airborne
Division, Fort
Bragg, NC
July 1978 Nov. 1978......... Executive Officer,
C Company, 1st
Battalion, 504th
Parachute
Infantry
Regiment, 82d
Airborne
Division, Fort
Bragg, NC
Nov. 1978 Apr. 1979......... Student, Special
Forces Officer
Course, Special
Forces School,
Fort Bragg, NC
Apr. 1979 June 1980......... Commander,
Detachment A, A
Company, 1st
Battalion, 7th
Special Forces
Group (Airborne),
Fort Bragg, NC
June 1980 Feb. 1981......... Student, Infantry
Officer Advanced
Course, United
States Army
Infantry School,
Fort Benning, GA
Feb. 1981 Mar. 1982......... S-2/S-3
(Intelligence/
Operations),
United Nations
Command Support
Group-Joint
Security Area,
Korea
Mar. 1982 Nov. 1982......... Training Officer,
Directorate of
Plans and
Training, A
Company,
Headquarters
Command, Fort
Stewart, GA
Nov. 1982 Sep. 1984......... Commander, A
Company, 3d
Battalion, 19th
Infantry, 24th
Infantry Division
(Mechanized),
Fort Stewart, GA
Sep. 1984 Sep. 1985......... S-3 (Operations),
3d Battalion,
19th Infantry,
24th Infantry
Division
(Mechanized),
Fort Stewart, GA
Sep. 1985 Jan. 1986......... Liaison Officer,
3d Battalion,
75th Ranger
Regiment, Fort
Benning, GA
Jan. 1986 May 1987.......... Commander, A
Company, 3d
Battalion, 75th
Ranger Regiment,
Fort Benning, GA
May 1987 Apr. 1988......... Liaison Officer,
3d Battalion,
75th Ranger
Regiment, Fort
Benning, GA
Apr. 1988 June 1989......... S-3 (Operations),
3d Battalion,
75th Ranger
Regiment, Fort
Benning, GA
June 1989 June 1990......... Student, Command
and Staff Course,
United States
Naval War
College, Newport,
RI
June 1990 Apr. 1993......... Army Special
Operations Action
Officer, J-3,
Joint Special
Operations
Command, Fort
Bragg, NC, and
Operations Desert
Shield/Desert
Storm, Saudi
Arabia
Apr. 1993 Nov. 1994......... Commander, 2d
Battalion, 504th
Parachute
Infantry
Regiment, 82d
Airborne
Division, Fort
Bragg, NC
Nov. 1994 June 1996......... Commander, 2d
Battalion, 75th
Ranger Regiment,
Fort Lewis, WA
June 1996 June 1997......... Senior Service
College
Fellowship, John
F. Kennedy School
of Government,
Harvard
University,
Cambridge, MA
June 1997 Aug. 1999......... Commander, 75th
Ranger Regiment,
Fort Benning, GA
Aug. 1999 June 2000......... Military Fellow,
Council on
Foreign
Relations, New
York, NY
June 2000 June 2001......... Assistant Division
Commander
(Operations), 82d
Airborne
Division, Fort
Bragg, NC, to
include duty as
Commander,
Combined Joint
Task Force-
Kuwait, Camp
Doha, Kuwait
June 2001 July 2002......... Chief of Staff,
XVIII Airborne
Corps and Fort
Bragg, Fort
Bragg, NC, to
include duty as
Chief of Staff,
Combined Joint
Task Force-180,
Operation
Enduring Freedom,
Afghanistan
July 2002 Sep. 2003......... Vice Director for
Operations, J-3,
The Joint Staff,
Washington, DC
Sep. 2003 Feb. 2006......... Commanding
General, Joint
Special
Operations
Command, Fort
Bragg, NC
Feb. 2006 June 2008......... Commander, Joint
Special
Operations
Command/
Commander, Joint
Special
Operations
Command Forward,
United States
Special
Operations
Command, Fort
Bragg, NC
Aug. 2008 Present Director, The
Joint Staff,
Washington, DC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of joint assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignment Date Grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S-2/S-3 (Intelligence/ Feb. 1981-Mar. Captain
Operations), United Nations 1982.
Command Support Group-Joint
Security Area, Korea.
Army Special Operations Action June 1990-Apr. Major/Lieutenant
Officer, J-3, Joint Special 1992. Colonel
Operations Command, Fort Bragg,
NC, and Operations Desert
Shield/Desert Storm, Saudi
Arabia.
Chief of Staff, XVIII Airborne June 2001-July Brigadier General
Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort 2002.
Bragg, NC, to include duty as
Chief of Staff, Combined Joint
Task Force-180, Operation
Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan.
Vice Director for Operations, J- July 2002-Sept. Brigadier General
3, The Joint Staff, Washington, 2003.
DC.
Commanding General, Joint Sept. 2003-Feb. Brigadier General/
Special Operations Command, 2006. Major General
Fort Bragg, NC.
Commander, Joint Special Feb. 2006-June Major General/
Operations Command/Commander, 2008. Lieutenant
Joint Special Operations General
Command Forward, United States
Special Operations Command,
Fort Bragg, NC.
Director, The Joint Staff, Aug. 2008-Present Lieutenant General
Washington, DC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of operations assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignment Date Grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Special Operations Action June 1990-Mar. Major
Officer, J-3, Joint Special 1991.
Operations Command, Operations
Desert Shield/Desert Storm,
Saudi Arabia.
Commander, Combined Joint Task Apr. 2001-June Brigadier General
Force-Kuwait, Camp Doha, Kuwait. 2001
Chief of Staff, Combined Joint May 2002-July 2002 Brigadier General
Task Force-180, Operation
Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. decorations and badges:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal
Defense Superior Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Legion of Merit (with two Oak Leaf Clusters)
Bronze Star Medal
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Meritorious Service Medal (with three Oak Leaf Clusters)
Army Commendation Medal
Army Achievement Medal
Expert Infantryman Badge
Master Parachutist Badge
Ranger Tab
Special Forces Tab
Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by LTG Stanley A.
McChrystal, 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.)
Stanley A. McChrystal.
2. Position to which nominated:
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander,
United States Forces Afghanistan.
3. Date of nomination:
May 18, 2009.
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 14, 1954; Fort Leavenworth, KS.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Annie McChrystal (Maiden name: Cocoran).
7. Names and ages of children:
Sam McChrystal, 25.
8. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed in the service record
extract provided to the committee by the executive branch.
None
9. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Council on Foreign Relations.
11. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, and any other special recognitions for outstanding
service or achievements other than those listed on the service record
extract provided to the committee by the executive branch.
None.
12. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to appear and testify upon request before any duly
constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly
constituted committee of Congress, to give your personal views, even if
those views differ from the administration in power?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-E of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-E are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Stanley A. McChrystal.
This 13th day of May, 2009.
[The nomination of LTG Stanley A. McChrystal, USA, was
reported to the Senate by Chairman Levin on June 9, 2009, with
the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on June 10, 2009.]
NOMINATIONS OF GORDON S. HEDDELL TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE; DR. J. MICHAEL GILMORE TO BE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL TEST AND
EVALUATION, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; ZACHARY J. LEMNIOS TO BE DIRECTOR OF
DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING; LT. GEN. DENNIS M. McCARTHY, USMC
(RET.) TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESERVE AFFAIRS; DR.
JAMES M. MORIN TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT AND COMPTROLLER; AND DANIEL B. GINSBERG TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, McCain, Hagan,
Begich, and Burris.
Other Senators present: Senators Conrad and Leahy.
Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Jonathan D. Clark, counsel;
Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member; Gerald J.
Leeling, counsel; Peter K. Levine, general counsel; Roy F.
Phillips, professional staff member; and Arun A. Seraphin,
professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Joseph W. Bowab, Republican
staff director; Paul C. Hutton IV, professional staff member;
and Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Paul J. Hubbard, Christine G.
Lang, and Breon N. Wells.
Committee members' assistants present: Gordon L. Peterson,
assistant to Senator Webb; Roger Pena, assistant to Senator
Hagan; and Jason Van Beek, assistant to Senator Thune.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning, everyone. The committee meets
today to consider the nominations of Gordon Heddell to be the
Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General (IG), Michael
Gilmore to be Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
(OT&E), Zachary Lemnios to be Director of Defense Research and
Engineering (DDR&E), Dennis McCarthy to be Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Reserve Affairs, Jamie Morin to be Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management and
Comptroller, and Daniel Ginsberg to be Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
We welcome our nominees and their families to today's
hearing. As senior defense officials put in long hours every
day, we appreciate the sacrifices that they and their families
are willing to make to serve our country.
Each of our nominees has a distinguished background. Gordon
Heddell has served in law enforcement positions since he
completed his service as an Army helicopter pilot in December
1969. In December 2000, Mr. Heddell was confirmed as IG of the
Department of Labor, and in 2008 he became acting IG of DOD.
The DOD IG plays a vital role in ensuring the integrity and
efficiency of DOD programs and activities. If confirmed, Mr.
Heddell will continue the job of restoring the reputation of
this important office, which has been shaken in recent years.
We need an IG that we can rely upon to dig into the
department's problems, and to tell the truth about what he
finds.
Michael Gilmore has served in national security positions
for the last 20 years, first in DOD's office of Program
Analysis and Evaluation where he rose to be Deputy Director in
2001, and more recently at the Congressional Budget Office
where he has served for the past 8 years as Assistant Director
for National Security.
The Director of OT&E plays a key role in ensuring that our
weapons systems perform as intended. The Director of OT&E, like
the DOD IG, must be able to tell the truth to power. If
confirmed, it will be Dr. Gilmore's job to tell DOD and
Congress whether we have gotten what we paid for in our major
defense acquisition programs. A successful Director of OT&E
will not be popular within DOD, and plays a vitally important
role in protecting both the troops and the taxpayers.
Zachary Lemnios is a scientist and engineer who has spent
most of the last 2 decades in various positions at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT) Lincoln Lab where
he now serves as chief technology officer. His qualifications
are only enhanced by his status, and I say very proudly he is a
graduate of the University of Michigan. If confirmed as DDR&E,
Mr. Lemnios will be the top science and technology officer of
DOD, responsible for guiding the advanced research that will
keep our military ahead of its competitors for the next
generation.
In addition, the Weapon's System Acquisition Reform Act,
which we enacted just last month, gives the DDR&E the important
new responsibility of assessing the technological maturity of
key technologies to be used in major defense acquisition
programs to ensure that we won't try to build systems that we
haven't sufficiently tested.
I'm going to save my brief comments about the nominees on
the second panel until we finish questioning the first panel.
We do have one Senator, one of our colleagues who is here to
introduce one of the nominees on the second panel, and we
expect Senator Leahy, at any moment, to make an introduction
for the second panel as well. Both our colleagues, who are
great friends as well as colleagues, have other obligations and
so we're going to take care of the introductions by those
Senators who have nominees on both panels as soon as Senator
McCain finishes his opening statement.
Senator McCain.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in
welcoming our nominees this morning, and I welcome their
families as well. They will all play an important role in
achieving the positions for which they are nominated, and as
far as I can tell will certainly be confirmed by the U.S.
Senate.
They possess impressive backgrounds in both the public and
private sectors. I consider all the nominees today to be well
qualified for the positions for which they are being
considered, and I thank them for their willingness to serve the
Nation in these difficult times in the new administration.
Without question, the position of DDR&E and Director of OT&E
are key to maintaining superiority in technology, wisely
spending billions of defense dollars for vital scientific
research, and most importantly, in protecting and empowering
our combat forces in the current fight.
Dr. Gilmore and Mr. Lemnios, I look forward to hearing how
you intend to make positive contributions in achieving these
goals, and in helping to correct the Department's dismal record
in weapons systems development.
General McCarthy and Mr. Ginsberg, I know you'll appreciate
that our national security has never been more dependent on the
willingness of patriotic young men and women to voluntarily
serve in the Armed Forces. It depends on the willingness of
combat tested noncommissioned officers, officers, and their
families to choose careers and continue serving. This is as
true for active duty personnel as it is for members of the
National Guard and Reserve. I look forward to hearing how you
intend to improve the lives of our military personnel and their
families.
Mr. Heddell, there are very few positions in DOD that I
consider to be more important than that of IG. Regrettably for
several years, the Office of the DOD IG has been lacking in
resources and talented leadership with predictable problems
emerging in performance and morale. This has to change.
I've expressed on numerous occasions my concern about
corruption in government, and in DOD in particular. The
contracting and procurement scandals in Iraq are one
manifestation of this problem. The Department's troubled
acquisition programs and the incentives that exist for
individuals who know better than to abandon their principals to
achieve an end are well known. The manner in which Congress, in
a regrettable bipartisan fashion, has allowed the
appropriations process to evolve has contributed greatly to
these problems and presents one reason why Congress has such
low grades in public opinion. The American people are fed up
with the system that breeds corruption and will not continue to
tolerate it.
Transparency and knowledge of the truth are the antidotes
to the corruption that is bred by earmarks and abuse of
authority. The IG of DOD must be an independent leader in
providing that transparency and knowledge, and I know we will
receive that leadership from you.
Dr. Morin, I view the DOD and the Service Comptrollers as
individuals who can facilitate business as usual or make a very
positive difference in the programs and policies of the
Department. We face a number of challenges including enhancing
the transparency of Air Force financial management activities,
and improving acquisition processes. I trust you will advise
the Air Force leadership accordingly to ensure that these
issues are appropriately addressed. I again, welcome the
witnesses and congratulate them, and look forward to working
with them in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John McCain
Thank you, Senator Levin. I join you in welcoming our nominees this
morning.
They possess impressive experience in both the public and private
sectors. I consider all of the nominees today to be well qualified for
the positions for which they are being considered, and I thank them for
their willingness to serve in the new administration.
Without question, the positions of Director of Defense Research and
Engineering and Director of Operational Test and Evaluation are key to
maintaining superiority in technology, wisely spending billions of
Defense dollars for vital scientific research, and, most importantly,
in protecting and empowering our combat forces in the current fight.
Dr. Gilmore and Mr. Lemnios, I look forward to hearing how you intend
to make positive contributions in achieving these goals and in helping
to correct the Department's dismal record in weapons system
development.
General McCarthy and Mr. Ginsberg, I know you appreciate that our
national security has never been more dependent on the willingness of
patriotic young men and women to voluntarily serve in the Armed Forces.
It depends on the willingness of combat-tested noncommissioned
officers, officers, and their families to choose careers and continue
serving. This is as true for active duty personnel as it is for members
of the National Guard and Reserve. I look forward to hearing how you
intend to improve the lives of our military personnel and their
families.
Mr. Heddell, there are few positions in the Department of Defense
(DOD) I consider to be more important than that of the Inspector
General. Regrettably, for several years the Office of the DOD Inspector
General has been lacking in resources and talented leadership with
predictable problems emerging in performance and morale. This has to
change.
I have expressed on numerous occasions my concern about corruption
in government and in DOD in particular. The contracting and procurement
scandals in Iraq are one manifestation of this problem. The
Department's troubled acquisition programs and the incentives that
exist for individuals who know better to abandon their principles to
achieve an end are well known. The manner in which Congress in a
regrettable bipartisan manner has allowed the appropriations process to
evolve has contributed greatly to these problems and presents one
reason why Congress has such low grades in public opinion. The American
people are fed up with a system that breeds corruption and will not
continue to tolerate it.
Transparency and knowledge of the truth are the antidotes to the
corruption that is bred by earmarks and abuse of authority. The
Inspector General of DOD must be an independent leader in providing
that that transparency and knowledge, and we expect that leadership
from you.
Dr. Morin, I view the DOD and the Service Comptrollers as
individuals who can facilitate business as usual or make a very
positive difference in the programs and policies of the Department. You
face a number of challenges, including enhancing the transparency of
Air Force financial management activities and improving acquisition
processes. I trust you will advise Air Force leadership accordingly to
ensure that these issues are appropriately addressed.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator McCain.
Senator Kennedy if he were here would have been introducing
Mr. Lemnios. He obviously is not with us, but he has asked that
a statement of introduction be placed on the record. We are
joined by two of our dear friends and colleagues. Senator
Leahy, you're here I believe to introduce Mr. Ginsberg, and so
we'll start with you, and then Senator Conrad to introduce Dr.
Morin.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kennedy follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Mr. Chairman and Senator McCain, it is a privilege to have the
honor to introduce Zachary J. Lemnios of Massachusetts Institute of
Technology's Lincoln Laboratories who has been nominated to be Director
of Defense Research and Engineering, and I commend President Obama and
Secretary Gates for selecting him for this important position in the
Department of Defense (DOD).
Zach has a distinguished record of public service. He has broad and
extensive experiences, and has a solid understanding and vision of the
national security technology challenges facing DOD and the Nation.
Most recently, Zach has been Chief Technology Officer at The
Lincoln Laboratory, where he was responsible for developing,
coordinating and overseeing the implementation of the Laboratory's
strategy, including establishing relationships with DOD and reaching
out to academic and industrial communities for technology innovation.
In his impressive career, Zach has held major positions in the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and has worked closely with
DOD and the Intelligence Community. In recognition of his significant
contributions to national security, he was awarded the Office of
Secretary of Defense Medal for Exceptional Public Service.
Zach's leadership in developing new defense technologies has
significantly benefited our military systems, and has also
significantly strengthened the Nation's industrial technology base.
I'm confident that Zach will carry out his responsibilities as
Director of Defense Research and Engineering with the same skill and
dedication that he has brought to his past assignments. I urge the
committee and the Senate to act quickly on his nomination, so that Zach
can begin working to implement the provisions of the Weapon Systems
Acquisition Reform Act, recently signed by the President, and help us
meet the major technology challenges facing DOD in protecting our
national security. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF VERMONT
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator
McCain.
It's somewhat unusual to be on this side of the table, but
I'm glad to see so many friends here. I just wanted to be here
to express my strong support for Daniel Ginsberg. He has been
nominated by the President to be Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, and I welcome he and
his wife Jessica, his parents, Rhonda and Jerry, and other
family members who are here with him today.
Daniel had worked for former Senator Sam Nunn, and for the
past 9 years has served as my Defense Policy Adviser. He has
been fantastic in that area. We've had an emphasis on the Guard
and Reserves because as the two of you know better than anyone
in this room, they have become a keystone for our military
operations, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. The support
for homeland duties has been at all time high, everything from
natural disasters such as Katrina to floods and fires and so
on, as well as Homeland Security. We've done some updated
policies for them. We have a 95 member U.S. Senate National
Guard caucus. I co-chair that with Senator Kit Bond of
Missouri. It has worked in a, I was going to say a bipartisan
fashion, actually a nonpartisan fashion, and Daniel Ginsberg as
my senior adviser helped coordinate the caucus and develop
detailed legislation and far-reaching strategies that enacted
strong changes expeditiously. At a time when we've had
increasing interparty rank on the Hill, he forged a bipartisan
consensus and the need to better support the efforts of the
Guard and in turn the Reserves. He worked with the General and
the Governors of the State, so I'll put my full statement in
the record praising him, but I just want to say that it's a
bittersweet moment for me. I have benefited so much from
Daniel's work in my office. I joked a couple weeks ago when I
was in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, something the two of
you have done so many times, and I joked that I was going to
put a hold on his nomination until that trip was over because
I, so vitally, needed him, and it was just emphasized one more
time as he met with generals, ambassadors, and leaders of
coalition forces. His depth of knowledge, his breadth of
knowledge, and his caring for the United States of America. Mr.
Chairman, I can't think of a better person to fill this
position. With that I'll put my full statement on the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Patrick Leahy
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be with you this morning to express
my strong support for Daniel Ginsberg who has been nominated by
President Obama to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower
and Reserve Affairs. I want to welcome his wife Jessica, parents Rona
and Jerry, and other family members who are here with him today.
For the past 9 years, Daniel has served as my defense policy
advisor and has excelled in his duties, particularly in the area of
manpower and reserve affairs issues.
Over the past decade, our country has relied on our Guard and
Reserves more than any other time in recent history. Reservists became
a keystone to our military operations, particularly in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and stepped forward repeatedly to answer the call-to-duty
at a tempo not seen in decades. At the same time, the Guard and Reserve
support for homeland duties was at an all time high. The Guard has
provided crucial support to our Governors and states during natural
disasters such as Katrina. In addition the Guard has assumed additional
roles in homeland security as our country adopted new policies after
the attacks on September 11, 2001.
This new era for the Guard and Reserves prompted Congress and the
Department of Defense to review many existing and frankly outdated
policies for this part of our Armed Forces. The 95-member U.S. Senate
National Guard Caucus, which I co-chair along with Senator Kit Bond of
Missouri, played an integral role in that review and implementation of
new policies. It was Daniel Ginsberg who helped coordinate the Caucus'
successful efforts in this area.
As my senior advisor, Daniel helped me develop detailed legislation
and design the far-reaching strategies that would enact these changes
expeditiously. At a time of increasing inter-party rancor on the Hill,
we forged a bipartisan, bicameral consensus on the need to better
support the efforts of the Guard and, in turn, the Reserves. He has
helped the Caucus achieve an unheralded relationship with the Nation's
Governors and the Adjutants General, bringing in key leaders at every
stage of the legislative process.
This is a bittersweet appearance for me today. While I am glad to
support this nomination, I am disappointed that it will result in the
departure of such a fine individual from my policy staff. President
Obama and Secretary Gates will be well served by Daniel. I hope the
committee will report this nomination favorably and that the full
Senate will soon send the nomination to the President.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator Leahy. We really
appreciate your getting here today for that introduction. I
know that Mr. Ginsberg does as well. Now for Jamie Morin, I
think I pronounced his name correctly. We'll call upon Senator
Conrad.
STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Conrad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
McCain. Thank you so much for your very positive statement. We
appreciate that very much. Senator Hagan, Senator Begich.
I'm here to strongly support the nomination of Dr. Jamie
Morin to be the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Financial Management. Many of you know Jamie because he has
been the Senior Defense Analyst on the Budget Committee since
2003, very well regarded on both sides of the aisle. He really
is an exceptional nominee, and has an absolutely encyclopedic
knowledge of military affairs. His mom, Bridgette who is with
us here today, told me this morning that at age four Jamie was
looking in the encyclopedia reading about the military
services, and that he has had an interest and a devotion to
military matters ever since. That's probably why he has such an
extraordinary knowledge of military affairs, an intense
interest in that subject.
More than that, he has good judgment, really exceptional
judgment, and that will serve him well in this position. He
also has a very strong academic background, a Ph.D. from Yale,
M.S. from the London School of Economics. He has a B.S. in
foreign service from Georgetown. A very good background for the
position he'll be moving into. He also, I might add, has a
strong devotion and interest in the United States Air Force. I
know members of this committee are aware that we have two major
Air Force bases in North Dakota, and he has followed the Air
Force very closely during his entire career.
I believe the Obama administration is extremely fortunate
to be able to track somebody of Dr. Morin's character and
quality. He is absolutely first rate. He served the Committee
on Budget well. I believe he served the country well, and I
believe we're fortunate to have people of his ability come
forward and be willing to serve in public service. With that,
I'll put my full statement in the record, and I thank you very,
very much for listening.
[The prepared statement of Senator Conrad follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Kent Conrad
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I come here today to offer
my full backing to President Obama's nomination of Dr. Jamie Morin to
serve as the next Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial
Management.
Many of you already know Jamie quite well from his work as the
Senior Defense Analyst for the Senate Budget Committee, where he has
served since 2003. He has always provided outstanding analysis and
guidance on defense budget issues.
Without question, Jamie is an extraordinary nominee. His
encyclopedic knowledge of military issues, keen judgment, and
collegiality have been of great benefit to me as chairman, to the
Committee as a whole, and to our country. Jamie's background in
academia has also prepared him well for this position. In researching
and writing as a fellow at the University of Virginia and at the Center
for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, and while earning his Ph.D. at
Yale, Jamie proved his ability to pore over data and interpret it in a
meaningful way.
In these tough economic times, responsible budgeting is more
important than ever. The Obama administration is extremely fortunate to
attract someone of Jamie Morin's quality and character to such a
critical post. The American people are fortunate to have someone of his
talent willing to continue in public service. I believe that Jamie is
the perfect fit for this position. He has repeatedly demonstrated the
experience, judgment, and character necessary to be an extremely
successful Assistant Secretary. I fully support his nomination and urge
the committee and the full Senate to act quickly to confirm his
nomination.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Conrad. Thank
you for leaving for me the choice tidbit that Dr. Morin went to
high school in Detroit, graduated at the University of Detroit
High School, is a Michigan native. I appreciate you allowing me
to make that important significant addition.
Senator Conrad. Also you know Mr. Chairman, as a Senator
from North Dakota, I have not spent a lot of time talking to my
constituents about his checkered background.
Chairman Levin. Well, in that case you're not excused. I
think you need to stay here for the additional questions.
Thanks so much for coming.
Okay. We now will call our first panel forward, please. We
ask you first, each of you to answer the following questions.
These are standard questions we ask of all nominees that come
before us.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
Dr. Gilmore. Yes.
Mr. Heddell. Yes.
Mr. Lemnios. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Dr. Gilmore. No.
Mr. Heddell. No.
Mr. Lemnios. No.
Chairman Levin. Will you ensure your staff complies with
deadlines established for requested communications including
questions for the record and hearings?
Dr. Gilmore. Yes.
Mr. Heddell. Yes.
Mr. Lemnios. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Dr. Gilmore. Yes.
Mr. Heddell. Yes.
Mr. Lemnios. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
Dr. Gilmore. Yes.
Mr. Heddell. Yes.
Mr. Lemnios. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Do you agree if confirmed to appear and
testify upon request before this committee?
Dr. Gilmore. Yes.
Mr. Heddell. Yes.
Mr. Lemnios. Yes.
Chairman Levin. 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 any of the basis for
any good faith delay or denial in providing such documents?
Dr. Gilmore. Yes.
Mr. Heddell. Yes.
Mr. Lemnios. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much. I think we'll call
first on Mr. Heddell, and the other witnesses and nominees can,
of course, be free to introduce any family or guests that you
might have if they are with you. Mr. Heddell.
Mr. Heddell. Thank you, sir. I have an opening statement.
May I do that?
Chairman Levin. Please.
STATEMENT OF GORDON S. HEDDELL, NOMINEE TO BE INSPECTOR
GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Heddell. Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, distinguished
members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am honored to
appear before you today as the nominee to serve as the DOD IG.
Being nominated for this position is a remarkable
opportunity, and I am prepared to meet the challenges ahead, if
confirmed. The responsibility of this position is of great
importance to ensure the health, the safety, and the welfare of
DOD personnel, and to make sure that the taxpayer receives a
good return on their investment. As an IG with over 8 years
experience, I know that the DOD IG has exceptional
responsibility. I am committed to ensuring that this office of
IG serves as a model of integrity and dedicated service as well
as a highly respected organization. If confirmed, I will accept
the duties of the office with appreciation, humility, and a
commitment to doing what is right while always honoring the
principal of independence. I am truly grateful for the support
and partnership of this committee and Secretary Gates in
ensuring that there is effective oversight of the department.
On a personal note, I want to acknowledge the love and
support of my family who have truly been the inspiration behind
any successes that I have had in my life or in my career. I
thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, for your
time and attention. I look forward to answering your questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Mr. Heddell.
Dr. Gilmore.
STATEMENT OF DR. J. MICHAEL GILMORE, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF
OPERATION TEST AND EVALUATION, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Dr. Gilmore. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, members of the
committee it's an honor to appear here today. I thank President
Obama for having the confidence in me to nominate me to be
Director of OT&E in DOD, and I thank Secretary Gates for
supporting that nomination.
My wife, Ai-Chi Liu, is here today, and suffice it to say
that without her support and encouragement, I would not be here
today.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Weapons Systems
Acquisition Reform Act that the President recently signed into
law demonstrates his commitment, as well as DOD's to working
with Congress, and in particular with this committee to solve
the many problems that have arisen in developing, producing,
and fielding weapons systems. If I am confirmed, I pledge that
I'll do my best to help that important effort, and I'll do that
by providing this committee, the Secretary, and Congress with
independent objective evaluations of the effectiveness,
suitability, and survivability of weapons systems based on
realistic operational testing. My goal would be to ensure that
the men and women in uniform are provided weapons that they can
be confident will work. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Dr. Gilmore.
Finally Zachary Lemnios. Mr. Lemnios.
STATEMENT OF ZACHARY J. LEMNIOS, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF
DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING
Mr. Lemnios. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, and
members of the committee.
I'm honored by the opportunity to appear before you today
as the President's nominee for the position of DDR&E. I'd like
to thank my wife, Stephanie, who is with me today, and my
children, Melanie, Grace, Sarah, and Jonathan. My parents,
William and Angela, are watching on the committee's webcast.
They are my foundation, and I could not have considered this
opportunity without their love and support.
In fact, public service is deeply routed in our family. My
wife Stephanie works at a nonprofit organization, Science Club
for Girls, inspiring young girls to be in appreciation of
science and technology. My brother, Phil, was in the Peace Corp
for several years in Africa, later became the town manager of
Hull, MA. My daughter, Grace is a special education teacher in
Woodbridge, VA, not too far from here. I'd like to recognize my
father's service to the Nation as an 18-year-old private first
class and later sergeant in the 20th Army Division, his unit
fought across Europe during World War II. On April 29, 1945,
his was one of three U.S. Army Divisions that took part in the
liberation of the Dekalb Concentration Camp.
My career is focused on opening new technology frontiers to
guarantee our Nation's advantage over those who threaten us. I
have seen the power of invention and innovation firsthand, and
have had the opportunity to participate in opening new fields
of study in industry, academia, and the Federal Government.
Rapidly evolving technology such as robotics, cognitive, bio,
and nanotechnologies will have profound implications for our
country to go well beyond our understanding today. We simply
must lead in these and other critical areas to ensure our
national security.
The Department of Science and Technology Investment serve
three critical functions in my view. First they preserve the
technological age of our current forces by extending the
capabilities of our current war fighting systems. They offer
the opportunity for breakthrough capabilities allowing us to
chose those capabilities on our timelines, and finally they
provide a hedge against the uncertain future with a set of
scientific and engineering options to counter-strategic
surprise. For the 21st century, the most critical capabilities
that defense, science and technology can deliver to the war
fighter and to the American taxpayer would be systems that can
adapt to changing applications and environments, systems that
scale flexibly with demand, and capabilities that react faster
than our adversaries with minimal support and logistics. We
simply owe it to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to
rapidly accelerate those breakthroughs from the laboratory to
the field. I fully support the important accusation elements
outlined in the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009
draft by this committee, and recently signed by the President.
A renewed focus on systems engineering and more frequent
technology assessments will significantly reduce program risk,
and the cost of major defense acquisition programs. If
confirmed, I look forward to working across the Department, and
with this committee and others to strengthen our core
competencies to deliver state of the art capabilities to our
forces on time and within budget.
In closing, I want to thank again the President for
nominating me, the Secretary of Defense for his support, and to
this committee for your time today. I'm honored to be before
you, and if confirmed, I look forward to working with this
committee and your staff, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Mr. Lemnios. Why don't
we try an 8-minute first round of questioning for this panel.
We do have two panels.
First Mr. Heddell, let me ask you about the DOD IG report
on the use of retired military officers as surrogates to make
the former administration's case in the media. The report was
totally inadequate, and 4 months after it was released the IG
withdrew this report noting that the report was using
inaccurate and incomplete data, did not meet the accepted
quality standards for an IG work product, but you as the acting
IG also stated that the additional investigative work will not
be taken to reissue a new report, and that raises the question
as given all the flaws in the withdrawn report why not redo it.
Mr. Heddell. Sir, I do currently have a review ongoing, and
two of the points of that review have to determine what
findings we can, in fact, report back to you and this committee
on, and also for the future, what judgments we could make about
such a program. So, in spite of the feeling that we may not be
able to redo that investigation because people that manage that
program are no longer in positions at the Department, and
because certain members of the retired military analyst group
would not allow themselves to be interviewed, as well as other
former DOD officials, it's difficult if not impossible to
provide the answers that you have asked for. However, I'm
committed to meeting the request that you have made of me to
determine what I can determine from that report. I think it's
an important review, and I have committed to you to get back to
you on that, and to tell you what I think we can about that
program.
Chairman Levin. I appreciate that answer. First of all you
have certain limits obviously. The IG doesn't have subpoena
powers, and that is a limitation which needs to be addressed.
We're going to use this situation where you are not getting the
cooperation of people who you must talk to as the example that
we're going to take one of them to the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee, where I also serve, that has
the responsibility generically relative to the powers of the
IGs because we can't permit an IG to be thwarted by the failure
to have access to documents and to people.
So does the lack of subpoena power apply both to documents
and to people, or just to people?
Mr. Heddell. The IG has the authority to subpoena documents
but not testimony.
Chairman Levin. All right. So we're going to take this
shortfall to the other committee that has jurisdiction, but in
the meantime this committee has power to subpoena, and we are
going to support our IG. So if there are people who need to be
subpoenaed for testimony in order to get their information, who
refuse to show up voluntarily, we would appreciate your
notifying them that you again request their testimony, and if
not, that you would make a request for this committee to hold a
hearing where we will subpoena them to a hearing of the
committee. Hopefully if the committee will issue a subpoena,
which we hope it would in support of our IG. Will you do that?
Mr. Heddell. You have my commitment to do that, sir.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. There's another report which is
due, overdue actually for 3 years now, and that's the IG's
review of allegations that senior Air Force officials had
improperly steered contracts for publicity in connection with
Thunderbird air shows, and that they had allegedly steered
those contacts to friends and insiders. The DOD IG concluded
this investigation and issued a report early last year. The
report raised serious questions about the role played by senior
Air Force officials, but the report avoided making any findings
or recommendations with regard to the conduct of the senior
officials.
So Senator McCain and I sent a letter to the then IG more
than a year ago asking that he review the conduct of current
and former senior Air Force officials named in the report. Not
only possible improper conduct, criminal conduct theoretically
or possibly, but also for possible ethical violations and
failures of leadership and provide specific findings and
recommendations to the Secretary of the Air Force and to the
committee. These allegations have been out there for 3 years.
The review has still not been completed apparently, and my
question, Mr. Heddell is when can we expect to see a completed
report on this matter?
Mr. Heddell. Sir, that's one of the top senior official
investigations that I'm reviewing. I believe that we can give
you relatively good assurance that within 4 weeks we will have
a report to you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Dr. Gilmore, let me ask you a question relative to the
independence of the office to which you've been nominated,
which is so critical, and you made reference to it in your
opening statement.
How will you ensure the independence of that office,
particularly if you're challenged by DOD officials or
contractors?
Dr. Gilmore. By exercising leadership, Senator. I think
that the key to maintaining independence is having a director
who is willing to be straightforward in their assessments to
both the Secretary and Congress, and that is what I would be. I
would provide you the best information that I could if I were
confirmed, about the performance of these systems.
Chairman Levin. One question relative to the test and
evaluation that's occurred of the ground-based midcourse
defense system, which is a missile defense system, you're very
familiar with this. The Director of OT&E reported to us last
December that the ground-based midcourse defense system, the
flight testing to date will not support a high degree of
confidence in its limited capabilities. Do you believe that
it's important that our ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems
and its elements like other systems should undergo OT&E, and
that any elements to be deployed should be operationally
effective, suitable, and survivable?
Dr. Gilmore. Yes, sir, I do. I think the information on
that is required for operational decisionmakers to make proper
decisions about how to employ the systems.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Lemnios, I believe you're a graduate of
the University of Michigan, and I'm tempted to ask you how that
training and experience qualifies you for the office for which
you've been nominated, but I'm going to resist temptation
because I may assure my vote but lose a few others around here,
so I'm not going to do that, but you've been appointed to, or
nominated to an extraordinarily important position. You're
going to have responsibility for the departments of science and
technology programs which play such a critical role in helping
the United States maintain the advantage over competitors and
adversaries, current and potential adversaries around the
world.
The department's 2010 budget request reduces funding for
these accounts by nearly 10 percent relative to the 2009
request, and I'm just wondering whether that concerns you as to
whether we are adequately investing in the research and
engineering programs that are essential to develop new
capabilities, and to help train the next generation of
scientists and systems engineers to work on our problems.
Mr. Lemnios. Mr. Chairman, first of all, it was a delight
to go to the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. I'm now at
the MIT in Cambridge. It's a different institution but, in
fact, these schools and many others have an enormous impact in
training scientists and engineers, and a whole quandrant of
people who will serve our Nation in very important areas.
I fully support the President's 2010 budget as submitted,
and certainly in my role if confirmed, the critical part of
that is shaping the science and technology portfolio that is
shaped over the near-term and long-term requirements of the
department, and takes in opportunities to invest in whatever
technologies that come out of the universities and many other
areas to support our warfighting needs.
Chairman Levin. Okay. My time is up.
Senator Hagan.
Senator Hagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome
all of you gentlemen here today, and I certainly want to say
welcome to your families and especially your wives for being
here because I know how critical and important your support is,
so I thank each and every one of you.
Mr. Lemnios, I had one question for you. I'm impressed with
your credentials, and I think that it's a very important role
that you bring to DOD. I think that science and cutting edge
technology is absolutely critical in our weapons systems and
our security. I think that in your comments you stated that
research and engineering is the first step in the overall
acquisition process. I'm concerned about two particular issues,
and one is the continued threat of improvised explosive devices
(IEDs) that are killing and maiming our troops, I wanted to
know your comments, and what you think from a technological
standpoint we can do, I know we've done a lot, but I think that
it's still a huge threat. What you see in the future about
that, and then taking it another step further with cyberspace
and cyber protection is also a very critical element in
protecting the country today, and some comments that you might
have on that.
Mr. Lemnios. Senator, those are two very important issues
that are very high on the priority list of the current research
portfolio of the department. The IED threat has been a
particularly troublesome one to date. The number of military
folks that have been killed or wounded is enormous, and it
concerns all of us. The initial response was to try to build a
set of capabilities to improve force protection. There are
technologies involved in that, and those have found their way
into the field. The next response was to try to build systems
that would help counter the triggering mechanisms of the IED,
and those have also found their way into the field, but at a
tempo perhaps not at the same rate that they're being
developed, and that's a concern as well. The third piece, the
one that's really sort of in the science and technology regime
is to try to understand the entire chain or events that occurs,
not just in building the IED and deploying it, but what are the
precursors up front that could be detected. In fact, there's a
rich research community that's working through that to try to
identify those and transition those, and in fact, organizations
like the Joint IED Defeat Office, the Armory Rapid Equipping
Force, the Air Force Rapid Capability Office, all of those are
working to quickly transition those concepts to field.
With regard to cyberspace, I read the Cyber Policy Review
that was issued by the White House about 2 weeks ago. It was a
policy review, and there's a compendium of technology
underpinnings that support those policy positions. That's an
area that I think we're going to need to learn a lot. There's a
community that's understanding what the threat is. The Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency is standing up a national
cyber test range. There are other ranges that exist that will
allow us to test techniques, to protect networks, and protect
information on those networks. I see both of those areas, both
the IED threat as it emerges, and certainly the cyber threat,
as we're better understanding that threat, are both important
areas to couple with the research community.
Chairman Levin. Senator, I wonder if I can just interrupt
you for a minute because of your interest in the IED. I was
with a bunch of Michigan National Guardsmen and there was a
colonel there who actually was in Iraq with his unit deployed,
out in a vehicle and they thought they saw an IED on the road,
and they actually thought they saw the people who were trying
to control it on top of a building, sent out a robot to that
IED and watched the robot actually dismantle an IED. So we talk
a lot about science and new technologies, that was an example
where he actually saw it, was in the vehicle that would have
been hit by that IED. I want to thank you for raising this
question. It has been a major concern, and I appreciate it, and
your time will not be deducted by my intrusion here.
Senator Hagan. You certainly have that pleasure. Thank you.
Mr. Heddell, I had a question for you concerning the
contracting companies. A few weeks ago, I attended a policy
committee hearing that was chaired by Senator Dorgan. Senator
Dorgan examined $83 million in bonuses that was paid by DOD to
the contractor Kellog, Brown, & Root (KBR) in 2007 and 2008
despite this company's poor electrical work in Iraq, which
resulted in the deaths of at least three U.S. soldiers killed
by electrocution while showering, and then others who have been
injured or killed in other electrical incidents. Witnesses at
the hearing described how KBR failed to hire qualified
personnel, how they performed electrical work in a matter that
continues to place our troops in danger, and failed to make
repairs once the hazards were identified. Moreover, an
electrical inspector that was hired by the U.S. Army to review
the U.S. run facilities in Iraq indicated that 90 percent of
KBR's wiring in the newly constructed buildings in Iraq was not
properly done. But despite all these concerns, KBR was awarded
a $35 million contract earlier this year for a project in Iraq
that included electrical work.
My question is, can you comment on the status of this
investigation as well as explain how you propose to work with
the Department of the Army and other departments to ensure that
they have qualified personnel to oversee the contract
management, especially regarding the services performed in
theater in support of our troops.
Mr. Heddell. Yes, Senator Hagan. I appreciate that
question. It's an extremely important issue to the Office of
IG. We've been working on the issue of accidental electrocution
since April or May of last year. The most prominent case that
you're referring to involved Sergeant Ryan Maseth who died
while taking a shower on January 2, 2008, and that was the
catalyst for beginning to take a look at this entire situation.
We are very close to completing our work regarding how that
could have happened to Sergeant Maseth as well as an additional
17 other accidental electrocutions that have occurred. We have
had teams working in southwest Asia, both Iraq and also in
Afghanistan, to work with the commanders to determine whether
or not the lessons that we have learned are being passed on to
them. We don't believe that this is an area that anyone should
wait for a final report; it's too critical. So we, in fact,
sent a team to Afghanistan just a few months ago to see what
was happening over there to hopefully preempt any kinds of
issues. So we're getting ahead of the game. We're finding that
the commanders are responding. They're taking great steps to
conduct inspections for safety, both from electrical and fire
hazards, but there's a lot more to do. So the report that
you're asking about should be out within 4 weeks. We have
actually three reports. One is on Sergeant Maseth's death, the
other is on the other 17 electrical accidents, and the third
one is on electrical status and safety in Afghanistan.
Senator Hagan. Do you feel that it is more secure today
than it was in recent past?
Mr. Heddell. We see improvements, Senator Hagan, but
there's still a long way to go. I personally visited the
building in the Radwaniyah Palace Complex where Sergeant Maseth
died. I looked at the shower. I went up on the roof to see
where the generator was that had not been properly grounded,
and the reason I point that out is because it was made clear to
me that this is a tremendous challenge for our commanders.
These are buildings that were in existence before 2003. They
were wired using different electrical codes and standards than
we use in this country, and so we are in a very dangerous, very
hazardous environment, but commanders are taking steps to
conduct inspections. In one case in Afghanistan they bought
containers to house 300 troops because they were in hazardous
housing at the time. It's a hazardous environment no matter how
you look at it, but I think it has certainly improved over the
last 6 to 9 months.
Senator Hagan. It's definitely hazardous, but you certainly
hope nobody is electrocuted while taking a shower, obviously.
Mr. Heddell. Of course we hope that, but we still have a
ways to go to give assurance to this committee or to anyone
that our troops are 100 percent safe from those kinds of
hazards.
Senator Hagan. I'm sure you'll get right on that.
Mr. Heddell. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hagan. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you Senator Hagan.
Senator Begich.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity to ask you all a few questions, and
I do want to echo the comments by the other Senators that thank
you for your willingness to serve, but also thank you to the
families and the support team that you have to support you
through this process as well as in your service. Thank you for
doing that.
My questions are for Dr. Gilmore. I just want to read
something from your testimony just to reiterate a point to make
sure it's still consistent here, and let me just read it if I
could. Modeling and simulation can contribute to the assessment
of system performance, particularly to explore the full range
system operations or live open air testing would be unsafe or
impractical. Model simulation is also useful as a tool to help
plan the test program. However, model simulation should be
utilized to compliment rather than replace operational testing
in a realistic environment. Additionally, sufficient
operational testing should still be performed to adequately
validate and accredit any models used. Assuming that was in
your written testimony, you still agree with that.
Dr. Gilmore. Yes, sir.
Senator Begich. Acknowledge that?
Dr. Gilmore. I wouldn't have written it if I didn't think
it was correct.
Senator Begich. I just wanted to make sure. I appreciate
the Chairman's question regarding operational testing,
especially on the ground-based, Ground Missile Defense (GMD)
System. The reason I wanted to restate that, and again I
appreciate the chairman's question because you emphasized the
point operational testing is important in order to make any
system reliable. In regards to the GMD System, from the
information in the discussions that we've had with the Missile
Defense Agency the briefings that we have had, based on the
budget and what they're proposing in 4 years, the actual live
testing will cease, and they will move to simulation as the way
they believe, or at least they've stated to us that they will
maintain readiness and reliability, but that seems inconsistent
with your comments, the two should compliment each other. Can
you comment on that?
Dr. Gilmore. I'm not aware of the specifics of this plan
they're developing, and I hadn't heard of what you just said,
but I would reiterate that modeling and simulation are
important as a compliment to actual testing.
In the case of the GMD system, it's clear that modeling and
simulation will be needed because live testing isn't going to
be able to explore all of the potential modes of operation of
the system in the real word. But again, those models and those
simulations have to be verified, validated, and accredited by
using operational tests that explore as much of that
environment as is possible.
Senator Begich. I appreciate that because, to be frank with
you, I think anyone who comes in front of this committee have
brought up the GMD System, and simulation by itself. Modeling
you've reconfirmed it is not the only way you do testing or the
only way you consider reliability but to compliment each other,
and you have emphasized it again.
Let me ask, in your advanced questions you state rigorous
testing and robust program flight testing, ground testing
should be conducted on the GMD System. How do you describe
that, because right now they have planned two missiles, two
tests a year, and the question that I have is that enough? If
it's enough, is it because we have limitations in the capacity
to do the testing beyond two per year, or is the system just
designed to do no more than two. That's adequate for testing of
this system to ensure it's reliability, and improving its
efficiency which I know I was in Fairbanks about 10 days ago or
so with Secretary Gates reviewing the GMD, and he made the
comment that he believes the system is fairly accurate, but
robust testing is necessary. So how do you define robust
testing?
Dr. Gilmore. Robust testing is the testing that's needed to
provide operators with a high confidence that they understand
what the system will do and will not do, and exactly what that
means is something that I would expect to be involved in if I'm
confirmed in the context of GMD. But there needs to be a
sufficient number of tests, open air tests, live tests as well
as the use of verified, validated, and accredited models in
order to generate high confidence that if you use the system,
you understand what it will do. If you rely on it, that's an
appropriate thing to do.
Senator Begich. If I can just probe a little bit further.
You may not be able to answer this right now, and maybe a
little more time might give you some thought on it. Is two
tests a year, live tests adequate?
Dr. Gilmore. That is obviously something that I would look
into.
Senator Begich. Okay.
Dr. Gilmore. There would be a total number of tests that
are required, accomplished over what ever period of time they
can be accomplished over. I think that another ingredient here
is what's realistic in terms of accomplishing testing given the
problems that they've had, particularly with the targets. But
to look at what the total number of tests are that would be
required, and to determine what a reasonable schedule is for
conducting those tests given the situation that exists with
respect to the targets program as well as all the other
ingredients that flow into the test program, is something I
would obviously be very involved in if I were confirmed.
Senator Begich. I appreciate that. Let me ask one more, and
I apologize to the other two. Maybe you appreciate that I'm not
asking you questions, I don't know.
How will you, if appointed to this position, again OT&E is
very important to the systems that we have. How will you deal
with the conflicts that might occur when a budget constraint is
put on you in regards to testing? From your experience,
professionalism, and knowledge of the necessity of testing,
live testing is important to ensure the reliability of the
systems. How will you deal with that conflict internally?
Dr. Gilmore. I would inform the Under Secretary for
Acquisition, the Secretary, and Congress in testimony if it was
requested what my view was regarding the adequacy of the test
program, and what budget constraints would mean with regard to
the adequacy of the test program.
Senator Begich. I appreciate that. I know sometimes as a
former mayor and executive, we always had folks as we moved up
the budgets and got to Home B, Home B was its own world and
decided certain things, and then something would pop and
operationally sometimes it would not be exactly what the
operational people would want. So I appreciate your candor
there, and I'm looking forward to your confirmation, but also
as we deal with the GMD how do we ensure that we continually
have the robust testing and inventory. My concern is that based
on the current budget we have been presented, that robust
testing will be very limited because of the production line and
the budget constraints that are now in place with regards to
additional missiles that will be utilized for testing. So I
look forward to your candor in that arena in committee or in
meetings, and so again thank you for your willingness to answer
the questions.
To the other two I have no questions for you, so you are
relieved of any list I might have created while I was sitting
here thinking, but thank you very much for your testimony. I
appreciate your candor.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Begich, and if you have
second thoughts about questions for the other two witnesses,
you can provide those for the record so you don't leave them
out. I know they have a sense of loss of not being asked
questions by any of us.
Senator Burris.
Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I express my
sentiments as well as my colleagues to these three
distinguished Americans who are willing to serve. Certainly I
express my thanks to their families for going along with them
and serving, and to Mr. Heddell who is currently in the
position as Acting IG.
Are any of you other gentleman familiar with the
responsibility, Mr. Lemnios or Dr. Gilmore that you're going
into now, or do you have any experience in the position that
you're going to right now?
Mr. Lemnios. Senator Burris, I certainly don't have any
experience in the position. I certainly have had discussions
with the former DDR&E, and many technology leaders across the
defense science and technology activities.
Senator Burris. What have you been doing? Are you still in
your current position now, or in are you in limbo now waiting
to get confirmed?
Mr. Lemnios. Senator, I'm currently the Chief Technology
Officer of MIT Lincoln Laboratory. We are a federally funded
research and development (R&D) center, and in that role I
interact with many universities, including the University of
Michigan.
Senator Burris. How about the University of Illinois
(UofI)?
Mr. Lemnios. The UofI. I know UofI very well.
Senator Burris. Your colleague to the right has also
attended the UofI in Springfield.
How about you, Dr. Gilmore?
Dr. Gilmore. No, I have not served in this position before,
but I believe that my previous experience in government and the
things that I have done, and my technical training prepares me
well for it. Yes, I agree it will be a very challenging
position.
Senator Burris. Mr. Heddell, you're currently in the
position now as Acting IG. So how long have you been in that
role, for over a year? You didn't come up for confirmation in
the previous administration, or what was the circumstances
surrounding that?
Mr. Heddell. The previous IG, who was Senate confirmed,
left that position unexpectedly. This was on July 13, and I
became the Acting IG on July 14 to serve in an interim
capacity, and during that process I was asked to consider
staying longer in that position.
Senator Burris. Mr. Lemnios, could you explain to me in
terms of the research and engineering are you overseeing
outsourcing contracts with universities and all the research,
or do you have a staff that's also doing the research and the
engineering over these weapons systems? Just give me a brief
explanation of how that works.
Mr. Lemnios. Sir, in my current position, or if confirmed?
Senator Burris. If confirmed.
Mr. Lemnios. Sir, as DDR&E, my critical role would be to
work technology strategy across DOD, to identify those key
areas where the department needs to strengthen and drive its
technology strategies and technology efforts.
Senator Burris. Excuse me. You're saying that the various
Services have their own research laboratories going with
research military personnel, or outside contracting personnel?
Mr. Lemnios. I've seen combinations of both. Some examples
include the Naval Research Laboratory not too far from here,
which include certainly government employees as well as some
contractors on site. The Air Force Wright Patterson Laboratory,
which again include many government researchers and outside
contractors.
Senator Burris. So all those people there would report to
you, is that correct?
Mr. Lemnios. Sir, the laboratories report up through the
Service structure, and the DDR&E establishes a technology
portfolio across the department in concert with a service
executive across the department.
Senator Burris. Is there any outside contracting that is
done? Do you have to oversee, award any contract for this
project, or would the DOD be taking bids on that?
Mr. Lemnios. Senator, my understanding is that the DDR&E is
a direct source selection authority for those contracts, but
there would certainly be activities across the department that
rely upon the technical strategies that we put in place.
Senator Burris. To your knowledge there are contacts that
are awarded, but you would not have jurisdiction or interest
over those contracts?
Mr. Lemnios. I wouldn't have direct jurisdiction, direct
source selection authority.
Senator Burris. Same to you, Dr. Gilmore, in terms of tests
and evaluation. Do you know whether or not the testing is done
primarily with military and staff personnel, or are the weapons
systems and all other various devices awarded out for testing
to those contract awards?
Dr. Gilmore. Operational testing is done in an
operationally realistic environment by government personnel
using people who would actually have to use the equipment in
the field.
Senator Burris. I'm sorry?
Dr. Gilmore. The testing that is done, the operational
testing, is done by government personnel using government
facilities and using military people, the military people who
would actually have to use the equipment in the field.
Otherwise, it would not be operationally realistic.
Senator Burris. So you're not using outside contracts for
operational testing?
Dr. Gilmore. Not for operational testing.
Senator Burris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate it.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Burris.
Just another question or two for you, Mr. Lemnios. First we
worked hard to increase the department's participation in the
development of new energy technologies as well as making the
department an early adopter of new technology such as solar
cells, biofuels, and hybrid engines. What is your view of the
role that DOD should play in energy research and the adoption
of new energy technologies?
Mr. Lemnios. Senator, there are broad challenges across the
department and elsewhere to quickly draw innovations that are
coming out of the private sector and out of the research
community into problem sets that the department could quickly
adapt. I've seen early examples of this that have worked very
well. The Army recently completed with the DDR&E a challenge
problem that brought many small businesses together to try to
identify new technologies for providing power to the dismounted
solider in very small form factor. This would have an enormous
impact in the logistic supply in providing power for soldiers
without increased weight. The private sector has a big role in
this area, and I think one of the ways that the department can
leverage this is to strengthen those interactions with the
private sector. Certainly the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Research Laboratories, in particular the
laboratory in Cleveland has a strong research base in solar and
high performance energy systems. The department should and, in
fact does, couple with these other laboratories.
Chairman Levin. The DOD labs are precious resources for us.
One of those world class labs or facilities is the Tank
Automotive Command Research, Development, and Engineering
Center (TARDEC) outside of Detroit. The vehicle R&D for
military is focused at that facility. It's part of the tank and
automotive command Detroit arsenal. I'd like to get you up
there to visit, and a good time to do that would be soon after
your confirmation. We expect to be breaking ground on the new
energy lab that is going to be opening up at TARDEC, but this
is where our military vehicles and research are developed.
Where energy for them is researched and new energy sources
tested, and your reference to working with the private sector--
there's a real synergy between the military vehicle research
and the research on commercial vehicles in the private sector
nearby. The General Motors tech center is nearby. Ford's
research facility, Chrysler's research facility, and there's a
lot of joint development of technologies going on, not just
between TARDEC and those three entities and those three
institutions, but also a lot of other places around Michigan
and the country that they work with. So, we will be trying
after you're confirmed to get you up there for that particular
important moment when that energy lab has the ground broken or
for some other purpose. I assume that getting back to Michigan
would be something you would look forward to.
Mr. Lemnios. Sir, I would, and I would also point out that
I visited TARDEC about a month ago, we're building a robotics
activity through TARDEC as an implementer. I previously stated
that, earlier in my career, I had spent a lot of time at the
Ford research laboratories in Dearborn. I know that facility
very well, so I look forward to that.
Chairman Levin. That would be great.
Any other questions we have. Senator Burris all set?
Senator Burris. All set.
Chairman Levin. Okay. We will excuse you. We thank again
you and your families, your support teams for getting you here,
supporting you in the future which they will be called upon to
do, and we congratulate you. We look forward to a speedy
confirmation. Thank you all.
We'll now move to our second panel of nominees. First,
Dennis McCarthy retired as Lieutenant General in 2005 after a
distinguished career in the Marine Corp Reserves. Since that
time he has served as Executive Director of the Reserve
Officers Association (ROA) of the United States. If confirmed,
General McCarthy will play a leading role in addressing the
challenges and stresses facing the National Guard and Reserves
at a time when we're relying heavily on our Reserve elements to
support ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Jamie Morin is a Michigan native who graduated from the
University of Detroit (UofD) Jesuit High School before leaving
Michigan to attend such lesser institutions as Yale,
Georgetown, London School of Economics. It was all downhill
from UofD I know. He served since 2003 as a professional staff
member on the Senate Budget Committee where he has been the
committee's lead analyst for the Defense Intelligence and
Foreign Affairs Budgets. We know him best for his role in
helping to enforce the budget rules.
When our bill is on the Senate floor, we're not going to
hold that against you, I want you to know, Dr. Morin.
Dr. Morin. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. We will miss the patience, and the good
humor, and the thoughtfullness that Jamie has always shown in
working with us, but we're confident that DOD is going to
benefit in equal measure from your service.
Daniel Ginsberg has served as a legislative assistant to
Senator Patrick Leahy, as we've heard, since 1999. He has
assisted Senator Leahy in his work on the Defense Appropriation
Subcommittee, and is co-chair of the Senate National Guard
Caucus. Some of us still remember that before joining Senator
Leahy, Danny served as a research assistant here in the Senate
Armed Services Committee. I believe also that he is a music
critic, and I have a hunch that if some of the people whom
you've written critical reviews about had a chance to vote on
your confirmation that you might not be confirmed.
Mr. Ginsberg. I'm glad some of them don't have a vote, Sir.
Chairman Levin. Classical music buff, that is something
which is a relevant addition to your vitae I want you to know.
I congratulate all of the witnesses on their nominations.
We look forward to your testimony, and when we call upon you
you'll be free if you have family members with you to introduce
them. Let me start before I call on you for any opening
statements to ask you the standard questions which some of you
have heard before.
Have you adhered to the applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
General McCarthy. Yes.
Dr. Morin. Yes.
Mr. Ginsberg. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Dr. Morin. No.
Mr. Ginsberg. No.
General McCarthy. No.
Chairman Levin. Will you ensure that your staff complies
with deadlines established for requested communications
including questions for the record and hearings?
Dr. Morin. Yes.
Mr. Ginsberg. Yes.
General McCarthy. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Dr. Morin. Yes.
Mr. Ginsberg. Yes.
General McCarthy. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
Dr. Morin. Yes.
Mr. Ginsberg. Yes.
General McCarthy. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Do you agree if confirmed to appear and
testify upon request before this committee?
Dr. Morin. Yes.
Mr. Ginsberg. Yes.
General McCarthy. Yes.
Chairman Levin. 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?
Dr. Morin. Yes.
Mr. Ginsberg. Yes.
General McCarthy. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, and I think General McCarthy
we're going to start with you.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. DENNIS M. McCARTHY, USMC (RET.), NOMINEE
TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESERVE AFFAIRS
General McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say to
Senator McCain and to all the members of the committee it goes
without saying that I'm honored and humbled to be sitting here
this morning. I'm extremely appreciative of the confidence the
President has expressed by nominating me to be an Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, and now to the
Secretary of Defense for supporting that nomination.
When I took off my uniform in 2005, I did not expect ever
to be in this position again, but I will tell you without
hesitation that I'm extremely pleased that I may have another
opportunity to serve. It's especially meaningful to me to have
that opportunity come in the area of Reserve Affairs. Not only
has much of my military service been connected with the Reserve
components, but my wife Rosemary and I are the proud parents of
two Reserve component families.
Our son Sean is a captain in the Ohio National Guard. He
and his wife Theresa and their three children live the life of
the citizen warrior in Columbus, OH, where Sean is also an
Assistant County Prosecutor.
Our son Michael is a Major in the Marine Corp Reserve.
After a number of years on active duty he left to attend law
school, and he's now working on Capitol Hill for a year as a
legislative fellow, but in short order he and his wife Brittany
will be living back in Ohio balancing their time between their
commitments to the civilian community and his to the Marine
Corps. Having lived that life myself, and watching these two
great families live it today is all the inspiration I will need
to focus my energies on the demands and opportunities of this
office if I'm confirmed.
I'm very thankful to have Rosemary, Sean, Michael, and
Brittany here with me today. Theresa is at home in Columbus
doing what the mother of three young children has to do.
As the committee knows very well, the All-Volunteer Force
could not have fought the sustained combat of the last 8 years
without the augmentation and reinforcement of over 700,000 men
and women of the National Guard and Reserve. If the Senate sees
fit to confirm me, I'll commit myself entirely to the service
of those great men and women, to their families, and their
employers, and to all those who will follow them. Again, I
thank you and I will do my best to respond to your questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, General. Next I think
we'll call on you, Jamie. Dr. Morin.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES M. MORIN, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND
COMPTROLLER
Dr. Morin. Thank you, Chairman Levin. I'm delighted to be
here before the Armed Services Committee today, and I would ask
if I could give you a full statement for the record, and
compress it.
Chairman Levin. That would be fine, thank you. It will be
made part of the record.
Dr. Morin. Thank you for the opportunity to appear. I'm
grateful for the confidence that President Obama has placed in
me by nominating me for this position as Assistant Secretary
and Chief Financial Officer for the Air Force. It's a real
challenge, and it will require the work and support of my
family and friends. I'm grateful to have here today my mother,
Bridget Morin and my son Liam, and I'm also very grateful for
the support and love of my wife Megan who has lived the life of
the Senate staff spouse, the sort of unpredictable schedule and
challenges that poses, and has balanced that with her own
career in public service.
Chairman Levin. I tell my wife the spouse life is a
glamorous life. She laughs every time I try it.
Dr. Morin. I haven't had much luck with that either, sir. I
also want to thank Senator Conrad for the very generous, overly
generous introduction he offered this morning. I can promise
the committee that if I am confirmed I will seek to follow his
example as a very faithful steward of the taxpayer's resources.
Chairman Levin. There is no better example that I know of.
Dr. Morin. As a participant in a minor level in the defense
budgeting process, and as a former scholar of the defense
budgeting process, I deeply understand the challenges that DOD
faces both in matching resources to the many claimants, and
also building financial systems and business systems that
adequately take care of the taxpayer's resources.
Senator McCain said this morning, and I'll take this as a
charge, that business as usual is not acceptable. I believe
that very firmly. The department has a goal of achieving a
clean audit opinion by 2017. Even though that is, in many
people's estimations and many expert's estimation, perhaps
unachievable. It is not satisfactory for the public to have
that sort of level of responsiveness. So I will take this
responsibility very seriously if I'm confirmed, and I look
forward to a rich dialogue with the committee, this committee
that I've had such pleasure working with and have such respect
for. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Morin follows:]
Prepared Statement by Dr. Jamie Morin
Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, members of the Armed Services
Committee--I am delighted to come before the committee today as the
President's nominee for Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Financial Management. Thank you for the opportunity to appear.
I am grateful for the confidence that President Obama has shown in
me by nominating me to be the Air Force's Chief Financial Officer, as
well as the support of Secretaries Gates and Donley. If your committee
and the Senate consent, I would be honored to serve in that position.
I also wanted to thank Senator Conrad for his introduction today.
He has been a tremendous mentor. I will always be grateful for his
willingness to pluck me from the halls of academia and give me the
opportunity to work for the Budget Committee for the last 6 years. I
can promise the Armed Services Committee that if confirmed, I will seek
to follow Senator Conrad's example as a careful steward of the
taxpayer's resources.
I am glad to have family members here to support me today. My 4-
year-old son, Liam, is in the audience today, along with my mother
Bridget Morin, who was able to come in from Michigan to be here. I
appreciate their love and support.
I especially want to thank my wife, Megan, who has put up with the
uncertainty and chaotic schedule that comes with a spouse working in
the Senate while pursuing her own demanding career in public service.
The responsibilities of the Air Force Comptroller are serious ones.
As a former scholar of the defense budget process, I am well aware of
the challenges the Comptroller faces in developing the budget during a
time when our troops are in harm's way and the Nation faces huge
deficits. Like almost all of the Department of Defense, the Air Force
has a challenging road ahead, providing Congress and the Nation with a
clean accounting for taxpayer funds.
If I am confirmed as Air Force Comptroller, my top priority will be
to ensure that our Airmen get the resources they need while also
improving the Air Force's financial management to protect the taxpayers
hard-earned dollars. Only by improving the transparency and fidelity of
the Department's financial processes can we ensure that senior
leadership can make the best possible decisions about prioritization
among military requirements.
Additionally, if I am confirmed I am committed to working closely
with Congress to make sure that our military needs are clearly
articulated and that the defense committees have all the information
they need to exercise their role in authorizing and appropriating funds
for Air Force activities. As someone who studied the role of Congress
in the defense budget process as an academic and now a minor
participant for the last several years, I have a real appreciation for
the role of this committee and Congress as a whole.
In closing, I would like to again thank President Obama, Secretary
Gates, and Secretary Donley for selecting me. If confirmed, I will make
every effort to live up to the confidence they have placed in me.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Dr. Morin.
Mr. Ginsberg.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL B. GINSBERG, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS
Mr. Ginsberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
McCain, and members of the committee. I have a full statement
that I would ask to be included in the record.
Chairman Levin. It will be.
Mr. Ginsberg. It is a deep honor for me to sit before you
as President Obama's nominee to serve as the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
One of my most significant early work experiences was to serve
on the committee staff during the chairmanship of former
Senator Sam Nunn, who is one of my great mentors and heroes. I
have seen what a critical role the committee plays in caring
for our men and women in uniform.
I would like to introduce my lovely wife Jessica Rose, and
my wonderful parents Jerry and Mona Ginsberg. I owe them a debt
of gratitude I can never repay. I also thank my mother-in-law
Marilyn Coleman and my sister-in-law Jennifer Rose for being
here.
Thank you, Senator Leahy for that extremely kind
introduction. It has been a great privilege to assist you in
your work as a tireless champion for Vermont and the men and
women of the National Guard. When it comes to Guard issues,
Senator Leahy and Senator Bond have been true partners, and I
would like to express my gratitude to Senator Bond and his
staff, particularly James Pitchford and Mike DeBois for their
professionalism, generosity, and friendship.
Recently I was fortunate enough to be able to travel with
Senator Leahy to Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We saw many
incredible airmen and many other servicemembers working long
hours in challenging and dangerous conditions. If confirmed, I
will work with the Air Force team to insure that the Air
Force's policies are worthy of our airmen whether from the
Guard, the Reserve, or the Active Force. I thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today, and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ginsberg follows:]
Prepared Statement by Daniel Ginsberg
Thank you Chairman Levin, Ranking Member McCain, and members of the
committee. It is a deep honor for me to sit before you as President
Obama's nominee to serve as the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. I am humbled by the opportunity to
work with this committee and serve in the civilian leadership of the
United States Air Force under the direction of the President, Secretary
of Defense Robert Gates, and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley.
One of the most formative experiences of my professional life was
to serve on this committee's staff under then-Chairman Sam Nunn. In
that time, I saw first-hand Senator Nunn's and the committee's abiding
commitment to our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. That
dedication translated into far-reaching pay and benefit initiatives
that have helped maintain the fundamental strength of the Armed
Forces--its people.
Thank you, Senator Leahy, for that extremely kind introduction. It
has been a great privilege to assist you in your work as a tireless
champion for Vermont and--in your leadership role as the co-chair with
Senator Bond of the Senate's National Guard Caucus--a stalwart
supporter of the Citizen-Soldiers and Citizen-Airmen of the Guard. It
has been a singular and unforgettable experience to be able to play a
supporting role in your efforts to help strengthen this critical
component of the Total Force.
Senator Leahy and Senator Bond have been partners at every turn,
and I would like to express my gratitude to Senator Bond and his
staff--particularly James Pitchford and Mike Dubois--for their
professionalism, generosity and friendship.
I would also like the committee to know the debt of gratitude that
I owe to my lovely wife Jessica Rose, who is with us today. I am
grateful that my parents Jerry and Rona have flown up from Atlanta to
be here. In my younger years they indulged my utter fascination with
military aviation and, later, my desire to work in the defense policy
realm. I also thank my mother-in-law Marilyn Coleman and my sister-in-
law Jennifer Rose for making the effort to be here.
Over the Memorial Day Congressional Recess, I was fortunate to be
able to travel with Senators Leahy, Warner, and Whitehouse to Kuwait,
Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We saw so many incredible airmen, and
all of our uniformed men and women, working long hours in the most
challenging conditions to carry out Coalition military operations. The
members of the United States Air Force are investing every ounce of
their will, their skill, and their energy. For every one of these
dedicated professionals, there are loved ones who are waiting and
sacrificing at home.
This committee knows, and I assure you that I know, that the Air
Force's unequaled and indispensable asset is its people. If confirmed
as the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs, I will work with the entire Air Force team to help ensure that
policies and practices of the Air Force are worthy of our airmen's
efforts. I will also remain committed to the ability of the National
Guard and the Air Reserves to bring their specialized capabilities to
bear in any situation.
I look forward to working with this committee, which has helped
shape the Department of Defense into the world's premiere defense
organization. I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today and look forward to having the chance to serve with and for the
proud men and women of the United States Air Force.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much. We'll try 8 minute
rounds for questioning.
First, General McCarthy, let me ask you about the
recommendations of the commission on the National Guard and
Reserves. They determined that Reserve component personnel are
called upon to serve in 29 different duty statuses, which are
confusing and frustrating to Reserve component personnel and to
their commanders. The commission recommended a reduction of the
number of duty statuses from the current 29 to 2. Do you have
an assessment of that recommendation?
General McCarthy. Yes, sir, I do. I concur entirely with
the recommendation that 29 is way too many. I'm not quite sure
I would go down to two, but I believe that the number of duty
status or pay statuses can be very sharply reduced, and I know
the Department is working on that right now, and I'll continue
to support those efforts.
Chairman Levin. The commission also made a number of
recommendations to improve the healthcare benefits available to
Reserve component members and their families in order to
recognize its importance as an element of an enhanced compact
with employers of Reserve component members. Can you give us
your thoughts about that proposal to improve the healthcare
benefits for National Guard and Reserve personnel and their
families?
General McCarthy. Again, Senator, I think that is a very
supportable recommendation primarily because we need to enhance
the continuity of medical care so that families when the
servicemember moves on and off of active duty don't have a
break from the healthcare providers, and I believe we can do
that. I think steps have already been made. I think there are
further steps that can be made, and I look forward to working
on that.
Chairman Levin. General, you've served with distinction as
the Executive Director of the ROA for the past few years. Now
you're going to, when confirmed, owe your dedication to the DOD
and to the taxpayers and that may put you in an unusual
situation where you might have to instead of advocating for the
ROA. You may need to be actually declining to support a
recommendation of theirs or other organizations that represent
the Guard and Reserve. Are you going to have difficulty doing
that? Are you up to it?
General McCarthy. Sir, I'm up to it. I think people who
know me know I'm a person who speaks and acts his mind. In this
office, my mind will be that of the Secretary, the
administration, and DOD.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Now, Dr. Morin, you're going to
be in a position where we're going to have some extraordinarily
difficult budget decisions to make. You're used to that, so
you're probably a perfect fit for where you're going. The
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported earlier this
year that cost overruns on the Department's 97 largest
acquisition programs alone total almost $300 billion over the
original program estimates, and Air Force programs account for
a significant share of those overruns. What steps can you
envision to deal with this kind of problem?
Dr. Morin. Well, Senator, I think there's a couple sets of
steps that you can take. One, if I'm confirmed, would be in
dealing with the programs that currently exist. The second
would be in dealing with the new programs that are developing
and being base-lined. On the first category the challenge, as I
understand it, a Comptroller faces in dealing with acquisition
programs is first and foremost providing stability to those
programs in the face of all of the unending pressures for late
breaking changes in order to yield savings for what end up
being more urgent priorities, and that's a managerial
challenge. I do know that Secretary Donley and General Schwartz
have been very articulate in their focus on restoring
acquisition excellence in the Air Force, and that they have
made clear in the conversations that I've had with them,
frankly both in my current job and as I've talked to them about
potentially coming onboard at the Air Force, that they want to
do better. So my job would be to support the Air Force
corporate process and that budget decisionmaking to provide the
maximum stability. The second set is going forward as new
programs are developed, baselined, and the cost estimating
role, which this committee made a big focus on in the Weapons
System Acquisition Reform Bill, is part of the financial
management function. I would intend, if confirmed, to place
significant importance and significant focus on building the
skills of the Air Force cost estimation team. The Acquisition
Workforce Development Fund is already, as I understand it,
paying significant dividends in terms of better training and
expanding the size of that workforce. But also, empowering
those cost estimators, encouraging the best possible
communication between the Air Force cost estimators and the
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), because I think that
dialogue is critical, getting those multiple views, and the
independence that this committee places so much importance on.
So I would work to facilitate that process if I was confirmed
and empower the people there.
Chairman Levin. A major headache is the one that you just
addressed which we seek to address in that reform legislation
that was just passed and signed, is the financial management
problems, the effort to obtain a clean financial statement. Any
thoughts on how you're going to tackle that issue? You make
reference to it, I think in terms of what the goal is to
achieve it, but any thoughts on how to move towards that goal?
Dr. Morin. Yes, sir. Let me start by saying I take the
GAO's reports and recommendation on this very seriously. I
found their work to be excellent in my time on Capitol Hill. I
would work closely with them and pay very careful heed to their
analysis and their high risk series. My understanding is that
Secretary Hale is making a complete review of the Financial
Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) Plan, the FIAR plan, and
that he is looking at making some changes in the strategy
underlying that plan in order to create stronger incentives by
focusing the audit deliverables on products which will most
improve the overall immediate financial management of the
Department. So not just working our way one by one through line
items or elements of the financial statements, but picking the
highest impact ones that will most improve the day-to-day
financial management. I think that's great from an incentive
perspective because that gives the senior leadership of the
department immediate practical deliverables that help them do
their job, and audit readiness is the law. We're behind
schedule, but having those day-to-day managerial incentives I
think will help it to rise higher and higher on the Department
priority list.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Senator Burris.
Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To our
distinguished panel I also extend to you my congratulations for
your willingness to continue in government service and to your
families I also extend my thanks and the American people are
grateful for your service. General McCarthy, I think I have one
of your reservists that just joined my staff, a young man by
the name of James Freeman, and he wanted to make sure that I
stood here and gave you a tough time. I don't think I'll do
that.
General McCarthy. Thank you, sir.
Senator Burris. But we're very fond of the young man, and
he speaks very highly of you. To the whole panel, I would just
like to know for my own information we're now in the month of
June, when did you get the nomination from the President? Could
you each tell me what date you were nominated, and how long the
process has been for you to get to this point?
General McCarthy. Senator, although there were a number of
discussions, I believe my nomination was actually made on the
first of June.
Senator Burris. The first of June, okay.
How about you, Dr. Morin?
Dr. Morin. Senator, as I recall it was May 11. I couldn't
swear to that.
Senator Burris. Okay, and you, Mr. Ginsberg?
Mr. Ginsberg. I can't swear to the date either, Senator,
but it was a similar time to General McCarthy, a few weeks ago.
Senator Burris. How has the process been? Have you all
completed all your documentation, and how many forms have you
filled out, do you want to answer that?
General McCarthy. Speaking for myself, it's a lot of forms,
and whether they've all been filled out properly remains to be
seen.
Chairman Levin. There's a real test for Dr. Morin, by the
way, as the Comptroller. Do you know precisely how many forms
you filed out?
Dr. Morin. Senator, at the Budget Committee we historically
round to the nearest tenth of a billion, so I can tell you it
was zero-tenths of a billion.
Senator Burris. To Dr. Morin, my understanding of the
Comptroller is limited, you have to give me some background. I
read your response to the questionnaires in terms of financial
management and comptroller for the Air Force, would you also be
putting together the budgeting process for that, or would you
just be overseeing the spending process?
Dr. Morin. The Assistant Secretary for Financial Management
has responsibility over both. The responsibility in the budget
formulation process is as the principal staff assistant to the
secretary in the budget formation. The day-to-day budget
formation and development process is the responsibility of one
of the three Deputy Assistant Secretaries that works for the
Assistant Secretary for Financial Management, and that's
traditionally a military officer serving in a civilian
secretariat job, so that would be one of the direct reports to
my office if I was confirmed.
Senator Burris. Do you have an understanding of how this
would work? Will you actually be preparing any of the financial
records and looking at the financial statements for the Air
Force in conjunction to preparing documents that would be
audited by GAO, or how do you perceive that as working?
Dr. Morin. Yes, sir. I would sign the financial statements.
Another one of the three Deputy Assistant Secretaries under the
financial management functional organization is the financial
operations, and that is a large group of people that handles
the actual accounting which is also decentralized among many
units. Ultimately, the responsibility both for setting the
policies and for asserting the validity of what we put on paper
would fall to me if I was confirmed.
Senator Burris. As a freshman Senator, I'm trying to get my
arms around how that financial system works because I'm a
former State Comptroller.
Dr. Morin. Yes, sir.
Senator Burris. Many years ago, when I was president of the
National Association of State Auditors, Controllers and
Treasurers we were definitely concerned not only about our
states, but our Federal Government was making financial
expenditures and oversight of financial expenditures, and we
came up with a concept that the current auditor general for
GAO, I'm sorry, current comptroller for GAO would become what
we call an auditor general, and then we would have a
comptroller general that would oversee all the department's
financial records and statements. We compromised with them and
a comptroller would be put in the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and another comptroller then placed in the bigger
agencies. Do you know in DOD I would assume there is a
comptroller for the whole department, is that correct?
Dr. Morin. Yes, sir. There's the Under Secretary of Defense
Comptroller, the Honorable Robert Hale----
Senator Burris. Okay.
Dr. Morin.--confirmed by this committee a few months ago,
he is the Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer of DOD. He
sets the broad policies for the department, and then each of
the individual Military Services has an assistant secretary for
financial management who serves as the Comptroller for that
department.
Senator Burris. Do you report in to him? Do you create
statements to turn into the combined statement reporting for
DOD?
Dr. Morin. Yes in an ultimate sense. DOD, the OSD rolls up
the Service reports, and rolls up the reports from the
independent defense agencies and some of the other activities,
TRICARE, many other agencies all have their own individual
financial statements, and those are rolled up into the OSD
level reports, but both the Services and the OSD submit their
reports individually to OMB and to Congress.
Senator Burris. So your statements go in separately,
individually you said?
Dr. Morin. They go in both individually and as part of the
combined product.
Senator Burris. Okay. Do you know whether any of those
statements, and maybe this is a bad word in the Federal
Government, but in State government it has to be in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles. Do you all use
the Governmental Audit Principles (GAP) standard here?
Dr. Morin. OMB circular A123 sets GAP, and the principles
are not exactly the same.
Senator Burris. Not auditing standards, financial.
Dr. Morin. Yes, and we do not apply precisely the generally
accepted accounting principles of the private sector, but there
is a parallel generally accepted governmental accounting
principles.
Senator Burris. What you want to do and when you want to do
it.
Dr. Morin. Well, the Comptroller General at GAO has a great
deal of influence in setting those standards, and standards are
set by OMB for the executive agencies. The details of how much
flexibility there are in those standards I can't comment on
yet. I just don't know.
Senator Burris. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Burris.
Mr. Ginsberg just a few questions for you. Two of the
issues that you're going to be faced with immediately are the
problems of sexual assaults of servicemembers. It's a huge
issue. It continues to be a huge issue. Rather than to press
you now for your assessment of the problem, I would just ask
that you make a commitment to address this issue as one of your
first orders of business.
Mr. Ginsberg. Absolutely, Senator. My understanding is that
Air Force does take this issue very seriously.
Chairman Levin. They do.
Mr. Ginsberg. Yes.
Chairman Levin. It's essential that they do so. Second is
suicide prevention. We have a growing number of suicides in all
of the Services including the Air Force. Suicides in the Active
Duty Air Force, Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve increased
from 37 to 44 from 2007 to 2008, and I would make the same
request, the same point relative to suicides.
Mr. Ginsberg. Absolutely, Senator. Again a very serious
issue.
Chairman Levin. In your response to advance policy
questions, Mr. Ginsberg, you indicated that the most critical
shortcoming in the Air Force is wounded warrior care and
retaining wounded airmen on active duty who want to remain on
active duty to ensure that they can continue to be productive
members of the Air Force.
Do you have any thoughts as to how you're going to address
that?
Mr. Ginsberg. Senator, my understanding is the Air Force
has a very deep commitment of taking care of its wounded
warriors. They have a very good program that matches wounded
warriors with oversight personnel. In terms of how to keep them
engaged, keep them in the Service if that's what they desire,
it's a matter of close attention. Again, making sure that there
are personnel who are assigned to oversee their recovery so
that they can fulfill their full potential given their state
and given their health condition. Again, I think it's a matter
of assigning personnel, assigning manpower, assigning people to
be involved. One of the things I'd love to do is look at
whether there are any policies that are needed, whether there
are so many cases across the Services that there might be some
kind of regulation or guidance that needs to be issued. I
would, of course, do that working, if confirmed, with the
entire Air Force team and with the Secretary, of course.
Chairman Levin. When Senator Burris asked you when your
nominations came here, I think he was perhaps surprised, and
perhaps some members of our audience were surprised by the
speed with which we've handled your nominations. He did not ask
you how long it took to get your nominations, which would
probably be an embarrassing question for you to answer because
that takes often an unseemly length of time, but we're very
proud of the speed with which we handle nominations, yours
being good examples of it. That's tremendous staff work that
takes on the part of our staff. Both the majority and
Republican staff do a phenomenal job with nominations, and we
don't often have an opportunity to express appreciation
publically for them to them for that service, but since Senator
Burris asked the question, that triggered that possibility.
We are again grateful to you for your service in the past,
for your service in the future. We're going to move these
nominations, all six of them as quickly as we can. That depends
on our being able to get together a quorum, and that usually
takes a little while to put that in place, and then for the
Senate to act which usually can be done fairly quickly. So it
is surely hopeful that these nominations will be acted upon by
the Senate within the matter of a week or two.
We thank your families for their support, and particularly
want to single out your son, Dr. Morin, Liam. I understand he
is 4 years old, is that correct? He has just been absolutely
superb.
Dr. Morin. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Levin. I have a grandson who is a little older
than that, and I'm sure when my grandson was four, he would
have done an equally superlative job of looking interested in
what his father had to say, and at being extraordinarily
patient with this process. His grandmother, who I think is
smiling absolutely mightily here, my wife is a grandmother as
well, and I can just imagine her sitting there with her
grandson, our grandson, during this process how proud she must
be of you and him.
Do you have other children may I ask?
Dr. Morin. Liam is my only.
Chairman Levin. Liam is your only.
Dr. Morin. He has the blessing of being the first
grandchild on both sides of the family.
Chairman Levin. I can see the look in the grandma's eyes
how proud she is of both of you.
Thank you all. Thank your families. We'll stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Gordon S. Heddell by
Chairman Levin 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.
Based on your experience as the acting Inspector General (IG) for
the Department of Defense (DOD), do you see the need for modifications
of any Goldwater-Nichols Act provisions?
Answer. At this time, I do not know of the need for any
modifications to the Goldwater-Nichols Act. It has led to enhanced
jointness, increased readiness, and created a higher standard of
warfighting efficiency. However, if confirmed I will notify Congress if
the Office of Inspector General identifies the need for modifications
to the act.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. Please see response above.
qualifications
Question. Section 3 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 provides
that IGs shall be appointed on the basis of their ``integrity and
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, particularly in the
area of oversight, audit and investigation?
Answer. I have 8 years of experience as an IG and was responsible
for the conduct of audits and investigations related to matters at the
Department of Labor. I have extensive experience as an investigator
with the United States Secret Service. Additionally, I have been
serving as the acting IG for DOD since July 2008 and am responsible for
the conduct of audits, evaluations, and investigations related to
matters at the DOD.
Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to
take to enhance your expertise to perform these duties?
Answer. I believe that learning is a life long and continuing
process. I learned a great deal during my tenure as Inspector General
at the Department Labor. I will take those 8 years of experience and
build upon them as the IG of DOD, if confirmed.
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. Since arriving at the DOD IG in July 2008, I've recognized
the need to make certain adjustments to the organization as well as a
need for additional resources. Those include an establishment of an
Office of Professional Responsibility, a Deputy IG for Administrative
Investigations, and the Ombudsman. If confirmed, I will continue to
assess the current organizational alignment and will make further
changes, as needed.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, what would your working relationship be
with:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. Section 8(c) of the IG Act of 1978, as amended (the IG Act)
states that the IG 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 . .
.''
If confirmed, I will continue to consult directly with the
Secretary of Defense as necessary and appropriate, especially with
respect to matters governed by section 8(b)(1) of the IG Act. I will
seek to maintain a strong and effective relationship with the Secretary
that enables me to carry out my statutory duties with the independence
required under the IG Act, while enabling the Secretary to exercise his
statutory supervisory authority.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. Section 3(a) of the IG Act states that ``each IG 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.'' DOD Directive 5106.01,
dated April 13, 2006, states that ``the IG of the DOD shall report to
and be under the general supervision of the Secretary of Defense and
the Deputy Secretary of Defense. . .'' Accordingly, if confirmed, my
relationship with the Deputy Secretary of Defense will be similar to my
relationship with the Secretary of Defense.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller/Chief
Financial Officer) (USD(C/CFO)).
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to work with the USD(C/CFO)
to formulate the IG's portion of the annual President's budget for
submission to Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), as well as request required resources to
conduct the IG's mission. I will work with the USD(C/CFO) on areas of
concern within the financial management arena which the IG has
identified as a major management challenge for the Department. I will
conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the
programs and operations of the establishment in order to promote
economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)).
Answer. The office of the DOD IG has also identified acquisition
processes and contract management as a major management challenge for
DOD. It is therefore essential for the IG to maintain an effective
working relationship with the USD(AT&L). If confirmed, I anticipate
working closely with the Under Secretary concerning the allocation of
IG resources in the acquisition area, and how best to implement audit
recommendations pertaining to acquisition processes. As IG, I would
also recommend policies, in coordination with the USD(AT&L) and the
USD(Comptroller), to ensure that audit oversight of contractor
activities and financial management are coordinated and carried out in
an efficient manner to prevent duplication.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. We have and will continue to work with the various
Assistant Secretaries of Defense in managing challenges faced by the
Department, as outlined in our Semiannual Report to Congress. For
example, recent interactions have involved the Assistant Secretary of
Defense (Health Affairs) pertaining to our work on TRICARE fraud.
Question. The General Counsel of DOD.
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to work with the General
Counsel of DOD who serves as the Chief Legal Officer of DOD.
Effective September 23, 2008, an Office of General Counsel within
the Office of Inspector General was established outside of the
authority, direction and control of the General Counsel of DOD. The
establishment of this independent Office of Counsel ensures that the IG
receives independent legal advice and is in accordance with the
provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2009 and the IG
Reform Act of 2008.
Question. The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E).
Answer. The IG and the DOT&E 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 oversight
efforts in these areas.
Question. The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation.
Answer. The IG and the Director of Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation will have a common interest in ensuring that acquisitions
made by the Department undergo cost assessments and program
evaluations. I will seek to establish a cooperative working
relationship with this new office.
Question. The IGs of the Military Departments, Defense Agencies,
and the Joint Staff.
Answer. Section 8(c)(2) of the IG Act states that the IG of DOD
``shall . . . initiate, conduct, and supervise such audits and
investigations in the DOD (including the military departments) as the
IG considers appropriate. . .'' Section 8(c)(9) adds that the IG
``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. . .''
If confirmed, I will ensure that the DOD IG continues to coordinate
and avoid duplicative efforts. The DOD oversight community uses
internal coordination mechanisms to deconflict potential duplicative
efforts. In addition, DOD directives govern certain programs in which
the IGs of the military departments participate.
Question. The IGs of subordinate commands.
Answer. My relationship with the IGs of subordinate commands will
be based on the IG role described above in part I. If confirmed, I will
work closely with the other DOD IGs to carry out applicable policies
and guidance; avoid duplication, overlapping, and gaps; and work to
build a strong team.
Question. The Criminal Investigative Services of the Military
Departments.
Answer. Under the IG Act, the IG has the authority to initiate,
conduct, and supervise criminal investigations relating to any and all
programs and operations of the DOD. In addition, the IG is statutorily
authorized to develop policy, monitor and evaluate program performance,
and provide guidance regarding all criminal investigative programs
within the Department. The DOD IG works frequently in close
coordination with the Military Criminal Investigative Organizations
(MCIOs) on joint investigations.
If confirmed, I will continue to work closely with each of the
MCIOs to ensure that investigative resources are used effectively.
Question. The Audit Agencies of the Military Departments
Answer. Section 4(a) of the IG Act establishes broad jurisdiction
for the IG to conduct audits and investigations within DOD, and section
8(c)(2) states that the IG ``shall . . . initiate, conduct, and
supervise such audits and investigations in the DOD (including the
military departments) as the IG considers appropriate.''
If confirmed, I will continue to work with the audit agencies of
the military departments.
Question. The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA).
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to work with DCAA, as
prescribed in the IG Act. Although DCAA reports to the Under Secretary
of Defense (Comptroller), it operates under audit policies established
by the IG.
Question. The Defense Acquisition Regulatory Council.
Answer. The DOD IG regularly provides comments to the Defense
Acquisition Regulatory Council on proposed changes to the Defense
Federal Acquisition System and also recommends changes as a result of
DOD IG work.
If confirmed, I would expect to continue these practices.
Question. The Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition
Policy.
Answer. The Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy
is responsible for oversight of a large segment of the Defense
Department's acquisition and contracting operations and, accordingly,
is a major recipient of reports provided by the IG. If confirmed, I
would expect to continue the current practice of working with the
Director.
Question. The Comptroller General and the Government Accountability
Office (GAO).
Answer. The DOD IG works very closely with the Comptroller General
and the GAO to coordinate planned and ongoing audits and inspections to
avoid any duplication of efforts. The DOD IG GAO liaison office serves
as the central liaison between GAO and DOD management during GAO
reviews of DOD programs and activities.
If confirmed, I would work to maintain these cooperative
relationship with the Comptroller General and GAO.
Question. The Special IG for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR).
Answer. The DOD IG has supported the operations of the SIGIR and
its predecessor, the Coalition Provisional Authority IG. In accordance
with the IG Act and Public Law 108-106, title 3, section 3001(f)(4),
the DOD IG coordinates activities with the SIGIR as well as other
oversight community members, to avoid duplicating oversight efforts and
to minimize disruption to military operations. The DOD IG scope of
oversight authority encompasses all DOD funded operations and
activities in Iraq and elsewhere. The SIGIR focuses his oversight
effort only on funds designated for Iraq reconstruction. If confirmed,
and in keeping with the IG Act, I will work to ensure that the DOD IG
collaborates effectively with the SIGIR to ensure that we protect the
public expenditures in Iraq for which we have oversight.
Question. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan
Reconstruction (SIGAR).
Answer. The DOD IG scope of oversight authority encompasses all DOD
funded operations and activities in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The
SIGAR focuses his oversight effort only on funds designated for
Afghanistan reconstruction. If confirmed, and in keeping with the IG
Act, I will continue to ensure that the DOD IG collaborates effectively
with the SIGAR to ensure that we protect the public expenditures in
Afghanistan for which we have oversight.
Question. The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Answer. Since its inception, we have worked with the Commission in
support of its mission. We have briefed the Commission and its staff
and, recently, the Principal Deputy IG testified at the initial hearing
held by the Commission. We are providing the Commission copies of
reports that address contracting issues in Southwest Asia. We plan to
initiate a review of construction of the new Kabul compound in response
to a recent Commission request.
Question. The President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency
(PCIE).
Answer. On October 14, 2008, the President signed Public Law 110-
409, which established the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity
and Efficiency (CIGIE), replacing the PCIE. In my role as Acting IG, I
am a member of the Executive Council, serve as the chair of the IT
committee, and am a member of the Audit Committee. If confirmed, I plan
to continue to be a very active participant in the CIGIE
Question. The Defense Council on Integrity and Efficiency (DCIE).
Answer. Sections 2 and 3 of the DCIE Charter state that, in
accordance with section 2(2) of the IG Act, the DOD IG, who is the DCIE
Chairman, is responsible to provide ``leadership and coordination and
recommend policies for activities designed (A) to promote economy,
efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of, and (B) to
prevent and detect fraud and abuse in such programs and operations.''
If confirmed, I would organize meetings with the established members of
the DCIE to discuss issues of common interest and reinforce close
working relationships within the DOD oversight community.
Question. The OMB.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Deputy Director for
Management of the OMB, who is the Chairperson of the CIGIE.
major challenges, problems and priorities
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges and problems
facing the next DOD IG?
Answer. We have challenges related to both our workforce and the
complexity of our work. Among the human capital challenges are the
retirement of experienced senior leadership and developing succession
planning and retention within a highly competitive environment for the
audit professionals. Further challenges are identified in our
Semiannual Report to Congress and some of those challenges involve
conducting audits and investigations in a combat environment as well as
oversight involving highly technical subjects, such as weapons
acquisitions and cyber security.
Question. If you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges and problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to focus on the IG strategic
human capital plan which among other goals, addresses succession
planning and leadership development. I will focus audit, investigative,
and inspection efforts on the challenges identified in the Semiannual
Report, recognizing the complexity of some of those challenges. I will
also work with senior DOD officials and Congress to identify emerging
issues that the Department faces.
Question. If you are confirmed, what broad priorities would you
establish in terms of issues which must be addressed by the DOD IG?
Answer. Promoting efficiency and preventing fraud in defense
acquisitions is obviously a high priority--as well as effective support
for the men and women of our armed services and the operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan. I will also ensure that the IG pursues aggressive
oversight of contracting issues. If confirmed, I look forward to
consulting with senior officials of the DOD and with Congress, in
establishing broad priorities.
Question. If you are confirmed, what changes, if any, would you
expect to make in the organization, structure, and staffing of the
Office of IG?
Answer. Since arriving at the DOD IG in July 2008, I've recognized
the need to make certain adjustments to the organization as well as a
need for additional resources. Those include an establishment of an
Office of Professional Responsibility, a Deputy IG for Administrative
Investigations, and an Ombudsman.
Question. If confirmed, I will continue to assess the current
organizational alignment and will make further changes, as needed.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the DOD IG?
Answer. The duties and functions of the DOD IG are those specified
in sections 3, 4, and 8 of the IG Act. Additional duties and
responsibilities of the IG are specified in DOD Directive No. 5106.01,
which was signed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense on April 13, 2006.
By statute, the IG conducts and supervises audits and
investigations relating to the programs and operations of DOD. The IG
also provides leadership and coordination, and recommends policy, for
activities designed to: (1) promote economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness in the administration of DOD programs and operations; and
(2) combat fraud, waste, and abuse. In addition, the IG 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. The Secretary of Defense has prescribed the duties and
functions of the IG in two DOD publications: DOD Directive 5100.1,
``Functions of the Department of Defense and Its Major Components,''
and DOD Directive 5106.01, ``Inspector General of the Department of
Defense.'' These publications delineate that the IG DOD provides staff
assistance and advice in accordance with the responsibilities specified
in the IG Act. Significantly, these publications reinforce that the IG
remains an independent and objective unit within DOD. If confirmed, I
will consult directly with the Secretary to identify specific areas of
concern and emphasis.
Question. Section 2 of the IG 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 designed to promote economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness; to prevent and detect fraud and abuse; and to provide a
means for keeping Congress and agency heads 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.
Question. Are you committed to maintaining the independence of the
DOD IG, as set forth in the IG statute?
Answer. If confirmed, I will maintain the independence of the IG
consistent with the provisions of the IG 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. Yes. If confirmed, in accordance with section 2(3) of the
IG Act, I will remain committed to keeping the Committee on Armed
Services ``fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies
relating to the administration of such programs and operations and the
necessity for and progress of corrective action.'' I will do so through
the dissemination of IG products such as the Semiannual Report to
Congress and audit reports. In addition, I will provide briefings for
Members and staff, and testimony at hearings, when requested, with the
intent of maintaining a close relationship.
Question. Section 3 of the IG Act of 1978 provides that the head of
an agency, shall exercise ``general supervision'' over an IG, but shall
not ``prevent or prohibit the IG from initiating, carrying out, or
completing any audit or investigation, or from issuing any subpoena
during the course of any audit or investigation.''
Question. 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 sections 2 and
3?
Answer. Section 2 of the IG Act creates independent and objective
units . . . to provide a means for keeping the head of the
establishment and Congress fully and currently informed about problems
and deficiencies relating to the administration of such programs and
operations and the necessity for and progress of corrective action.
Section 3 states that each IG shall report to and be under the
general supervision of the head of the establishment involved or, to
the extent such authority is delegated, to the office next in rank
below such head, but shall not report, or be subject to supervision by,
any other officer of such establishment. Moreover, neither the head of
the establishment nor the office next in rank shall prevent or prohibit
the IG from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or
investigation, or from issuing any subpoena during the course of any
audit or investigation.
Question. If confirmed, what action would you take if a senior
official of the Department sought to prevent you from ``initiating,
carrying out, or completing'' any audit or investigation within the
jurisdiction of the Office of the DOD IG?
Answer. If the action was taken outside the authority of the
Secretary of Defense in section 8 of the IG Act, I would notify the
Secretary and request his assistance in ensuring compliance with the IG
Act by the senior official involved. Failure to resolve the issue,
would, in my view, constitute a ``particularly serious or flagrant
problem, abuse, or deficiency'' under section 5(d) of the IG Act. Under
this section, the IG is required to report the matter to the head of
the establishment, who is then required to transmit the IG's report to
Congress within 7 days.
Question. Section 8 of the IG Act of 1978 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 DOD 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
procedures in place to effect the authority and control of the
Secretary of Defense over matters delineated in section 8 of the act?
Answer. To my knowledge the procedure in place is to follow the IG
Act. Under 8(b)(1) or 8(b)(2) of the IG Act, the Secretary has the
``authority to stop any investigation, audit, or issuance of subpoenas,
if the Secretary determines that such a prohibition is necessary to
preserve the national security interests of the United States.'' I am
informed that this provision has never been exercised. However, in the
event that the Secretary exercises 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. What is your understanding of the extent to which the IG
has, as a matter of practice, initiated and conducted audits or
investigations covered by section 8 differently from other audits or
investigations?
Answer. It is my understanding that the practice of the DOD IG with
respect to the initiation and conduct of audits and investigations
covered by section 8 is the same as for other audits and
investigations.
Question. What changes, if any, do you believe are needed in the
practices of the DOD IG for initiating and conducting audits or
investigations covered by section 8?
Answer. None to my knowledge.
Question. Sections 4 and 8 of the IG Act of 1978 set forth various
duties and responsibilities of IGs 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. Beyond the conduct of audits and investigations, section 4
of the IG Act directs the IG 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 IG shall ``be the principal advisor to the Secretary of
Defense for matters relating to the preventing and detection of fraud,
waste, and abuse in the programs and operations of the Department.''
The duties and responsibilities specified in sections 4 and 8 come
within the general supervisory authority of the Secretary of Defense
established under section 3(a).
independence
Question. The DOD IG must ensure that the independence of the
Office of the IG is maintained, that investigations are unbiased,
particularly those involving senior military and civilian officials,
and promptly and thoroughly completed, and that the highest standards
of ethical conduct are maintained.
Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe it would be
appropriate for the DOD IG to consult with officials in the OSD (or
other DOD officials outside the Office of the IG) before issuing a
report, regarding the findings and recommendations in the report?
Answer. In regards to audits and inspections, it is the current
practice for the IG to offer officials in the OSD, or other DOD
officials, an opportunity to comment before issuing a report to ensure
that the information in the report is factually accurate and to resolve
or acknowledge disagreements on conclusions, findings, and
recommendations. However, for criminal investigations, it is not
appropriate to discuss the results of ongoing investigations.
Question. To the extent that you believe such consultation is
appropriate, what steps, if any, do you believe the IG should take to
keep a record of the consultation and record the results in the text of
the report?
Answer. I believe it is necessary to consult with all parties to
gather the facts to develop findings and recommendations. The facts
that are relevant should be included in the text of the report, and
that a written record of all interviews and consultations are
maintained in the working papers. The procedures are in place to redact
certain information from reports in the appropriate circumstances.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe it would
be appropriate for senior officials to request that the DOD IG not
investigate or review a particular matter?
Answer. Under section 8 of the IG Act, the Secretary of Defense has
the authority to prohibit the IG from initiating, carrying out, or
completing any audit or investigation. That authority may be exercised
when the audit or investigation requires access to information
concerning: sensitive operational plans, intelligence matters,
counterintelligence matters, ongoing criminal investigations by other
administrative units of DOD related to national security, or other
matters the disclosure of which would constitute a serious threat to
national security. As noted previously, the Secretary of Defense has
never exercised his authority under section 8.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe it would
be appropriate for senior officials to request that the DOD IG not
issue a report on a particular matter?
Answer. No one has the authority to ask the DOD IG not to issue a
report on a particular matter unless it is the Secretary of Defense,
under the provisions delineated in section 8.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe it would
be appropriate for senior officials to request that the DOD IG alter
findings, recommendations, or other pertinent material in a report on a
particular matter?
Answer. In the course of conducting audits and inspections, the IG
practice is to offer officials in the OSD, or other DOD officials, an
opportunity to comment before issuing a report to ensure that the
information in the report is factually accurate and to resolve or
acknowledge disagreements on conclusions, findings, and
recommendations. Additionally, in cases where an administrative
investigation substantiates allegations involving a senior DOD
official, the senior official is given an opportunity to comment on
findings and conclusions as part of fairness and due process. Those
comments may request that we alter our findings and are considered
before we issue a final report. However, for criminal investigations,
it is not appropriate to discuss the results of ongoing investigations.
The final decision on the content of reports rests with the IG.
Question. If confirmed, how would you react to a request, which you
believed to be inappropriate, to not investigate a particular matter,
not issue a report on a particular matter, or alter findings,
recommendations, or other pertinent material in a report on a
particular matter?
Answer. With respect to the initiation or completion of an audit or
investigation, if the request was inappropriate and made outside the
authority of the Secretary of Defense in section 8 of the IG Act, I
would reject the proposal. If and when necessary, I would notify the
Secretary and request his assistance in ensuring compliance with the IG
Act by the senior official involved.
Failure to resolve the issue, would, in my view, constitute a
``particularly serious or flagrant problem, abuse or deficiency'' under
section 5(d) of the IG Act. Under this section, the IG is required to
report the matter to the head of the establishment, who is then
required to transmit the IG's report to Congress.
congressional requests
Question. The Office of IG frequently receives requests from
congressional committees and Members of Congress for audits and
investigation of matters of public interest.
What is your understanding of the manner in which the Office of IG
handles such requests?
Answer. The DOD IG receives many requests from congressional
committees and Members of Congress for oversight reviews, but adheres
to the same principles of independence in responding to those requests.
Question. If confirmed, will you ensure that the Office of IG
continues to respond to congressional requests for audits or
investigations in a manner consistent with past practice?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe it would
be appropriate for the Office of the IG to redact the contents of any
information contained in a report it provides to Congress?
Answer. Consistent with the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy
Act, it is the practice of the DOD IG to provide unredacted copies of
reports to oversight committees of Congress. Additional releases,
including those to the public, are redacted in accordance with
applicable laws.
Question. In recent years, a number of audits and investigations
conducted by the DOD IG in response to congressional requests have
taken excessively long periods of time to complete. In some cases, the
individuals who have been the subject of such investigations have left
office by the time the DOD IG has completed its work.
What is your view of the timeliness and responsiveness of the DOD
IG's recent work in response to congressional requests?
Answer. In some very important respects we have not been timely. We
are, however, striving to improve our timeliness and responsiveness to
congressional requests. Recent examples of timely and responsive work
in response to congressional requests include our work regarding
testing requirements for body armor and the cost, oversight, and impact
of congressional earmarks. If confirmed, I will continue to improve on
the timeliness of our responses to congressional requests.
Question. What steps, if any, would you take, if confirmed, to
ensure the timeliness and responsiveness of such audits and
investigations?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that we continue to improve
interaction with congressional members and staff to better define and
scope reviews that are responsive and have realistic timelines. I have
already initiated actions to improve the timeliness of key audits and
investigations and have plans to do more in that regard.
senior official 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 DOD. The Committee on Armed Services has a
particular interest in investigations concerning senior officials who
are subject to Senate confirmation, and relies upon the DOD IG, as well
as the OSD, 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
and thorough manner and that the results of investigations are promptly
provided to this committee?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue efforts I began over the past
months to increase staffing significantly in the DOD IG senior official
investigations unit to improve the timeliness of investigative work. I
am in the process of substantially increasing the authorized number of
positions in our senior investigation unit and am convinced that we
will be able to recruit highly capable individuals to these positions
under the new National Security Personnel System (NSPS) pay setting
guidelines. I will further ensure that investigations relating to
senior officials who are subject to Senate confirmation are promptly
provided to the committee.
Question. Do you believe that the current allocation of
responsibilities between the DOD IG and the IGs of the military
departments is appropriate to ensure fair and impartial investigations?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the current allocation of
responsibilities between the DOD IG and the IGs of the military
departments is appropriate to ensure fair and impartial investigations.
Currently, the DOD IG assumes investigative jurisdiction in any senior
official case where allegations cross service lines or where the
Service IG may encounter an impediment to independence or be perceived
as having such an impediment.
Question. What additional steps, if any, do you think the DOD IG
should take to ensure that investigations carried out by the IGs of the
military departments are accurate and complete?
Answer. If confirmed, I will increase both the frequency and the
breadth of interaction between my office and the IGs of the military
departments. In doing so, I would hope to enhance both the relationship
and the information that is provided by the military IGs. I will ensure
the reports of investigation completed by the military department IGs
continue to receive a vigorous oversight review for independence,
thoroughness, and accuracy. I will not hesitate to assume investigative
jurisdiction over cases where appropriate; particularly if the subject
of the allegations is a political appointee, outranks the Service IG,
or the allegations cross service lines. Additionally, when deficiencies
are identified in a report of investigation, I will direct my staff to
complete any additional work to ensure timely resolution of the case,
while maximizing the independence of the ultimate conclusions.
Question. At what point in an investigation and under what criteria
would you initiate action to ensure that a ``flag,'' or suspension on
favorable personnel action, is placed on a military officer?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that all senior officials who
are under investigation or inquiry are properly reported to the Service
IG to ensure they are ``flagged'' and not eligible for any favorable
actions. In cases where an officer is pending nomination for promotion
or reassignment, I will also notify the Under Secretary of Defense
(Personnel and Readiness) so that that nomination may be placed on hold
pending outcome of the investigation.
Upon receipt of any allegation involving a senior official, my
office conducts a review of the complaint to determine if the
allegations are credible, if the alleged conduct violated an
established standard, and if there is sufficient information to conduct
a focused inquiry. If these questions are affirmatively answered, we
will open an investigation and notify appropriate authorities.
resources and authorities of the dod ig's office and investigators
Question. Do you believe that the DOD IG's office has sufficient
resources (in personnel and dollars) to carry out its audit and
investigative responsibilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will attempt to ensure that the DOD IG's
office has sufficient resources to carry out its audit and
investigative responsibilities.
I believe that the growth in DOD budget and contracts over the last
several years, coupled with the complex operating environment in
wartime, has placed the Department at increased risk for fraud waste,
and abuse. Providing adequate oversight is a key element in mitigating
this increased risk. The resource requirements to provide such
oversight have been addressed in our March 31, 2008, report,
``Department of Defense Inspector General Growth Plan for Increasing
Audit and Investigative Capabilities, Fiscal Years 2008-2015.'' If
confirmed, I will continue to work to ensure that the DOD IG's office
has sufficient resources to carry out its oversight responsibilities.
Question. If confirmed, will you communicate any concerns that you
may have about the adequacy of resources available to the Office of IG
to Congress and this committee?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to communicate my concerns
regarding the adequacy of our resource requirements.
Question. Some Federal agencies have reacted to limited IG
resources by using contractors to perform some audit and investigative
functions.
What is your understanding of the DOD IG's role in determining
whether the use of contractor resources to perform audit or
investigative functions is appropriate?
Answer. For the audit function, the IG Act, section 4(b)(1)(B)
establishes the authority of each IG to establish guidelines for
determining when it shall be appropriate to use non-Federal auditors.
In addition, section 4(b)(1)(C) of the IG Act states that the IG shall
take appropriate steps to ensure that any work performed by non-Federal
auditors complies with the standards established by the Comptroller
General.
With regard to the criminal investigative function, it is
considered inherently governmental and therefore contractors do not
perform such functions.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that the
use of contractor resources to perform such functions would be
appropriate?
Answer. There is specific guidance in DOD Directive 7600.2 on when
it is permissible to use contractor resources to perform audit
functions. It specifically permits DOD components to contract for audit
services when applicable expertise is unavailable, if augmentation of
the audit staff is necessary to execute the annual audit plan, or
because temporary audit assistance is required to meet audit reporting
requirements mandated by Public Law or DOD regulation. However, the
directive includes an approval process to ensure the appropriate use of
non-Federal auditors and that they comply with the Government Auditing
Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.
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 Office of IG and its
agents are adequate in these areas, or would you recommend further
changes in the law?
Answer. The DOD IG supports the National Procurement Fraud Task
Force Legislation Committee June 2008 White Paper proposals to improve
prosecution and adjudication of procurement crimes. The proposals to
expand the authority of Inspectors General, to include expanded
subpoena authority, will provide the IG community additional tools to
conduct investigations and audits.
civilian personnel management
Question. The DOD IG's office has operated under the NSPS since
2007.
If confirmed, how would you assess the effectiveness of NSPS in
creating an accountable personnel system within the DOD IG's office?
Answer. Since the Defense Business Board is currently conducting an
assessment to determine the overall effectiveness of NSPS, I am very
interested in the results of the Board's review. While I agree with the
overall concept of pay for performance, I am interested in finding out
more about the system design and its impact on fairness and equity. The
Board's assessment of the system should provide critical information as
we plan our own review of our effectiveness in implementing NSPS
throughout the DOD IG. We are entering our third year under NSPS and I
believe that after this performance cycle, we will have enough
information and trend data to conduct a comprehensive review of NSPS
and determine its effectiveness as an integrated and accountable
personnel system within the DOD IG. Therefore, if confirmed, I plan to
direct such an internal review.
Currently, members of my staff are conducting a barrier analysis to
determine if there are any implementation factors that lead to
different outcomes for any of a broad spectrum of employee groups and
categories. I am also keenly aware that there are trials and errors
associated with the implementation of any new system and I want to
ensure that we minimize the negative impact on our workforce; so we are
continuously assessing and taking advantage of lessons learned.
Question. What experience have you had with personnel systems other
than the general schedule and the senior executive service?
Answer. While my personal experience is limited to the General
Schedule, I have a team of human resource professionals who have
extensive experience with other personnel systems. I regularly confer
with these professionals to ensure that as we implement the provisions
under NSPS, we do so with a focus on fairness and equity, and a vision
of improving both individual and organizational performance.
Question. What, in your opinion, are the strengths and weaknesses
of alternative systems which link pay with performance?
Answer. As previously stated, I agree with pay for performance in
concept. Those who perform the best should see rewards through higher
pay. To achieve this result, it is imperative that performance
management systems and the pay systems be linked in a way that is
clearly transparent and easily understood by employees. Pay for
performance systems work best where individual performance is valued
and accurately measured. If implemented well, these systems reward and
encourage superior performance. If not implemented well, these systems
can discourage teamwork and can inadvertently de-link pay from
performance if the system can be manipulated or the system design is
flawed.
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 IG'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 Initiatives, the Secretary of Defense's
top priorities, the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, and the
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1994. It is my
understanding that the IG has received sufficient resources to conduct
financial statement audits under the current departmental approach.
However, as the Department improves audit readiness and the
requirements for financial statement audits increase, a reevaluation
may be necessary. 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. What is your view of the requirements of section 1008 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, regarding
resources directed to the audit of financial statements?
Answer. Section 1008 directs the IG to significantly reduce the
level of audit work when the Department has asserted that the financial
statements are not reliable and do not meet accounting standards. This
allows the IG flexibility to redirect audit resources to other areas
within the Department. If confirmed, I will continue to work with the
Department and Congress to ensure that the appropriate level of
resources is dedicated to audit the Department's financial statements.
As the level of audit readiness increases across the Department, we
will focus more audit resources on those financial statements.
Question. Do you see any need for legislative changes to give the
IG greater flexibility to target audit resources?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Department and Congress
to assess whether legislation in this area is appropriate.
Question. 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 IG is to serve as a catalyst for
improvements in the Department's financial management processes. That
role should be consistent with the Department's top priorities, and
statutory requirements. If confirmed, I will ensure that the DOD IG
continues this vital function.
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.
What role, if any, do you believe the Office of the IG should play
in achieving acquisition reform?
Answer. The role of the DOD IG is to serve as a catalyst for
improvements in the Department's acquisition processes and contract
management. That role should be consistent with the President's
Initiatives, the Department's top priorities, and statutory
requirements. If confirmed, I will ensure that the DOD IG continues
this vital function.
Question. Over the last 15 years, the DOD IG has gone from having
one auditor for every $500 million on contract by DOD to one auditor
for every $2 billion on contract.
Do you believe that the DOD IG has the resources it needs to
conduct effective oversight over the Department's acquisition programs?
Answer. If confirmed, conducting effective oversight over the
Department's acquisition programs will be one of my top priorities in
the IG office. 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 IG 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 IG, the
Department, and Congress to work together in a timely way to assess
whether the IG has adequate resources to conduct this essential
oversight.
Question. The DOD IG has played an important role in advising 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 the
management of those resources to the taxpayer. If confirmed, I will
ensure that the DOD IG continues its important advisory role.
oversight of dod activities in iraq and afghanistan
Question. What is your understanding of the responsibilities and
activities of the Office of the DOD IG in investigating and preventing
fraud, waste, and abuse in the course of DOD operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan?
Answer. The DOD IG 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 and Afghanistan. In theater, we are looking at the
planning and execution of contracts in support of the operations of
coalition forces. The purpose of these reviews is to determine that the
forces are receiving the right equipment and support to conduct
successful operations. We are also looking at the accountability of
equipment provided to coalition forces, contractors, and the Iraq and
Afghan security forces. Additionally, audits are also being conducted
in the continental United States (CONUS) on contracts awarded and funds
expended in the United States that provide significant resources to
support the warfighter, for military services materiel and equipment,
and for other purposes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in Southwest Asia.
The Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), the law
enforcement arm of the DOD IG, and its military criminal investigative
counterparts, in particular the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative
Command (Army CID), investigate major frauds, corruption, thefts, and
other compromises of DOD assets in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other
countries in that theater. Currently, 13 DCIS agents and one
administrative specialist are deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Kuwait, collocated with Army CID, to conduct operations and
investigations that primarily involve procurement fraud and public
corruption. In addition, the DCIS European office and DCIS CONUS
offices, along with the investigative partners (e.g., FBI), continue to
investigate Iraq-related matters and travel into theater to conduct
investigative operations, such as gathering evidence and conducting
interviews, when crimes are reported. However, the bulk of DCIS's
investigative activities occur in CONUS where corporate headquarters of
DOD contractors, key evidence, and Department of Justice prosecutorial
support are located.
Also, DCIS is a participant in the International Contract
Corruption Task Force, a formalized partnership between Federal
agencies to investigate and prosecute cases of contract fraud and
public corruption related to U.S. spending in Iraq. The Task Force has
established a Joint Operations Center specifically to formally
coordinate investigations and develop a criminal intelligence
capability to successfully prosecute fraud. DCIS has dedicated a
special agent to the Joint Operations Center on a full-time basis.
If confirmed, and in keeping with the IG Act, I will ensure that
the DOD IG continues to focus oversight efforts to investigate and
prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of U.S.-provided resources for
reconstruction and other purposes in Southwest Asia.
Question. If confirmed, what changes, if any, would you plan to
make to the DOD IG's oversight activities in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Answer. If confirmed, I would ensure that DOD IG activities in
Southwest Asia remain a top priority. I will also assess the current
level of oversight to ensure that adequate resources are being devoted
to this mission and that those resources are being allocated
appropriately.
Question. If confirmed, what would be your goals with respect to
the oversight, audit, and investigation of ongoing U.S. activities in
Iraq and Afghanistan?
Answer. If confirmed, it is my goal to ensure that the oversight
provided by the DOD IG of ongoing DOD activities in Iraq and
Afghanistan is consistent with the responsibilities in the IG Act and
is sufficient to provide assurance to Congress, the Secretary of
Defense, and to both the American taxpayer and the warfighter that
funds supporting DOD activities are expended appropriately and
effectively.
Question. The SIGIR and the SIGAR have jurisdiction over contracts
for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the SIGIR and
the SIGAR do 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 oversight,
audit and investigation of such contracts?
Answer. The DOD IG office should play an active role in ensuring
stewardship of taxpayers' dollars and effective contract support for
our troops through diligent oversight of the contracting function. This
would include audits, inspections, and investigations, as required.
Also, we chair the Southwest Asia Joint Planning Group, which is a
forum for oversight agencies to coordinate audit efforts in Southwest
Asia.
Question. Do you believe that a significant on-the-ground presence
in Iraq is necessary to perform this role?
Answer. The DOD IG has expanded its presence in Southwest Asia,
from 16 permanent positions in September 2008 to 30 permanent positions
in June 2009, with plans to add an additional 6 permanent positions,
for a total of 36. We now have offices in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait,
and Qatar. As the draw down in U.S. troops in Iraq proceeds, we must
continually assess personnel needs based on the nature and scope of DOD
operations and adjust our on-the-ground presence as appropriate.
Question. What is the relationship of the DOD IG to the SIGIR and
the SIGAR?
Answer. See responses to ``Q.'' and ``R.'' under the previous
section regarding ``Relationships.''
oversight of medical functions, including outpatient administration and
health care fraud
Question. 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. In 2007, deficiencies in the housing and
administration of severely injured soldiers and Marines in a medical
hold status at Walter Reed Army Medical Center raised questions about
the adequacy of oversight into the care of outpatients and members
involved in the disability evaluation system. In 2008, a Federal judge
found that DOD's health care program had been cheated out of $100
million due to payment of fraudulent health care claims in the
Philippines.
Do you have any views about the role the DOD IG should play in
improving visibility into and objective assessments of the quality of
care provided through the military medical system?
Answer. I believe the DOD IG has a major role to play in ensuring
that the military servicemembers and their dependents should receive
the health care they and their families have a right to expect.
Accordingly, the DOD IG has identified healthcare as a major management
challenge in the most recent DOD Agency Financial Report as well as the
last DOD IG Semiannual Report to Congress. In particular, we noted that
the frequency and duration of military deployments further stresses the
military health system in both the active and Reserve components. If
confirmed, I will ensure that the DOD IG continues to provide the
independent review and oversight necessary of the military health
system. Oversight is needed in several areas including cost
containment, quality of care, access to care, and medical readiness.
The DOD IG audit component plays a defined role in quality areas.
By defined, I mean that the audit component focuses on processes that
affect or are indicators of quality of care without directly evaluating
the professional opinion of health care providers. However, DOD IG
auditors are involved in issues such as credentialing of medical staff,
the reporting of adverse medical events, patient safety, and
utilization management that improve systemic effectiveness and increase
the visibility of quality of care. In addition, much of the DOD IGs
work on cost, access, and readiness also impacts medical quality. For
example, work in the medical fraud area will help free up resources
that can be used to provide needed health care and will help ensure
that qualified physicians are providing care to DOD beneficiaries.
Additionally, audits of medical equipment used to support operations in
Southwest Asia and healthcare provided by military treatment facilities
to contractors in Southwest Asia will assist the network supporting our
combat medical system and identify additional resources that will allow
for more efficient care to our wounded warriors.
As Acting IG, I have directed the expansion of the DOD IG's
coverage of healthcare quality issues. Our Inspections and Special
Plans and Operations groups bring a focus on health care quality
issues. For example our inspections staff has looked at issues to
improve the transition from the Military Health System to the
Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) system. DOD and VA should be
working hand-in-hand to ensure that the transition between the DOD and
VA health care systems is seamless. DOD should work with VA to ensure
that the best possible treatment and care continues for veterans
throughout recovery and in some cases, throughout the life of the
veteran.
Question. What resources and expertise does the DOD IG currently
have--or lack--to play a more prominent role in assessing the
performance of health care providers, including identifying and
preventing health care fraud against the DOD?
Answer. We have limited resources in our audit and investigative
components that address health care fraud. Accordingly, we have
leveraged our resources and have jointly worked with the Office of the
U.S. Attorney, Western District of Wisconsin, on the $100 million
Philippine healthcare fraud case that resulted in a successful
prosecution. To help maintain our expertise, a number of the audit
staff have become Certified Fraud Examiners. DCIS possesses significant
expertise in the investigation of health care fraud. Prior to September
11, 2001, DCIS devoted greater resources to these types of
investigations. Currently, health care fraud investigations comprise
about 9 percent of the 1800+ DCIS cases in our inventory. I recognize
the importance of protecting America's warfighters and families from
poor quality of care and fraudulent activity and I remain committed to
pursuing these audits and investigations.
intelligence
Question. What is the role of the DOD IG with regard to
intelligence activities within DOD?
Answer. The IG, through the Deputy IG for Intelligence, has
responsibility for oversight of DOD intelligence activities and
components as identified in DOD Directive 5240.01, ``DOD Intelligence
Activities,'' dated August 27, 2007. These include all DOD components
conducting intelligence activities, including the National Security
Agency/Central Security Service, the Defense Intelligence Agency, 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 IG's oversight not
specifically identified in DOD Directive 5240.01 include the Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)), the National
Reconnaissance Office, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
Responsibilities and functions of the IG as outlined in DOD Directive
5106.01, ``Inspector General of the Department of Defense,'' 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 IGs, and the IGs of the Defense
Intelligence Agencies. The primary goal of the JIOCG is to avoid
duplication of effort and enhance coordination and cooperation among
IGs and Auditors General inside the DOD, and promote information-
sharing among IGs 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 5106.01 requires that intelligence-related
actions be coordinated, as appropriate, with the Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense (Intelligence Oversight) (ATSD(IO)) to determine
respective areas of responsibility in accordance with DOD Directive
5148.11, ``Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
Oversight,'' dated May 21, 2004. (DOD Directive 5148.11 contains
similar language for the ATSD(IO) to coordinate with the IG, as
appropriate.) I am advised that the ATSD(IO) is a charter member of the
JIOCG, and that the IG has a long history of coordination and
cooperation with the ATSD(IO).
Question. What is the relationship of the DOD IG to the IG of the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)?
Answer. The DOD IG's primary relationship with the DNI IG involves
participation in the Intelligence Community (IC) IG Forum. The IC IG
Forum promotes information-sharing among the IGs of the departments and
agencies of the IC whose functions include audits, inspections/
evaluations, or investigations of their respective departments and
agencies. The IC IG Forum also strives to avoid duplication of effort
and enhance effective coordination and cooperation among IC IGs. The
DNI IG chairs the IC IG Forum.
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 IG for
Intelligence on all ongoing projects relating to DOD organizations and
activities. The DNI IG is an Ex-Officio member of the JIOCG.
Question. What is the role of the DOD IG with respect to detainee
matters?
Answer. The DOD IG has statutory responsibility for oversight that
extends to oversight of detainee and interrogation matters. Consistent
with that responsibility, the IG issued two final reports regarding
detainee abuse.
Question. What is the role of the DOD IG with respect to
interrogation matters?
Answer. Please see my answer to the previous question.
investigation into allegations involving dod public affairs outreach
program
Question. On January 14, 2009, the Office of the IG issued a report
on its examination of allegations involving the DOD public affairs
outreach program. On May 5, 2009, the report was withdrawn, due to
inaccuracies in data and methodology, and insufficient evidence to
support the findings of the report.
What was your role in the issuance and withdrawal of this report?
Answer. Shortly after the report was issued on January 14, 2009, I
became aware of inaccuracies in the data concerning Retired Military
Analyst (RMA) relationships with Defense contractors that appeared in
Appendix K and elsewhere in the report. The discovery of those
inaccuracies resulted in my decision to initiate an independent
internal review of the report and its supporting documentation.
The report was reviewed by two DOD IG components, the Office of the
Assistant IG for Audit Policy and Oversight (APO), and the Quality
Assurance, Policy and Electronic Documentation Division from the Office
of Auditing. The APO review dated May 1, 2009, and the Auditing review
of April 29, 2009, both came to the same conclusions and determined
that the evidence compiled was insufficient to support the findings and
conclusions of the report. As a result, both recommended that the
report be withdrawn.
I concurred with those recommendations and on May 5, 2009, directed
that the report be withdrawn.
Question. What is your assessment of the problems that led to the
withdrawal of this report?
Answer. The internal reviews concluded that the report did not meet
accepted quality standards for an IG work product. They found that the
methodology used to examine the relationships of RMAs with Defense
contractors such as searches of public websites would not reasonably
yield evidence needed to address the issue that the outreach program
conveyed some financial advantage to RMAs who participated in the
program. Additionally, the reviews noted that the findings relied, in
part, on a body of testimonial evidence that was insufficient or
inconclusive. In particular, former senior DOD officials who devised
and managed the outreach program refused requests for an interview.
Furthermore, the judgmental sample of RMAs interviewed was too small--7
out of 70 RMAs--to allow that testimonial evidence to be used to
support conclusions.
Question. In your view, are the problems that led to the withdrawal
of this report unique to a single investigation, or are they
symptomatic of broader problems in the Office of the IG?
Answer. I believe the circumstances involved in this report are
unique. In this particular case, the group responsible for conducting
this review was comprised of personnel from different DOD IG
departments. As a result, competing priorities and lack of clearly
defined procedures and objectives resulted in a product that, based
upon internal review, did not meet accepted quality standards.
Question. What steps have you taken to address these problems, in
your capacity as Acting IG? What additional steps do you plan to take,
if confirmed?
Answer. Recommendations contained in the internal reviews will be
implemented by the Assistant IG for Inspections and Evaluations to
include the:
Development and establishment of formal internal
quality controls for ensuring report accuracy prior to draft
report issuance;
Development and establishment of written policies and
procedures for internal controls of the inspection and
evaluation process and work, in order to provide reasonable
assurance of conformance with the PCIE/Executive Council on
Integrity and Efficiency Quality Standards for Inspections,
January 2005, the ``Blue Book.''
I also directed on May 28, 2009, a Special Administrative Review
that is being headed by the Deputy IG for Intelligence. That review
will examine a variety of issues, such as:
Can findings be made regarding the structure and
policies that governed the Public Affairs Outreach Program and
the type of access given to RMAs?
Can judgments be made, or are there lessons learned,
regarding the establishment of a similar program in the future?
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the IG of DOD?
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. 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?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
department of defense inspector general resourcing
1. Senator McCain. Mr. Heddell, do you believe that the Department
of Defense (DOD) Inspector General's (IG) office has sufficient
resources--in qualified personnel and funding--to carry out its
investigative and auditing functions?
Mr. Heddell. The resource requirements to carry out our oversight
functions are addressed in the DOD IG March 31, 2008, report, ``DOD IG
Growth Plan for Increasing Audit and Investigative Capabilities, Fiscal
Years 2008-2015.''
The growth in DOD budget and contracts over the last several years,
coupled with the complex operating environment in wartime, has placed
the Department at increased risk for fraud waste, and abuse. Providing
adequate oversight is a key element in mitigating this increased risk,
and the personnel and funding levels identified in our growth plan were
formulated with this in mind.
We have received support from both the Congress and the Department
in resourcing the growth plan. The increase in resources in fiscal year
2008 and fiscal year 2009 has allowed us to increase personnel;
establish new offices to meet mission requirements; and expand our
permanent presence in Southwest Asia. If confirmed, I will continue to
work to ensure that the DOD IG's office has sufficient resources to
carry out its oversight responsibilities.
2. Senator McCain. Mr. Heddell, what do you consider to be the
major challenges you will face, if confirmed, in ensuring that the IG's
office is fully capable of timely performing its responsibilities?
Mr. Heddell. The DOD IG faces significant challenges related to
both our workforce and the complexity of our work. Among the human
capital challenges are the retirement of experienced senior leadership
and developing succession planning and retention within a highly
competitive environment for the audit professionals. Further challenges
are identified in our Semiannual Report to Congress and some of those
challenges involve conducting audits and investigations in a combat
environment as well as oversight involving highly technical subjects,
such as weapons acquisitions and cyber security.
As Acting IG, I initiated the development of a Human Capital
Strategic Plan which has as its goals to develop: (1) world class
leaders, (2) a mission ready workforce that is fully engaged, (3) a
culture that positively impacts the public trust, and (4) integrated
talent management. Strategy Development Teams have been established and
charged with developing, and monitoring the implementation of,
strategies that support the achievement of the agency's human capital
goals.
I am also concerned that we allocate resources appropriately. In
this regard, I recently directed an increase in the staff that conducts
senior official investigations, military reprisal investigations, and
civilian reprisal investigations from their current level of 35 to 57
personnel.
In some very important respects we have not been timely in
responding to requests from Congress and the Department. If confirmed,
I will ensure that we continue to improve interaction with
congressional members and staff to better define and scope reviews that
are responsive and have realistic timelines.
financial auditing in the department of defense
3. Senator McCain. Mr. Heddell, in April 2009, the head of the
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) Plan indicated that it
took a total of 300 auditors to complete the audit of the Army Corps of
Engineers. There were 200 auditors on site at one time. An audit of the
Defense Information Systems Agency required 67 people. Given that the
Army Corps of Engineers has $54 billion in assets and liabilities, it
is unimaginable how many auditors it will take to complete an audit of
DOD with a total of $3.8 trillion in assets and liabilities. The head
of the FIAR Plan was a former audit partner at Price Waterhouse
Coopers, and she believes that DOD Office of the IG (DOD OIG) doesn't
have the capability or audit expertise to conduct an audit of the
entire DOD. What is the current capability of your audit staff in
performing a financial audit for DOD?
Mr. Heddell. The DOD IG currently has the expertise and capacity
with the assistance of independent public accountants (IPA) firms to
audit those segments of DOD whose financial statements are audit ready.
The audit-ready segments include the USACE and two trust fund accounts
that represent approximately 38 percent of the assets and liabilities
reported on the DOD Agency-wide Financial Statements. The USACE audit
was conducted with the assistance of an IPA firm and DOD IG provided
the oversight required by audit standards and issued the audit opinion.
The financial statement audits of the Military Trust Fund and Medicare
Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund are both contracted with IPA firms
and overseen by DOD OIG. However, given the wide range of audit
responsibilities we currently have, the sheer number of auditors that
would be needed to audit the financial statements of the entire
Department precludes the DOD IG from conducting these audits without
contractor assistance. Based on the FIAR plan estimates, current audit
efforts, and known future audits, we estimate that by the year 2018, we
may need at least 1,400 auditors (DOD IG auditors and IPA auditors) to
audit the financial statements of the entire Department. This estimate
does not include other audits of smaller components not tracked by the
FIAR. Currently, the Defense Business Operations Directorate of the DOD
OIG has approximately 300 auditors on staff, not nearly the number
needed for the audits included in the FIAR. We recognized this issue in
fiscal year 2003 and determined at that point the DOD IG would need to
contract IPA firms to complete this work. Since fiscal year 2005, we
have been effectively utilizing this approach and providing the
necessary oversight to the IPA firms to meet audit standards.
4. Senator McCain. Mr. Heddell, to what extent is the DOD OIG
staffed with people who have sufficient experience in performing
financial audits?
Mr. Heddell. DOD IG does have the necessary experience to conduct
financial statement audits. In developing our audit approach in 2003,
the DOD IG realized it would take both government auditors with
extensive knowledge of DOD's complex financial management operations
and numerous IPA firms with financial statement expertise to audit the
DOD Financial Statements. The issue we are confronted with is the
volume of auditors needed to complete these large-scale audits within
Congressionally-mandated timeframes. Even if we were to decide today
that we should hire additional auditors to complete these audits, there
would not be a sufficient pool of experienced auditors to pull from.
The best option is for the DOD IG to hire and oversee IPA firms to
complete these audits. This option gives us not only the flexibility of
expanding and contracting the workforce based on demand, but also
allows the DOD IG to maintain responsibility over the audit work that
is being done so all of that work can eventually be rolled into a DOD
Agency-Wide opinion.
5. Senator McCain. Mr. Heddell, what is your long-term plan for
staff in that regard, i.e., to what extent does the OIG intend to ramp
up its auditing capability by the 2017 deadline?
Mr. Heddell. The DOD IG each year reviews its financial statement
audit strategy including the progress that DOD is making to improve its
financial management and move toward auditability. DOD IG recognizes
the financial statements are by-products of having well defined
financial management processes and procedures. Continued improvements
in DOD financial management including enhanced internal controls and
processes will ultimately lead to DOD producing financial information
that is reliable and statements that are auditable. At this time, DOD
IG is devoting a significant portion of its resources to auditing
various internal controls and financial processes in the Military
Department's and a few agencies. These audits provide an in-depth
review of the entity's financial operations and allow us to make
recommendations that, once fully implemented, will significantly
improve DOD financial management. As DOD implements our recommendations
and further improves its financial management operations, the
Department will become more auditable. Consequently, the DOD IG will
shift its resources to auditing the financial statement rather than
focusing on the processes that produced the financial statements. The
DOD IG has a growth plan that will increase the staff by 34. That plan,
if funded, will allow us to grow as needed to support the large
contracting effort.
6. Senator McCain. Mr. Heddell, within a reasonably foreseeable
period, will the DOD OIG be capable of conducting the audit for DOD or
would DOD be better served by having independent external auditors
conduct the audit?
Mr. Heddell. The current plan for the DOD IG does not include the
DOD IG conducting the DOD Agency-wide financial statement audit without
contracting with multiple IPA firms. Our experience has shown that
using IPA firms to perform much of the financial statement audit work
under DOD IG oversight is an efficient and effective way of
accomplishing this challenging task. The current DOD IG strategy is for
our auditors to oversee multiple IPA firms that would conduct the
various financial statement audits making up the DOD Agency-wide
financial statement audit. This approach allows us to use our current
and forecasted audit resources to audit the DOD financial statements
and meet our other mission requirements efficiently and effectively.
health care fraud
7. Senator McCain. Mr. Heddell, you indicated in your response to
the committee's advance policy questions that you were involved in
investigating the recent case involving $100 million in fraudulent
claims against the TRICARE program in the Philippines. What is your
assessment of the extent of potential fraud and abuse on the
Department's $47 billion a year health care program?
Mr. Heddell. The Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), the
criminal investigative arm of DOD OIG, conducted the referenced
investigation. As a result of DCIS' efforts, Health Visions Corporation
was ordered to liquidate assets and pay over $101 million in fines and
penalties. Thomas Lutz, Health Vision's chief executive officer, was
sentenced to 60 months incarceration and was ordered to pay fines in
excess of $99 million. At present time, this criminal judgment
represents the single largest TRICARE-related recovery in the history
of the Department of Justice (DOJ).
It is difficult to estimate the extent to which fraud and abuse
impact the Department's health care program; however, Americans spend
more than $1 trillion each year on health care, and according to the
Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), 3 to 10 percent of total public
and private health care program expenditures consist of fraudulent
billings (FBI Financial Crimes Report to the Public, Fiscal Year 2007).
If confirmed as IG, I will continue to dedicate resources to
countering fraud, waste, and abuse impacting the TRICARE system.
8. Senator McCain. Mr. Heddell, is this an issue that has received
appropriate management attention within the Department and if not, what
would you propose to do differently if confirmed as the IG?
Mr. Heddell. As previously mentioned, Audit and Investigative
components within the DOD IG devote resources to counter fraud that
impacts the TRICARE program. IG representatives continue to work
closely with TRICARE's Management Activity to strengthen program
controls in an attempt to significantly reduce waste and abuse.
Additionally, representatives from the DOD IG and the DOJ continue
to work closely with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs in an attempt to strengthen TRICARE program controls.
DOD management is focused on the challenge of delivering improved
health care while attempting to control costs. Preventing and detecting
the impact of health care fraud on the TRICARE system will continue to
be a major part of this challenge. If confirmed as IG, I will make
every effort to ensure the DOD IG is capable of meeting this
significant challenge.
______
[The nomination reference of Gordon S. Heddell follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 1, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Gordon S. Heddell, of the District of Columbia, to be Inspector
General, Department of Defense, vice Claude M. Kicklighter, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Gordon S. Heddell, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
------
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Gordon S.
Heddell in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Gordon S. Heddell (nicknames: Gar, Gordie).
2. Position to which nominated:
Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, Department of
Defense.
3. Date of nomination:
June 1, 2009.
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 13, 1943; St. Louis, MO.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married (but separated) to Jana K. (West) Heddell.
7. Names and ages of children:
Kerri E. Dudley, 33; Anthony S. Heddell, 30; Gordon W. Heddell, 28;
Katie A. Heddell, 23.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
University of Illinois (formerly Sangamon State University),
Springfield, Illinois, Masters Degree, 1975.
University of Missouri, 1961-1965 and 1970-1971, BA Political
Science.
Forest Park Community College, St Louis, MO, 1965-1966.
Washington University, St Louis, MO, 1965-1966.
Festus R-6 Public High School, Festus, MO, 1957-1961.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Acting Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Defense, Arlington, VA, July 2008-Present.
Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Labor, Washington, DC, 2001-Present.
Assistant Director, Office of Inspection, U.S. Secret Service,
Washington, DC, 1998-December 2000.
Entered U.S. Secret Service in September 1971.
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.
Positions with the U.S. Secret Service:
Special Agent in Charge, Vice Presidential Protective
Division, 1995-1998.
Deputy Special Agent in Charge, Vice Presidential Protective
Division, 1993-1995.
Deputy Assistant Director, Office of Training, 1991-1993.
Deputy Assistant Director, Office of Inspection, 1989-1991.
Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Philadelphia Field Office,
1987-1989.
Assistant to Special Agent in Charge, Washington Field
Office, 1985-1987.
Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Office of Administration,
1982-1985.
Senior Special Agent, Liaison Division, 1981-1982.
Senior Special Agent, Vice Presidential Protective Division,
1976-1981.
Special Agent, Springfield Field Office, 1971-1976.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Professional: International Association of Chiefs of Police, Office
held (none), 1990-2006 (intermittent).
Civic and Charitable: Created active partnership with Dunbar High
School and Deal Junior High School to Assist Washington, DC, Inner city
public schools, 1993-1998, Office held (none)
Fraternal: Delta Upsilon Fraternity, Office Held (Vice President)
1964-1965, Member: 1962-Present.
Alumni Association: University of Illinois, Springfield, IL, Office
held (None), 1980-Present (Intermittent).
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.
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award (1997).
Woodrow Wilson Public Service Fellow (1994-2000).
Numerous Outstanding Annual Performance Ratings--U.S. Secret
Service.
Graduated ``First'' in Treasury Federal Law Enforcement Training
Academy Class (1971).
United States Army: Awarded Aviator Wings, Good Conduct Medal and
Army Commendation Medal.
Outstanding Graduate Award--Festus High School (1996).
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Journal of Public Inquiry, Editor in Chief, July 2008-Present (a
publication of the Inspectors General of the United States); article in
Journal (c) 2004 regarding labor racketeering and organized crime.
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.
As the acting Department of Defense Inspector General:
Speeches:
``All Hands Audit Employee Meeting'' in the Doubletree Hotel,
Arlington, VA, on October 14, 2008.
Fiscal Law Course at Wallace Theater, Fort Belvoir, VA, on January
13, 2009.
National Conference Center, Lansdowne, VA, January 26, 2009.
Emil Kabban's promotion ceremony, February 27, 2009.
Colonel Donald F. Thompson retirement ceremony on March 2, 2009.
Closing Remarks: Combatant Command and Joint IG Course at Fort
Belvoir, VA, March 27, 2009.
COCOM IG Conference on March 30, 2009.
DOD IG employees at the Annual Awards Ceremony, May 7, 2009.
Opening remarks at the Legion of Merit Award Ceremony for LTC John
Taylor, May 28, 2009.
Defense Acquisition University, June 2, 2009.
Retirement ceremony of Thomas F. Gimble, June 3, 2009.
Hearing Statements:
Gordon S. Heddell Acting Inspector General Department of Defense
before the Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations United
States House of Representatives on ``Department of Defense Outsourcing
February 26, 2008.
Gordon S. Heddell Acting Inspector General Department of Defense
before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
on Expediency Versus Integrity: Do Assembly Line Audits at the Defense
Contract Audit Agency Waste Taxpayer Dollars? September 9, 2008.
Gordon S. Heddell Acting Inspector General Department of Defense
before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on
``Maintenance of Electrical Systems in Facilities Occupied by Military
and Contractor Personnel in Iraq'', July 30, 2008.
Gordon S. Heddell Acting Inspector General Department of Defense
before the Senate Appropriations Committee on ``The effectiveness of
U.S. efforts to combat corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq'',
July 23, 2008.
Gordon Heddell Acting Inspector General Department of Defense
before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government
Reform Committee on ``DOD's experience with Circular A-76 competitions
and the specific context of the A-76 competition which privatized
Military Retired and Annuitant Pay functions, July 16, 2008.
As the Department of Labor Inspector General:
Speeches:
Los Angeles Audit Managers Conference, April 15, 2004.
Awards Dinner--Monday, May 17, 2004.
Managers Conference Philadelphia, PA, May 17, 2004.
OLRFI All Hands Meeting, San Diego, CA, July 12, 2004.
Managers Conference Phoenix, AZ, August 3, 2005, Leadership
Accomplishments Dinner
Closing Remarks Managers Conference, August 2005.
Association of Government Accountants Philadelphia, PA, November
16, 2005.
Welcoming Remarks by Gordon Heddell Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Labor to PCIE, 2005.
IG Forum at the National Academy of Public Administration, January
2006.
AGA Speech, February 2, 2006.
African-American History, February 27, 2006.
Closing Remarks by Department of Labor Inspector General Gordon S.
Heddell Inspectors General Symposium: Federal Employees' Compensation
Act (FECA) Program Building a Coordinated Approach to the IG
Community's FECA-Related Work, Wednesday, March 22, 2006.
Managers Conference, Dallas Leadership Accomplishments Dinner, May
8, 2006.
Opening Remarks, Gordon S. Heddell Inspector General OIG Leadership
and Training Conference Dallas, TX, May 8, 2006.
Managers Conference, August 2006.
Steven Law Farewell Reception, 2007.
Andrews Trucking Indictment, February 2007.
Gordon S. Heddell Inspector General Managers' Conference
Washington, DC, Leadership Accomplishments Reception, May 19, 2008.
Gordon S. Heddell Inspector General Managers Conference Washington,
DC, May 20, 2008.
Briefing to the PCIE.
Peer Review Update and Training.
Speech, University of Illinois.
Articles:
Gordon S. Heddell, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Labor. The
Evolution of Organized Crime and Labor Racketeering Corruption Fall/
Winter 2004-2005. The Journal of Public Inquiry.
Hearing Statements:
Statement of Gordon S. Heddell, Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Labor, before the Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on
Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental
Relations, U.S. House of Representatives, May 9, 2002.
Statement of Gordon S. Heddell, Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Labor, before the Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Human
Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, June 11, 2002.
Department of Labor Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request, Statement for
the Record for Office of Inspector General House Subcommittee on Labor-
HHS-Education Appropriations, Gordon S. Heddell, Inspector General.
Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Labor Fiscal Year
2005 Budget Request, Statement for the Record of Gordon S. Heddell,
Inspector General for the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human
Services, Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. House of Representatives, February 26, 2004.
U.S. Department of Labor, Statement by Gordon S. Heddell, Inspector
General, on Top Management Challenges Facing the U.S. Department of
Labor, Office of Inspector General, March 5, 2002.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to appear and testify before any duly constituted
committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Gordon S. Heddell.
This 8th day of June, 2009.
[The nomination of Gordon S. Heddell was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on June 18, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 10, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Dr. J. Michael Gilmore by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E)?
Answer. In my view, the principal responsibility of the DOT&E is to
ensure that the weapons and protective systems our men and women in the
Military Services must depend on will work in combat. I believe every
director must regard that responsibility as a special trust they
assume.
More specifically, the duties of the DOT&E are covered by statute.
I understand that, if confirmed, I would serve as the principal advisor
to the Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) for all operational
test and evaluation (T&E) within the Department. I would formulate and
implement policy for operational T&E and provide oversight of the
operational testing of major defense programs, major automated
information systems and other systems as I designate. I would be
required to provide Congress an Annual Report summarizing operational
T&E activities that includes comments and recommendations on
operational T&E resources, facilities, and funding. In addition to the
Annual Report, I would provide Beyond Low Rate Initial Production
Reports, Early Fielding Reports for systems that are urgently needed
and deployed before completion of initial operational testing, live-
fire Reports, an Annual Report on Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and
respond to requests from Congress. My duties would include
responsibility for prescribing policies and procedures for the conduct
of live-fire T&E and for monitoring, reviewing, and reporting on all
operational and live-fire T&E within the Department. I would also be
responsible for coordinating joint operational testing. I would review
and provide recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on all
budgetary and financial matters relating to operational and live-fire
T&E, including test facilities. In recent years, the authorities of the
DOT&E have been expanded to allow the assessment of the Ballistic
Missile Defense System (BMDS), the testing of Information Assurance
vulnerabilities, and oversight of Body Armor and other critical Force
Protection equipment being provided to our deployed forces.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I have 24 years of experience working with and for defense
industry, the Defense Department, and the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) analyzing the key drivers of operational effectiveness and costs
of defense programs. This experience, as well as my education and
training in science and engineering, give me the requisite perspective
and skills to provide Congress and the Secretary of Defense factual,
accurate assessments of the operational testing and evaluation of our
weapons systems, as well as objective recommendations derived from
those assessments. Furthermore, my experiences with the Defense
Department's Cost and Analysis Improvement Group and the CBO have given
me a strong appreciation of the value of independent, objective
analysis and reporting.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the DOT&E? If so, what
are they?
Answer. If confirmed, I would increase my familiarity with the
capabilities and limitations of the T&E infrastructure within the
Department of Defense (DOD) and with the many programs that DOT&E
oversees. I would establish productive and cooperative relationships
with the USD(AT&L), the new Director, Developmental Test and Evaluation
(D,DT&E), the new Director, Systems Engineering, the Director of
Defense Research and Engineering (D,DR&E), the Director, Cost Analysis
and Program Evaluation, the Director, Test Resource Management Center
(TRMC), the Military Departments' Operational Test Agencies and the
Service Acquisition Executives. I would visit test facilities and
witness the conduct of operational testing and live-fire testing to
increase my understanding of the complexities and difficulties inherent
in conducting testing. I would work with the test community, the
acquisition community, the Joint Staff, and the combatant commanders to
help ensure effective and suitable weapons systems are provided as
quickly as possible to the warfighter.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of Defense will assign to you?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect Secretary Gates would assign me all
of the duties, functions, and responsibilities currently mandated by
law and specified in the Department's directives for the position of
DOT&E.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the DOT&E?
Answer. I believe there are at least three important challenges
that the DOT&E currently faces. First, the office must continue to
strengthen the relationships it has established with rapid fielding
organizations. Strong relationships with these organizations will
enable DOT&E to provide oversight of and advice on testing that helps--
not hinders--the fulfillment of their objectives to provide immediate
help to our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen in the field.
Second, to implement the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009,
DOT&E must establish a productive relationship with the new D,DT&E to
assure that office is effective and robust. Third, DOT&E must help
assure that adequate resources--both personnel and modern
infrastructure--are available to the testing community to support the
goals of the Reform Act, including its provisions regarding
organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs).
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I would review the results of the oversight
that DOT&E has conducted of rapid fielding organizations and make
adjustments to it, as necessary, in consultation with each
organization's leadership. The extent to which DOT&E's oversight has
improved each organization's ability to accurately and quickly
characterize both the strengths and weaknesses of the capabilities they
field will be key to determining any changes that may be needed. I
would work with the D,DT&E to develop the practices that will
institutionalize the Department's new policy for conducting integrated
developmental and operational testing--that effort should provide a
natural mechanism for ensuring that office is effective and robust.
Finally, I would work with the USD(AT&L), the Under Secretary for
Personnel and Readiness, the D,DT&E, the Director of the Test Resources
Management Center, and the Director of Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation to assess resource needs for T&E as part of the development
of the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the DOT&E?
Answer. The assessments that DOT&E prepares and the test planning
in which it participates can be accomplished only if requirements for
systems are realistic, relevant, and testable. A recent Defense Science
Board Report identified deficient program requirements and inadequate
systems engineering plans as major contributors to poor acquisition
performance. Getting the requirements right and starting with a good
systems engineering plan that is executable are essential for
successful development and testing. Although DOT&E has implemented
initiatives in this area, more should be done.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to engage early in the requirements
and acquisition processes to address the above issues. Early on, I
would meet with the Joint Staff and the new Director, Systems
Engineering to assess current practices and develop appropriate
recommendations for change.
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' Test and Evaluation
organizations.
The Joint Requirements Oversight Council.
The Director of the Defense Test Resource Management Center.
The Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation.
The Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Office.
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs.
Answer. The Director's relationship with many of the foregoing
individuals is described or defined in regulation or policy documents.
If confirmed, I intend to follow those descriptions and develop strong
working relationships with all these officials. Particular examples of
how I would work with selected individuals include the following: To
help implement the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, as
well as to develop practices that institutionalize the conduct of
integrated developmental and operational testing, I anticipate that I
would be working particularly closely with the USD(AT&L), the new
D,DT&E, the executives of the Service acquisition organizations, and
the commanders of the Operational Test Agencies. I would also work with
these individuals, as well as the Director of the Defense TRMC, the
Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, the Under
Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, and the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, to assess resource needs for operational T&E during
development of the FYDP. I would work with the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation to provide data on system
reliability, availability, and maintainability, and any other data
derived from operational testing needed to assist in the preparation of
life-cycle cost estimates for acquisition programs. I would work with
the Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Office to
assist in conducting rapid testing confirming the effectiveness of
concepts and systems for use in ongoing operations.
independence and objectivity
Question. Congress established the position of 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 (P. L. 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 believe the credibility and effectiveness of the
organization depends upon both independence and objectivity. If
confirmed, I assure you that I will be independent and objective in my
evaluations and that I will provide candid assessments of the oversight
I conduct 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.
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 fully support the need for impartiality of testing
personnel. Section 2399 bars personnel employed by a contractor
involved in development or production of a system, from participating
in the operational testing of that system. Further, it prevents such
personnel from advising or providing assistance services, including
planning and subsequent data analysis, for the operational testing and
evaluation. The participation of contractors is only appropriate if
they are specifically intended to be part of the long-term system
support structure. Section 2399 allows for this exception. In my view,
section 2399 allows the flexibility to properly structure operational
testing and also properly provides for impartial contracted advisory
and assistance service.
Question. How will you maintain independence from the often
conflicting goals of the acquisition community and the mandates for
necessary operational testing?
Answer. The DOT&E authorities and responsibilities for operational
T&E and live-fire T&E set out in Title 10 USC, including direct
reporting of assessments to Congress and the Secretary of Defense, are
key to the office's ability to maintain its independence. If confirmed
I will faithfully meet those requirements. Maintaining DOT&E as an
independent organization with an independent budget is also essential.
test and evaluation funding
Question. Concern over long-term support for and viability of the
Department's test ranges and facilities led to creation of the Defense
TRMC in 2002 and a requirement for direct funding of T&E 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 do not now have insight to accurately evaluate how well
these changes are working. I am aware, however, that the TRMC is
responsible for determining the adequacy of the Service investment
budgets for T&E infrastructure. I understand that the Director of the
TRMC has generally, but not always, certified the adequacy of those
budgets. The services have the responsibility within the Department's
planning, programming, budgeting, and execution system to provide
funding for T&E facilities. I understand that proposals have been made
in the past to change where the budgeting authority resides. If
confirmed, I will explore the need for additional changes in the
methods the Department uses for managing its T&E facilities.
Question. Do you believe that the Department's T&E capabilities,
including infrastructure and workforce, are adequately funded?
Answer. I do not now have sufficient insight into the details of
the T&E budgets and current and projected needs for conducting T&E to
make an informed assessment of the adequacy of current funding. I am
concerned, however, that historical budget and policy trends, and
increasing demands for testing, may have caused shortfalls in testing
resources relative to needs. If confirmed, I would examine this issue
carefully and work within the Department's planning, programming,
budgeting, and execution system to assess the adequacy of funding for
T&E and to develop alternatives for consideration as part of the
preparation of the FYDP.
Question. Do you believe that the Department's T&E capabilities,
including infrastructure and workforce, are adequate to perform the
full range of T&E responsibilities of DOD weapons systems and
equipment?
Answer. The DOT&E fiscal year 2008 Annual Report suggests that
further investment is necessary to modernize T&E capabilities. More
generally, I am concerned that historical budget and policy trends, and
increasing demands for testing, may result in shortfalls in testing
capabilities relative to needs. If confirmed, I would work within the
Department's planning, programming, budgeting, and execution system to
assess the adequacy of T&E capabilities and to develop alternatives for
consideration as part of the preparation of the FYDP.
Question. What are your views about the importance of accurately
projecting future test facility resource requirements and budgeting for
these needs?
Answer. In my view, T&E needs should be accurately reflected in the
TRMC's DOD Strategic Plan for T&E Resources. If confirmed, I will work
to ensure early involvement of DOT&E in identifying these needs for
inclusion in that Strategic Plan, and later in the T&E strategies and
Master Plans prepared for individual programs. Accurately defining
these resources is essential in ensuring a program is executable at
inception. Such projections also support and justify Service planning,
programming, and budgeting for T&E assets and are needed by DOT&E and
other members of the test community in developing program alternatives
for consideration during preparation of the FYDP.
Question. How will the sufficiency of investments in test resources
and workforces be factored into your assessments and review of proposed
test plans and schedules for acquisition programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I would ensure that adequate test resourcing
was always a consideration in every test program and any shortfalls are
identified in test documentation. My approval of Test and Evaluation
Master Plans (TEMP) and Test Plans would be contingent upon the
availability of adequate test resources. Should a test resource
shortfall impose unacceptable limitations on test adequacy, I would
ensure it was corrected or would objectively report on the inability to
adequately test the system.
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. If confirmed, I will work with the Director, TRMC, and the
Component Operational Test Agencies to evaluate workforce issues,
including the adequacy of the size of the operational testing workforce
and the skills resident in its members. Based on the results of that
evaluation, I would make recommendations for consideration within the
Department's planning, programming, budgeting, and execution system.
office of the director of operational test and evaluation
Question. How would you assess the adequacy of resources provided
to the Office of the DOT&E given the missions and responsibilities of
the office?
Answer. I am aware DOT&E has added personnel in response to its
increasing workload. If confirmed, I would review the total
responsibilities of the office in light of the recent acquisition
reform legislation--including its provisions regarding OCIs--and the
Secretary's direction to speed fielding of critical equipment to the
combat forces. After this review, if additional personnel and funding
are needed, I would work within the Department's planning, programming,
budgeting, and execution system to address those needs.
Question. In your view, does the DOT&E have sufficient support from
federally-funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) and other
contractors to support designated missions?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to familiarize myself with
any deficiencies or other problems that DOT&E may be experiencing with
contractor support. However, I understand from DOT&E's annual reports
that its workload has been increasing. For example, the Secretary has
delegated to DOT&E responsibility to provide oversight of the testing
of critical equipment, such as body armor, being provided to our forces
currently deployed in the field. The potential for increased workload
within DOT&E to implement the Department's revised policies for
integrated developmental and operational testing also exists because
those policies require DOT&E to be involved earlier and more
substantively in planning and monitoring testing. If confirmed, I will
review DOT&E's current and projected workloads in each of its
functional areas to determine if shortfalls in manpower exist that
could be filled either by contractor support or government personnel.
If shortfalls exist, I would consider whether additional contractor
support would be the best method to fill them and what type of
contractor support would be appropriate. However, with the
consolidation of the Defense industrial base since the Cold War, I
understand it has become increasingly difficult to identify contractors
without either real or perceived OCIs.
Additionally, the provisions of the Weapon Systems Acquisition
Reform Act regarding OCIs (which I strongly support) could make
identifying such contractors even more difficult, requiring greater
reliance on either government personnel or FFRDCs. Thus, in deciding on
the best method to fill support shortfalls, I would need to consider
the extent to which the manpower ceilings currently imposed by law on
FFRDCs and increasing demand for using that constrained set of
resources might limit the availability of FFRDC support to DOT&E.
Question. In your view, does the DOT&E's current workforce
represent the correct mix between government and contractor personnel?
Answer. The Secretary has decided that the Department should
increase its use of government personnel providing in-house expertise
and rely less on contractors. Moreover, I understand the need for DOT&E
to deal appropriately with real or perceived OCIs, which also affects
the mix of government and contractor personnel appropriate for use by
the office. If confirmed, I will review the balance among DOT&E's
government personnel and its use of contractors and FFRDCs, in the
context of the office's future workload, its need to deal appropriately
with OCIs, and its need to have in-house, government expertise.
Question. Does the DOT&E need any special personnel authorities,
such as those available to Defense Advanced Research Project Agency
(DARPA), medical personnel, service academies, or defense laboratories,
to attract, recruit, and retain the workforce needed to perform
designated missions?
Answer. I am unaware of any special personnel authorities needed by
DOT&E at this time. If confirmed, I will consider the potential need
for such authorities in conjunction with reviewing DOT&E's needs for
both contractor support and government personnel.
operational and developmental testing
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. The T&E community should be involved with both the
requirements community and the system developers during early stages of
the Materiel Solution Analysis to develop an evaluation strategy that
can be reflected in the request for proposals. These relationships
should continue during technology development, with emphasis shifting
to evaluation of competitive prototypes, refinement of T&E strategies,
and review of technology readiness assessments. During this phase,
detailed T&E activities should be planned, resourced, and documented in
a TEMP that is reviewed and approved by both the USD(AT&L) and DOT&E.
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. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the
acquisition community--in particular the new D,DT&E--to develop the
practices needed to institutionalize the Department's guidance to
conduct integrated operational and developmental testing. Conducting
integrated testing as early as possible will foster earlier discovery
and learning, and less costly correction of the deficiencies that are
discovered. I also believe that implementing the provision in the
Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 requiring the D,DR&E to
work with the D,DT&E to demonstrate technology readiness prior to
making major program commitments (that is, before Milestone B) will
reduce risks. If confirmed, I will seek opportunities to work with
those two officials to assist them in developing the practices needed
to implement the act's provision, including incorporating operational
realism in testing conducted prior to Milestone B.
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 your views on the current relationship between
developmental and operational testing?
Answer. Recent changes to testing policy require Integrated
Testing, which is the collaborative planning and execution of testing,
with independent evaluation of test data. I believe that with
Integrated Testing, the operational test community can help add rigor
and operational realism to developmental T&E. This will help make
developmental testing a period of discovery and operational testing a
period of confirmation.
Question. Do you believe there is value in involving the
operational T&E community in providing input into developmental testing
and, if so, at what point should that process begin?
Answer. I see tremendous value in involving the operational T&E
community in both developmental testing and requirements generation. I
applaud the recent Integrated Testing efforts the Department has
initiated to make testing as seamless as possible throughout the
acquisition process. It is my understanding that DOT&E played a key
role in this initiative. The operational T&E community should help make
early testing as realistic as possible, allowing identification and
correction of deficiencies earlier in the design process when those
deficiencies are less expensive to correct.
Question. When is it appropriate for developmental and operational
testing to be combined?
Answer. It is appropriate to combine developmental and operational
testing when the objectives of both evaluations can be reasonably met.
This may provide shared data at a reduced cost and on a shorter
schedule.
adaptation of t&e to evolving acquisition strategies
Question. 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 and evaluation?
Answer. It is my understanding the time consumed by operational
testing is usually only a small percentage of the overall acquisition
cycle time. Program delays in readying for operational testing usually
are much longer than the time frame of the operational test itself.
Because operational testing occurs near the end of the acquisition
cycle, there can be great 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 and at less
cost.
Question. What requirements and criteria would you propose to
ensure an effective T&E program is established for an evolutionary
acquisition program?
Answer. An evolutionary acquisition strategy requires a T&E process
incorporating a distinct set of testable objectives for each phase of
the evolutionary program. If the system resulting from completion of a
phase will be used in the field, those objectives should be related
directly and clearly to how operators will use it; that is, to
operational requirements. In my view, it is very important that the
progress achieved in completing each phase of an evolutionary
acquisition program (or, for that matter, of any program) be judged
based upon rigorous testing incorporating appropriate operational
realism, not dictated by a pre-set schedule. If a system that results
from the completion of a particular evolutionary phase is to be
deployed for use in the field, it should undergo operational testing
and live-fire testing and evaluation before it is produced and fielded
in large quantities. An evolutionary T&E process recognizes the results
of developmental and operational testing conducted for previous spirals
can be incorporated in testing subsequent spirals, as appropriate,
thereby potentially reducing the time and effort needed to test later
spirals. Thus, it is important that provisions be made for archiving
data resulting from testing each spiral to allow for that data's re-
use.
Question. Recent equipment problems have brought to light potential
testing deficiencies resulting from the fielding of systems that fell
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 that critical equipment being
fielded is effective, safe, and suitable for our military to take into
combat?
Answer. Title 10, via delegation from the Secretary of Defense, now
gives the DOT&E authority to designate any program for live-fire T&E
oversight. I understand that DOT&E is working with the Services to
compile a list of critical equipment programs that should be made
subject to oversight under this authority. If confirmed, I would
complete the compilation of this list and exercise oversight over the
programs on it to assure critical equipment is adequately tested and
objectively evaluated for effectiveness, suitability, and
survivability. I would provide my independent assessments of those
tests to Congress and the Department's leadership in a timely manner.
The equipment's safety would be a key criterion determining my
assessment of its suitability. I would periodically review the list of
programs placed on this list for completeness and continued need for
DOT&E oversight and adjust the list, as appropriate.
Question. What are your views on the testing and evaluation of
systems under spiral development?
Answer. I view the needs for effective T&E of systems under spiral
development as similar to those for effective T&E of an evolutionary
acquisition program. It is important that systems under spiral
development have an early T&E strategy and complementary T&E processes
that identify a distinct set of testable objectives for each spiral.
Each spiral can then be tested against those objectives and progress in
development, including whether the program should proceed to the next
``spiral,'' determined using the results of those tests. As in all
programs, testing of systems under spiral development should
incorporate as much operational realism as soon as possible in a robust
developmental testing program. If a system that results from the
completion of a particular ``spiral'' of development is to be deployed
for use in the field, it should undergo appropriate operational testing
and live-fire testing and evaluation before it is produced and fielded
in large quantities. The results of developmental (and any operational
testing) conducted for previous spirals can be incorporated in testing
subsequent spirals, as appropriate, potentially reducing the time and
effort required for testing later spirals. Thus, it is important that
provisions be made for archiving data resulting from testing each
spiral to allow for that data's re-use.
Question. Do you believe that follow-on operational testing and
evaluation should be required for each program spiral?
Answer. In my view, the significance of the changes made to a
system's capability should determine the need for follow-on operational
testing and live-fire testing. Substantial enchancements in combat
capability would require follow-on operational testing and assessment.
If follow-on testing is conducted, it should take advantage of data
collected from testing done for previous spirals, as appropriate.
Question. How should Service and Agency test organizations project
future resource requirements given the uncertainty of testing demand
given urgent operational needs and rapid fielding and development
initiatives?
Answer. The Services should integrate resource requirements for T&E
into their projected program plans for rapid fielding and development
initiatives. Because resource demands may change rapidly and
unexpectedly as the size and character of ongoing operations evolves,
the Services will need to re-evaluate their plans on a continual basis.
Accomplishing these re-evaluations will require close consultation
among operators, developers, and the Service Operational Test Agencies.
If confirmed, I will help facilitate this consultation.
Question. How will you improve the oversight that the DOT&E has
over the activities of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Office, the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task Force,
and other rapid fielding organizations?
Answer. I regard DOT&E involvement in assisting these organizations
as a high priority. I believe that DOT&E must provide early advice to
and conduct continual consultation with these organizations to provide
oversight that helps--not hinders--the fulfillment of their objectives.
I understand that DOT&E has established interfaces with these
organizations and is using those interfaces to oversee their testing
activities. If I am confirmed, I will review the results of that
oversight and make adjustments to it, as necessary, in consultation
with each organization's leadership. The extent to which DOT&E's
oversight has improved each organization's ability to accurately and
quickly characterize both the strengths and weaknesses of the
capabilities they field will be key to determining any changes that may
be needed.
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 believe that testing should be combined with scheduled
training exercises in selected instances when it is feasible and when
careful, advance planning can and has been conducted. Combined testing
and training events can benefit testing through the presence of more
realistic friendly and threat forces conducting operations in a
broader, more varied context than would otherwise be the case in
standalone testing. This additional realism can be used to
simultaneously exercise modes of equipment operation that might not be
possible or would be difficult to arrange on test ranges. For example,
testing combined with joint force training exercises can offer unique
opportunities to discover interoperability problems. Live, virtual, and
constructive environments should all offer opportunities for combined
testing and training.
Question. What are the barriers, if any, to doing so?
Answer. There may be differences in the needs and goals of the
testing and training communities that prevent both groups from
achieving their objectives with a single event. Synchronizing schedules
can be a problem, as training events are usually scheduled well in
advance, and test events, although scheduled in advance, have a history
of slippage due to development delays. I understand that the test
community often requires that data be collected using methods not
normally associated with a training exercise; in some cases those
methods could be disruptive to achieving training objectives. Combining
testing and training can also introduce the need to train military
personnel from the field who are participating in an exercise to
operate the new equipment under development to be tested while using
tactics they are unfamiliar with. This can increase the cost and
complexity of planning and execution for both the testing and training
communities.
Question. How can training and testing ranges be used more jointly
and efficiently?
Answer. My review of publicly available DOT&E reports indicates
that the Services frequently share the use of test ranges and other
testing and evaluation infrastructure. Additionally, those reports
indicate that testing is often conducted on ranges that are also
utilized for training. I also understand that there is increasing
competition for the use of both types of ranges. This trend, in
conjunction with the concerns expressed in DOT&E's annual reports
regarding shortfalls in both capability and capacity at the
Department's testing ranges, indicates that more efficient, joint use
of both types of ranges is needed whether or not additional resources
are provided to modernize these ranges. If confirmed, I will work with
the Service Operational Test Agencies and the Joint Staff to determine
how test and training ranges can be used more efficiently and jointly
and make appropriate recommendations.
``system of systems'' testing
Question. What inherent challenges exist for operational testing
with regard to DOD programs that are a part of an overall ``system of
systems''?
Answer. The large number of individual components of a ``system of
systems'' and the wide span of military capabilities those components
provide pose challenges to operational testing. For example, the Army's
Future Combat Systems (FCS) program was to be composed of 14 individual
systems (ranging from manned ground vehicles to robotic vehicles to
unmanned aerial systems) linked together by an information network.
Considering the network, a realistic operational test would exercise
all the potential linkages among all fourteen systems simultaneously.
The information flow across the linkages would be realistic only if it
were as large as would be expected if all fourteen elements were
deployed and operating in numbers consistent with their employment in a
brigade combat team. Testing would need to incorporate the network
interruptions, dynamic establishment and dis-establishment of
communications links, and other complications expected during combat in
complex terrain. Adding consideration of the testing needs for other
elements of FCS indicates that realistic operational testing of this
``system of systems'' would present unprecedented challenges in test
planning, assembly of equipment, training of operators, simultaneous
presentation of the multiple, disparate threats needed to stress each
FCS element, and simultaneous collection of multiple flows of data. The
use of modeling and simulation might mitigate these challenges somewhat
(the development and verification of the simulations would also be
complex), but would not eliminate them. These challenges are present in
testing the BMDS and any other ``system of systems.''
Question. How should a ``system of systems'' be tested to assess
the effectiveness of the whole system?
Answer. Constraints on the environments that can be created in test
ranges will probably require that operational testing of systems of
systems comprise a combination of ``open air'' testing of the system's
components on ranges--alone and in combination--in conjunction with
modeling and simulation. Careful planning of ``open-air'' tests will be
required so that selected aspects of the performance of individual
components can be demonstrated and all the data needed to verify,
validate, and accredit the models to be used is collected. The
combination of open-air testing and modeling should be constructed to
stress and exercise all the system's components under the full set of
operational conditions to be expected. According to recent testimony to
Congress by DOT&E, this is the approach that the Director of the
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is attempting to use in planning the
testing conducted on the BMDS ``System of Systems.''
testing of information systems
Question. What are the major unique challenges to the testing of
information systems?
Answer. I believe the major challenges to testing information
systems can be grouped into three areas: interoperability, information
assurance, and sustainment. The overwhelming majority of the
Department's information systems are expected to exchange information,
or network, with a variety of other systems. Development and testing of
systems that can all be simultaneously evolving poses configuration
management challenges. For example, a data link system may have to
operate with an aircraft's mission computer and display systems as well
as with the decision and display systems in command centers ashore or
afloat. Second, realistic information assurance testing must account
for the rapidly maturing and the ever-changing cyber threat. Even with
a modular architecture, introduction of new software code can
potentially introduce new system vulnerabilities. Third, the rapid pace
at which industry has upgraded the commercial hardware and software
that underpin DOD systems, challenges the Department's ability to
successfully integrate, test, and field updates.
Question. What role do you believe DOT&E should play in testing of
major automated information systems and other enterprise information
systems?
Answer. I believe that DOT&E should continue to exercise oversight
of the testing of major automated information systems and enterprise
information systems to help ensure that users are delivered the systems
they need to accomplish their missions around the world. DOT&E should
ensure that these systems are operationally effective and suitable when
operated by typical users in an operationally realistic environment.
Among other considerations, this means that testing should exercise
under realistic loading all the linkages among these systems expected
in operational use. According to DOT&E's annual reports, testing of
linkages between new and legacy systems under realistic loads has a
history of revealing unanticipated problems; thus, this testing should
be accomplished as early as possible in the development of these
systems.
Question. Are you satisfied with the Department's capabilities to
test and evaluate information systems, including embedded software?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to carefully review all of
the Department's capabilities to test and evaluate information systems.
If confirmed, I will review this area carefully to ensure adequate
testing and evaluation is being performed.
Question. What role, if any, should commercial sector testing play
in the Department's testing and evaluation of commercial information
systems that are being modified to support defense needs?
Answer. I believe that commercial sector testing can make a
significant contribution in the overall T&E process. The use of third
party commercial testing could be particularly useful in development,
where it might offer test resources that are not available within the
Department.
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 T&E community of the Department possess adequate
expertise, staffing, and funding to carry out its IA responsibilities?
Answer. I currently do not have sufficient insight into the
information assurance capabilities of the T&E community to provide an
accurate and objective assessment of the adequacy of those
capabilities. I am concerned, however, that the same trends in funding
and policy that led Secretary Gates to direct that additional
government civilian employees be hired might have adversely affected
the government's T&E workforce overall, as well as in this particular
area. The adequacy of the Department's expertise and staffing in
information assurance is of particular concern to me because of the
competition for people with these skills across the government, as well
as in the private sector. If confirmed, I will examine this issue
carefully in order to make an informed assessment and recommendation.
Question. What are the major challenges that you see in operational
testing of information assurance systems?
Answer. My impression is that there are two related challenges in
the operational testing of information assurance for both development
and fielded systems. For systems in development, a key challenge is to
adequately emulate the operational environment in a secure test
facility so that developers can assess the system's performance when it
is exposed to realistic, sophisticated threats. For fielded systems,
significant operational and security challenges arise in portraying
realistic threats against live systems on networks being used for
operational and training missions.
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. I believe so. The recent testing of the Mobile Gun System,
mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles, and Body Armor
overseen, assessed, and independently reported by DOT&E illustrate the
value of robust live-fire testing. DOT&E reports also indicate live-
fire testing plays an important role in assessing a system's overall
effectiveness and suitability.
Question. What are the major challenges facing the live-fire
testing program?
Answer. I believe that conducting adequate testing early enough to
improve a system's design without the need for costly changes and
retrofits is a key challenge for both operational testing, as well as
live-fire testing. Specific examples of challenges related to live-fire
testing of which I am aware appear in the DOT&E annual report. That
report expresses a concern with the elimination of vulnerability
reduction features on the Joint Strike Fighter made to reduce weight
during trade space analysis conducted on the aircraft's systems. If
this reaction to weight growth in aircraft design foreshadows a more
widespread trend, it would be extremely troubling. Similarly, I
understand that full-ship shock trials of Navy ships are increasingly
constrained by environmental considerations.
Question. What is the Department's role, if any, in the research,
development, and acquisition process with respect to live-fire testing
for Preliminary Design Model tests, First Article Tests, and Lot
Acceptance Tests?
Answer. The Department's role in these tests normally associated
with Personal Protection Equipment varies by the nature of the test.
Preliminary Design Model tests, typically utilized to screen viable
systems before making contract awards, are a responsibility of the
acquisition or program manager. In my view, First Article Testing is
inherently governmental, as it qualifies a design and leads to full
rate production contracts and fielding of equipment. The authorities
contained in 2009 National Defense Authorization Act enable the
Department to exercise oversight of this testing in a manner similar to
the DOT&E authorities for operational testing. Lot Acceptance Testing
is in many respects an extension of First Article Testing, in that it
supports the acquisition of specific lots of the design qualified in
First Article Testing. In my view, government oversight of these tests
should focus on ensuring that common standards are used to conduct
them.
Question. Is live-fire testing to determine if weapons systems,
vehicles, or personal protective equipment meets military and contract
specifications for procurement an inherently governmental function, a
function that can be outsourced, or a function that can use a mix of
government and commercial facilities?
Answer. I believe testing that leads to production decisions is
inherently governmental and should be conducted by the Services at
government facilities. This is the norm and typically a requirement for
all major acquisition programs. This fundamental practice should also
be applied to critical personal equipment such as body armor and
helmets. The Services must be provided sufficient resources to conduct
this level of testing. I note the recent Army policy letter that
requires all body armor testing to be conducted by their operational
test agency. This is a reasonable policy and does allow for the use of
commercial facilities if needed for subsequent lot testing. I agree
with the recent report by the defense Inspector General that documented
the need for adequate government oversight if testing is conducted at
commercial facilities.
modeling and simulation
Question. Advances in modeling and simulation have provided an
opportunity to streamline the testing process, saving time and expense.
What do you believe to be the proper balance between modeling and
simulation and actual testing of the developed product?
Answer. Modeling and Simulation (M&S) can contribute to the
assessment of system performance, particularly to explore the full
range of system operation where live, ``open-air'' testing would be
unsafe or is impractical. M&S is also useful as a tool to help plan the
test program. However, M&S should be utilized to complement, rather
than replace, operational testing in a realistic environment.
Additionally, sufficient operational testing should still be performed
to adequately validate and accredit any models used. This is often the
greatest challenge.
Question. Are there areas in modeling and simulation that need to
be advanced in order to improve its utility as a tool for operational
and developmental testing?
Answer. I am not aware of any specific areas at this time. However,
if I am confirmed I will review the use of modeling and simulation in
operational testing and make recommendations for improvements to the
testing community, as appropriate.
t&e science and technology
Question. What are your views on the appropriate level of
investment in the science and technology (S&T) of testing?
Answer. I believe strongly in the need for a robust S&T effort to
support T&E. This effort should be a part of and consistent with the
overall S&T investment strategy of the Department.
Question. What mechanisms will you employ to ensure the S&T
portfolio is responsive to the Department's future test instrumentation
needs?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the USD(AT&L)
and his subordinate organizations, such as the Director of the TRMC, to
ensure that the projects funded in the S&T portfolio support the
Department's future instrumentation needs. I am particularly interested
in assuring that the S&T program supports the development and fielding
of embedded instrumentation that can be used by testers, trainers, and
operator maintainers. Therefore, I would work with AT&L to develop
alternatives that provide adequate resources for the associated S&T
activities as part of the development of the FYDP.
Question. What areas should the Department's S&T program be
investing in to improve the quality of current and future testing
capabilities?
Answer. The emerging concepts the Department is pursuing involving
urban operations, directed energy, chem-bio, chemical weapons effects,
hypersonics, netcentric systems, and unmanned/autonomous systems will
all likely require advances in test range instrumentation and other
capabilities for conducting both developmental and operational testing.
The need for these advances may already be included in the TRMC's
strategic plan for the Department's T&E resources. If confirmed, I
would work closely with the Director of TRMC in this area.
operational test agencies
Question. Operational Test Agencies (OTAs) 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. I am not aware of any specific staffing shortfalls at this
time. I am concerned, however, that the long-term trends that caused
Secretary Gates to direct that the government workforce be increased,
in conjunction with increasing workload, may have created shortfalls.
If confirmed, this is an area that I will explore in greater detail.
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 and funded to meet
testing requirements. If confirmed, I will only approve TEMPs and test
plans that are executable within available resources.
Question. Do you have any concerns about the independence of the
OTAs?
Answer. There will always likely be concerns regarding the
independence of the OTAs. If confirmed, I will be vigilant to protect
their independence. I believe that the OTAs should report to the top of
their Service leadership, independent of the Service acquisition
organizations.
Question. Should policies and procedures of the OTAs be
standardized across DOD?
Answer. Each of the component OTAs has processes for the conduct of
OT&E that are tailored to their organizational construct and the kinds
of systems they must evaluate. As long as these processes lead to
robust operational T&Es, I do not believe DOT&E should dictate standard
processes that may limit component flexibility. I do, however, believe
the capability to develop, test, train, and experiment with complex
systems in a Joint operational environment needs improvement. If
confirmed, I will work with the combatant commands, Joint Forces
Command, Service Leadership, and the component OTAs to improve our
abilities to test and evaluate in a realistic joint operational
environment and make appropriate recommendations for any changes needed
in policies and procedures.
ballistic missile defense
Question. The United States is developing and fielding a BMDS that
is intended to defend the United States, its allies, and friends
against rogue nation ballistic missiles of all ranges in an
operationally effective and cost-effective manner.
Can you assure the committee that, if confirmed, you will evaluate
the testing of the BMDS, and that you will make a determination of
whether the system and its elements that are tested are effective,
survivable, and suitable for combat?
Answer. Yes. DOT&E provides an annual report covering all DOD
oversight programs, including the BMDS, as well as a separate annual
assessment report of the BMDS to Congress. If confirmed, I will
continue to assess BMDS system operational effectiveness, suitability,
and survivability and test adequacy in these reports.
Question. If you determine that such testing and evaluation is not
adequate, or does not demonstrate that the BMDS or its elements are
effective and suitable, or survivable, will you inform Congress of that
determination?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will provide my frank and objective
assessments of test adequacy and BMDS system and element effectiveness,
suitability, and survivability.
Question. According to title 10, U.S.C., Major Defense Acquisition
Programs are required to complete Initial OT&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. DOD had previously 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. There were also no plans
or requirements for operational test and valuation of the BMDS or its
elements.
Do you believe that any BMDS we deploy should be operationally
effective, suitable, and survivable?
Answer. Yes. I believe that the MDA and operational test community
should demonstrate through rigorous testing and verified, validated,
and accredited modeling and simulation, that the elements to be
deployed are operationally effective, suitable, and survivable.
Question. Do you believe that the BMDS and its elements should
undergo operational T&E?
Answer. Yes. As with all major defense acquisition programs, I
believe that the BMDS and its elements should undergo operational T&E
to demonstrate its capabilities. This is particularly true given the
strategic importance of the BMDS. Independent operational testing
should be included in the overall program and should occur once the
incremental development of a given element or group of elements has
been completed.
Question. 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 it is the role of DOT&E to ensure adequate test
planning, oversee the conduct of testing in accordance with approved
test plans, independently assess the operational effectiveness,
suitability, and survivability of the BMDS using all relevant and
appropriate test data, and report our findings to the congressional
defense committees and the Secretary of Defense.
master test plan for bmds
Testing and evaluation of Major Defense Acquisition Programs is
normally implemented according to a TEMP, which must be approved by the
DOT&E. However, this has not been the case for the Ballistic Missile
Defense System or its elements.
Do you believe that the T&E of the BMDS and its elements should be
implemented according to a TEMP, or its equivalent, and that this plan
should include such features as goals and objectives, methodologies,
criteria for evaluation, planned infrastructure, and schedule?
Answer. Yes. Historically, well-prepared and resourced TEMPs have
not only promoted disciplined testing of the Department's acquisition
programs but also fostered successful assessments of operational
effectiveness, suitability, and survivability. In 2002, the Secretary
of Defense relieved the MDA from the requirement to produce a TEMP for
the BMDS. Instead, the Agency has produced a similar document known as
an Integrated Master Test Plan (IMTP). It is my understanding that
Agency's IMTP does contain such features as goals and objectives,
methodologies, criteria for evaluation, planned infrastructure, and
schedule.
ground-based midcourse defense
Question. Concerning the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD)
system, the DOT&E annual report for 2008 states that, ``GMD flight
testing to date will not support a high degree of confidence in its
limited capabilities.''
Do you agree that our objective should be to have a high degree of
confidence in the capabilities of the GMD system, and do you believe
that our T&E program for the GMD system should be designed and
implemented to provide a high degree of confidence in the system?
Answer. Yes. I believe that it is essential that operational
decisionmakers have the greatest possible understanding of the
capabilities and limitations of the GMD system, as well as the entire
BMDS. In particular, those decisionmakers need high confidence in the
accuracy of the performance estimates that underpin the determination
of those capabilities and limitations.
Question. Do you agree that it is essential to conduct testing of
the GMD system that will allow the validation, verification, and
accreditation of the models and simulations necessary to predict and
understand the performance of the system?
Answer. Yes. Modeling and simulation, anchored by a robust program
of flight and ground testing, and exercised over the battlespace using
operationally realistic threat, mission scenario, and environmental
models, is necessary to develop high confidence assessments.
Question. The January 2009 DOT&E ``2008 Assessment of the BMDS''
states that, for the GMD system, ``all intercepts have occurred within
a small portion of the threat battlespace and under nearly the same
intercept conditions.'' It also reports that the GMD system ``has not
demonstrated interceptor performance in a salvo defense (multiple
interceptors against a single target) or in a multiple simultaneous
engagement (multiple interceptors against multiple targets) in a flight
test.''
Do you agree that flight testing for the GMD system needs to be
rigorous and operationally realistic, in order to demonstrate
capability in a more representative portion of the possible operational
conditions?
Answer. Yes. I believe there should be robust, operationally-
realistic testing of, not only the GMD, but all the constituent
elements of the BMDS, so that we fully understand the systems'
capabilities and limitations. The modeling and simulation used to
evaluate the full capabilities of the BMDS must be verified and
validated before the BMDS OTA Team can accredit it for use in assessing
BMDS performance. The flight test program must be carefully designed to
collect the required performance data that can then be used to verify
and validate the models and simulations.
Question. Do you agree that the system testing should include such
operationally realistic features as salvo testing, multiple
simultaneous engagement testing, and an intercept test using the Cobra
Dane radar as the operational sensor, if possible?
Answer. Yes. I support previous DOT&E recommendations and testimony
to the Defense Committees that the MDA should perform salvo testing and
multiple simultaneous engagement testing of the GMD. I also support the
proposal to conduct a GMD intercept test using the Cobra Dane radar as
the operational sensor; however, I understand General O'Reilly has
testified that there are unique challenges associated with the need to
conduct such a test from within or nearly adjacent to the Russian
Flight Information Region. If an intercept test is not feasible,
alternatives, such as a target fly-by, should be investigated.
medical technologies
Question. What role should the DOT&E play in the testing and
evaluation of medical technologies such as combat casualty care
technologies, drugs, vaccines, and other medical technologies before
their operational use by DOD?
Answer. I understand DOT&E has been overseeing the operational T&E
of automated information systems that support medical care delivery,
such as the Composite Health Care System, the Armed Forces Health
Longitudinal Technology Application, and the Theater Medical
Information Program. I believe that this is an appropriate role. On the
other hand, medical technologies such as combat casualty care
technologies, drugs, and vaccines are highly specialized and clinical
in nature. The T&E of these medical technologies is probably better
suited for specially trained medical professionals with expertise in
this area. I am not aware that DOT&E has this expertise.
encroachment and environmental issues.
Question. As is the case with military training, DOD T&E efforts
can be hampered by encroachment and constrained by environmental
regulations, both on land and at sea.
To what extent do you believe encroachment and environmental
requirements on and around T&E ranges are affecting the quality and
quantity of DOD's T&E programs?
Answer. I understand the importance of these issues. Based on the
recent DOT&E Annual Reports and other reports to Congress, it appears
that the Department has been able to conduct its test operations
adequately while making compensating adjustments to address
environmental issues where necessary. However, those reports also raise
concerns regarding limitations that testing is experiencing due to
encroachment and other related problems. If confirmed, I will monitor
this area carefully.
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 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.
Question. 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?
Answer. Yes.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. J. Michael Gilmore
follows:]
Nomination Reference and report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 1, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
J. Michael Gilmore of Virginia, to be Director of Operational Test
and Evaluation, vice Charles E. McQueary.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. J. Michael Gilmore, which
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. J. Michael Gilmore
Dr. Gilmore has served most recently as the Assistant Director for
National Security within the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). In that
capacity he was responsible for CBO's National Security Division, which
performs analyses of major policy and program issues in national
defense, international affairs, and veterans affairs.
His previous government employment includes serving within the
career Senior Executive Service in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, first as leader of a division performing independent cost
analyses of defense acquisition programs, and later as the Deputy
Director for General Purpose Programs within the Office of Program
Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E). In the latter position, Dr. Gilmore was
responsible for developing, formulating, and implementing Secretary of
Defense policies on all aspects of Department of Defense general
purpose programs, including analyzing the operational effectiveness and
costs of U.S. conventional military forces and supporting programs.
Dr. Gilmore also served within PA&E as an analyst for command,
control, and communications programs, as well as missile defense
programs. Prior to his government service, Dr. Gilmore worked as a
Defense Department contractor, analyzing the effectiveness of missile
defense and command and control programs for the McDonnell Douglas
Corporation and later at Falcon Associates in McLean, VA. Dr. Gilmore
has also worked as a scientist conducting research on fusion energy at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
He holds a Ph.D. and M.S. in nuclear engineering from the
University of Wisconsin and a B.Sc. in physics from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. J. Michael
Gilmore 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 Michael Gilmore.
2. Position to which nominated:
Director, Operational Test and Evaluation.
3. Date of nomination:
June 1, 2009.
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 24, 1954; Richmond, VA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Ai-Chi Liu.
7. Names and ages of children:
Christopher Kenneth Gilmore, born June 6, 1988.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
09/1976-12/1980, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Ph.D. in Nuclear
Engineering, 12/80.
09/1972-05/1976, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, B.Sc. in
Physics, 05/1976.
09/1968-06/1972, Salem Senior High School (Salem, OH), Diploma, 06/
1972.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
09/2001-Present: Assistant Director for National Security,
Congressional Budget Office, Second and D Streets SW, Washington, DC.
11/1994-09/2001: Deputy Director for General Purpose Programs,
Office of the Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation, Office of the
Secretary of Defense, 1800 Defense Pentagon, 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.
01/1993-11/1994: Division Director, Office of Deputy Director for
Resource Analysis, Office of the Director, Program Analysis and
Evaluation, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 1800 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC.
05/1990-01/1993: Operations Analyst, Office of the Deputy Director
for Strategic Programs, Office of the Director, Program Analysis and
Evaluation, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 1800 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
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.
Presidential Rank Award--Meritorious Executive in 1998.
Secretary of Defense Medal for Meritorious Civilian Service in
1996.
Secretary of Defense Medal for Distinguished Civilian Service in
2001.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
A.A. Mirin, S.P. Auerbach, R.H. Cohen, J.M. Gilmore, L.D.
Pearlstein and M.E. Rensink, ``Radial Transport Calculations for Tandem
Mirrors,'' Nucl. Fusion 23 (1983), 703.
S.P. Auerbach, R.H. Cohen, J.M. Gilmore, A.A. Mirin and M.E.
Rensink, ``Plasma Transport Caused by Ion-Neutral Atom Collisions-I.
Slab Model,'' Nucl. Fusion 24 (1984), 1251.
``Federal Budget Trends and the Outlook for the Defense Program''
in Defense Strategy and Forces: Setting Future Directions, Proceedings
of the Ruger Workshop, 13-15 November 2007, Naval War College, Newport,
RI.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
I have delivered no formal speeches, however I have participated in
a number of panel discussions and have given presentations and
briefings regarding defense programs and budgets. I have also testified
before congressional committees regarding CBO's work on defense issues.
Below is a list of my testimony before Congress and Commissions:
``CBO Testimony: The 2009 Future Years Defense Program:
Implications and Alternatives,'' Hearing before the Committee
on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives, February 4, 2009.
``CBO Testimony: The Navy's 2008 Shipbuilding Plan and Key
Ship Programs,'' Hearings before the Subcommittee on Seapower
and Expeditionary Forces, Committee on Armed Services, U.S.
House of Representatives, July 24, 2007.
``CBO Testimony: The Navy's DD(X) Destroyer Program,''
Hearings before the Subcommittee on Projection Forces,
Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of Representatives,
July 19, 2005.
``CBO Testimony: Issues That Affect the Readiness of the Army
National Guard and Army Reserve,'' Hearing before the
Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, May 16, 2007.
``CBO Testimony: The Army's Future Combat Systems Program,''
Hearings before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of
Representatives, April 4, 2006.
``CBO Testimony: Potential Costs of the Navy's 2006
Shipbuilding Plan,'' Hearings before the Subcommittee on
Projection Forces, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of
Representatives, March 30, 2006.
``CBO Testimony: Estimating the Costs of Military Operations
in Iraq,'' Hearing before the Committee on the Budget, United
States Senate, February 6, 2007.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
J. Michael Gilmore.
This 8th day of June, 2009.
[The nomination of Dr. J. Michael Gilmore was reported to
the Senate by Chairman Levin on August 4, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on September 21, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Zachary J. Lemnios by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E)?
Answer. The DDR&E is the principal staff advisor to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
(USD(AT&L)) and to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering matters. The DDR&E serves as the Chief
Technology Officer (CTO) for the Department of Defense (DOD).
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I have over 30 years of professional experience as an
engineer. During my career, I have served in both industry and
government, and am currently in an academic laboratory. I have also
served on many Defense Science Boards and other advisory committees. If
confirmed, I believe that my background and experience will enable me
to discharge the DDR&E's responsibility to develop technologies that
enhance the operational capabilities required by our armed forces.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the DDR&E?
Answer. I believe that I have the necessary background, skills, and
ability to perform the duties of the DDR&E.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of Defense will assign to you?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect the Secretary to assign me duties
and functions commensurate with those of a CTO, and any others as he
may deem appropriate.
relationships
Question. Section 139a of title 10, U.S.C., and DOD Directive
5134.3 discuss the responsibilities and functions of the DDR&E. Other
sections of law and traditional practice also establish important
relationships outside the chain of command. Please describe your
understanding of the relationship of the DDR&E with the following:
The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Deputy Secretary
to provide advice and assistance commensurate with the role of a CTO,
including rapidly transitioning technology to the field, prioritizing
science and technology (S&T) investment funding levels, and enhancing
current and future military capabilities.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics.
Answer. The DDR&E is subject to the authority, direction, and
control of the USD(AT&L). If confirmed, I expect to provide the Office
of USD(AT&L) with technology insight and leadership across the research
and engineering community.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to foster a close working
relationship with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to
ensure our research and engineering needs are synchronized across the
Department. I believe intelligence on potential adversary capabilities
is important for sharing among the defense programs.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller/Chief
Financial Officer) (USD(C/CFO)).
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the USD(C/CFO) to
ensure investment in research and engineering meets the overall
priorities of the Department.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to foster a close working
relationship with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness to ensure the current and future research and engineering
workforce priorities are balanced across the Department, and to ensure
that technologies necessary for the readiness of our forces are in the
DOD portfolio.
Question. The Service Secretaries.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to foster a close working
relationship with the Service Secretaries to ensure their research and
engineering priorities and technology investments are supporting the
overall Department goals and are in balance.
Question. The Service Acquisition Executives.
Answer. Research and Engineering is the first step in the overall
acquisition process, so I view the Service Acquisition Executives as a
primary customer of defense research and engineering. If confirmed, I
will work closely with the Service Acquisition Executives on research
and engineering matters to provide technology leverage for their
missions.
Question. The Service Science and Technology Executives.
Answer. The Service S&T Executives are responsible for developing
and executing the programs for their respective Service. If confirmed,
I intend to provide technical insight and work closely with them to
ensure the overall DOD S&T investment is coordinated and provides the
best possible payoff for taxpayer investment.
Question. The Directors of Department of Defense Laboratories and
Research Centers.
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with the Directors
of Defense Laboratories and Research Centers to provide them with the
necessary resources to deliver technology in support of DOD needs. I
also believe it is the responsibility of the DDR&E to establish
standards for lab performance.
Question. The Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA).
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Director of
DARPA to ensure that DARPA continues to open new technical fields and
create new technologies that have a profound impact on national
security.
Question. The Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Director of the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency on research and engineering matters pertaining
to weapons of mass destruction.
Question. The Joint Staff.
Answer. Research and Engineering provides new operational
capability options to the warfighter. I view the Joint Staff as another
primary customer of research and engineering products. If confirmed, I
will work closely with the Joint Staff on issues relating to research
and engineering with the goal of understanding the requirements process
and specific capability needs in order to ensure our warfighters are
affordably equipped with superior warfighting capabilities.
Question. The Director, Defense Test Resource Management Center.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Director, Defense Test
Resource Management Center to consider technology options and alternate
procedures for enhancing the test and evaluation of DOD systems.
Question. The Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E).
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Director, OT&E to
consider technology options and alternate procedures for enhancing the
test and evaluation of DOD systems.
Question. The Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device
Defeat Office.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Director of the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Office to identify technical and
system solutions for defeating current threats and countering future
anticipated threats.
Question. The Assistant Director of Defense for Networks and
Information Integration.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Assistant
Director of Defense for Networks and Information Integration to ensure
enhanced communication and network capabilities and cyber protection.
Question. The Director of the Business Transformation Agency.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Director of the Business
Transformation Agency on issues regarding research and engineering
business practices and efficiencies.
Question. The Director of the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Director of the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to ensure DOD
research and engineering goals and priorities are aligned with the
administration's goals and priorities.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the DDR&E?
Answer. The first major challenge is to preserve the technological
edge of current U.S. forces, by extending the capabilities of our
warfighting systems--through better intelligence, greater speed, longer
range, higher precision, and more effectiveness. The second major
challenge is to identify breakthrough capabilities, allowing the U.S.
to leapfrog potential adversaries. Finally, the third major challenge
is to provide a hedge against an uncertain future via a set of
scientific and engineering options that provide technological depth to
U.S. capabilities and deterrence against strategic surprise.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will develop plans that address these
challenges by enhancing the capability of defense S&T to deliver to the
warfighter and to the American taxpayer technologies and systems that
provide increased agility or the ability to adapt to changing
applications and environments, the ability to scale flexibly with
demand, and the ability to react faster than adversaries with minimal
support and logistics infrastructure.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Office of the DDR&E?
Answer. I do not believe I can fairly answer this question from my
current vantage point.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. I do not believe I can fairly answer this question from my
current vantage point, but if confirmed, I will develop a plan to
assess any problems that may exist and then implement actions to
correct them.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the DDR&E?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the USD(AT&L) and the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to more fully understand the technology opportunities
and needs of the warfighter and Department Acquisition Programs. In
general, I would expect the priorities would be consistent with the
priorities defined by Defense Secretary Gates in the last two budget
cycles. Last year, the Secretary specifically directed an increase in
spending for Defense Basic Research, and has indicated this remains a
priority. I would expect the other broad priorities would be consistent
with the three priorities laid out by the Secretary in his April 2009
budget rollout speech. In that speech, the Secretary said DOD would:
1. Take care of our people.
2. Develop capabilities to fight today's war and prepare for
future wars.
3. Reform the way we acquire weapons systems.
If confirmed, I would expect my priorities to be consistent with
these broad priorities of Secretary Gates.
Question. What defense technologies do you consider the highest
priorities for development in order to enhance DOD's ability to
prosecute its designated missions?
Answer. In general, I believe it is difficult to provide a single
list of technologies that have ``highest priority.'' It has been my
experience that an effective S&T program balances near and long term
activities and balances incremental change with revolutionary
technologies. The highest priorities should develop or deliver a
capability advantage for our deployed forces. During my two tours at
DARPA, I saw significant technologies such as the internet, unmanned
aerial vehicles, stealth, and others emerge from DOD investments in
advanced technologies. Prospectively, I believe we should understand
where the state-of-the-art is in science, and understand how to apply
these technologies, and create opportunities through investment.
Question. What will be your strategy for developing these
technologies in a manner to support needed defense capabilities in a
timely and cost effective way?
Answer. If confirmed, I will look at all available strategies and
evaluate them against the constraints of being timely and cost
effective.
investment in science and technology
Question. If confirmed, what metrics will you use to assess the
size and portfolio of investments made under the defense S&T program?
Answer. Determining a sufficient level of S&T investment is not a
precise science; rather, it is a strategic decision. The goal should be
to fund S&T at a level adequate to ensure the technological superiority
of our armed forces. A strong S&T program is required to provide
options for responding to a full range of military challenges both
today, and into the future.
Question. What role should the DDR&E play in the detailed
development and coordination of service and agency S&T investment
strategies, programs, and budgets?
Answer. Each Service and agency has a responsibility to plan,
program, and execute S&T programs to meet their specific component's
needs. The DDR&E should provide investment and management guidance that
integrates Service and agency efforts to provide a full spectrum of DOD
capabilities. Each of the Services' and agencies' S&T programs should
leverage and complement each others' efforts.
Question. What, in your view, is the role and value of S&T programs
in meeting the Department's transformation goals and in countering
irregular, catastrophic, traditional, and disruptive threats?
Answer. The Department's investment in S&T develops the
technological foundation necessary for our modernization effort, and
fosters the development of ``leap ahead'' technologies that produce
transformational capabilities on our terms. DOD must continue to invest
broadly in defense-relevant technologies as a hedge against
technological surprise and as a counter to future threats.
Question. Are there any S&T areas that you view as underfunded by
the Department?
Answer. I do not know of any S&T areas that are underfunded. If
confirmed, I will perform an assessment of the entire DOD S&T
portfolio, and make an assessment at that time.
Question. In your judgment, will the funding levels in these areas
affect the Department's ability to meet the threats of the future?
Answer. I am not aware of any specific science or technology areas
that are underfunded.
Question. Do you feel that the Department's current S&T investment
strategy strikes the appropriate balance between funding innovative,
disruptive technologies and addressing near-term operational needs and
military requirements?
Answer. A strong S&T program is required to provide options for
responding to a full range of military challenges both today, and into
the future. DOD must continue to invest broadly in defense-relevant
technologies and strive for a balance between high-risk/high-payoff,
disruptive technologies, and technologies that address near term
operational needs. I know that the Department is making investments in
both these areas and, if confirmed, I will make an assessment of the
balance.
basic research
Question. A 2005 National Academy of Sciences study entitled
Assessment of Department of Defense Basic Research noted that ``the
need for discovery from basic research does not end once a specific use
is identified, but continues through applied research, development, and
operations stages. . . . DOD should view basic research, applied
research, and development as continuing activities occurring in
parallel, with numerous supporting connections throughout the process.
. . . Senior DOD management should support long-term exploration and
discovery and communicate this understanding to its research
managers.''
Given the continuing nature of basic research and the broad
implications and applications of discovery-focused and innovation-
focused sciences, what criteria would you use, if confirmed, to measure
the success of these programs and investments?
Answer. The potential rewards of basic research are generally long-
term, and hence short-term quantitative metrics are difficult to apply
effectively. If confirmed, I will evaluate success on the quality of
the researchers and the research we are able to attract to our
programs, and how DOD-sponsored research guides, influences, and is
influenced by the scientific and engineering fields in which it
invests. With the input of the universities, laboratories, and
independent expert panels, I expect to establish guidance in scientific
priorities for the Department's basic research activities.
Question. If confirmed, how would you determine whether there is an
adequate investment in basic research to develop the capabilities the
Department will need in 2020?
Answer. It is not easy to accurately gauge the adequacy of
investment in basic research, given the uncertainty of the results and
its long term nature. However, because of basic research's amply
demonstrated transformative potential in the Nation's warfighting
capabilities, I believe that the DOD should remain a major contributor
to the Nation's basic science activities. This is consistent with the
stated policy of Secretary Gates to strengthen Defense Basic Research.
Question. The National Academies study also found that ``A recent
trend in basic research emphasis within DOD has led to a reduced effort
in unfettered exploration, which historically has been a critical
enabler of the most important breakthroughs in military capabilities.''
If confirmed, what steps, if any, will you take to address this
concern?
Answer. If confirmed, I will direct the Director of Under Secretary
of Defense (Laboratories and Basic Sciences) to study and report to me
on the state of scientific exploration under DOD basic research, and if
the flexibility of scientific research has been unduly hampered.
Question. The JASON 2008 study ``S&T for National Security''
observed that:
``DOD is not adhering to its own definition of basic
research in its use of 6.1 funds''
``Basic research funding is not exploited to seed
inventions and discoveries that can shape the future. . .''
``The portfolio balance of DOD basic research is
generally not critically reviewed by independent, technically
knowledgeable individuals''
Have you reviewed the findings of the JASON study?
Answer. I have read the JASON study, but if confirmed, I plan to
review it in detail against the broad context of basic research across
the Department.
Question. If confirmed, what steps, if any, will you take to
address the concerns raised by the JASON review?
Answer. I believe in the importance of basic research to the DOD
mission and if confirmed, I will carefully review the JASON study and
other related studies to assess the program.
chief technology officer
Question. If confirmed, as DDR&E, you will be the CTO of DOD.
What do you see as the role of the CTO of DOD?
Answer. The role of the CTO of the Department is defined in the
DDR&E charter. The charter defines the role of the DDR&E as the
Principal Staff Assistant to the USD(AT&L) and the Secretary on all
technical matters. The DDR&E should provide guidance to shape the DOD
S&T program and to develop technology options for the Department. The
CTO should also contribute significantly to ensuring that major
acquisition programs are conducted with acceptable technological risk.
Question. What lessons have you learned as CTO of Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) Lincoln Laboratory that will enhance your
ability to serve as CTO of DOD?
Answer. My lessons as the CTO at Lincoln Lab highlighted the
importance of building partnerships and alliances. If confirmed, I will
attempt to apply my lessons learned to the DOD.
Question. What authorities do you currently possess as CTO of MIT
Lincoln Laboratory that you find most useful in exercising you
responsibilities as CTO?
Answer. My open access to the MIT leadership and the tremendous
collaboration across the MIT technical community has opened new
technical frontiers and rapidly transitioned key ideas from research to
end use.
Question. Do you believe you will have those same authorities if
confirmed as DDR&E?
Answer. Yes, I believe the same authorities will exist as DDR&E.
technology readiness assessment process
Question. Have you participated in or observed the development of
Technology Readiness Assessments (TRAs) to support Milestone Decisions
for defense acquisition programs?
Answer. I have not yet had the opportunity to participate or
observe any TRAs.
Question. What is your assessment of the value, strengths, and
weaknesses of the current process?
Answer. My current understanding of TRAs is that they offer
substantial value from cost, schedule, and performance perspectives by
causing the DOD acquisition process to confront technology maturity
issues in a rigorous and timely fashion. Among the greatest strengths
of the DOD TRA process are its focus on independent review teams of
technology experts, and the requirement for hard evidence to prove
technology readiness ratings. Another strength of the process is
standardization throughout the military components, through the DOD TRA
Deskbook and frequent DOD-wide training and workshops. I believe,
consistent with the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009,
that the process could be strengthened by adding greater emphasis on
system integration issues.
Question. Would you recommend any changes to the processes used for
the assessment of technological maturity and integration risk of
critical technology elements?
Answer. Before recommending any changes to the current process, I
believe I would need to observe and participate (as a reviewer) in the
DOD TRA process. If confirmed, I intend to do so.
Question. Are you satisfied that the DDR&E is properly staffed and
resourced to support decisionmakers in complying with the technology
certification and assessment requirements that are its responsibility?
Answer. From my current vantage point, I am unable to make this
determination.
Question. What changes, if any, would you anticipate making, if
confirmed, in this process as a result of the enactment of the Weapon
Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009?
Answer. If confirmed, I will carefully consider changes that may be
needed. I believe it is likely that the requirement to conduct
``periodic'' reviews of technology maturity, the addition of
integration risk, and the requirement to conduct assessments in
consultation with the Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation
(D,DT&E) will lead to changes in the current process.
coordination of defense s&t with other agencies
Question. Do you believe the mechanisms of coordination between
Federal civilian agencies and the Department are adequate to ensure
that the military can best leverage the advances of agencies such as:
National Science Foundation on defense needs for basic science,
especially in social sciences?
Answer. From my current vantage point, I am unable to definitively
make this determination, but, adequate coordination and collaboration
processes appear to exist. If confirmed, I will ensure that dialogue
with the Department and the National Science Foundation is open and
transparent.
Question. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on
hypersonics and other space research and the viability and availability
of testing facilities?
Answer. From my current vantage point, I am unable to definitively
make this determination, but adequate coordination and collaboration
processes appear to exist. If confirmed, I will ensure that dialogue
with the Department and NASA is open and transparent.
Question. National Institutes of Health (NIH) on areas in which
military medical research and vaccine development overlap with civilian
medical needs?
Answer. From my current vantage point, I am unable to definitively
make this determination, but adequate coordination and collaboration
processes appear to exist. If confirmed, I will ensure that dialogue
with the Department and NIH is open and transparent.
Question. Intelligence Community in setting defense research
priorities to prepare for future threat environments?
Answer. From my current vantage point, I am unable to definitively
make this determination, but adequate coordination and collaboration
processes appear to exist. If confirmed, I will ensure that dialogue
with the Department and the Intelligence Community is open and
transparent.
Question. Department of Homeland Security on homeland defense and
national security-related science?
Answer. From my current vantage point, I am unable to definitively
make this determination, but adequate coordination and collaboration
processes appear to exist. If confirmed, I will ensure that dialogue
with the Department and Department of Homeland Security is open and
transparent.
Question. If confirmed, how would you work with other Federal
agencies and the Office of S&T Policy to improve coordination?
Answer. From my current vantage point, I am unable to definitively
make this determination, but adequate coordination and collaboration
processes appear to exist. If confirmed, I will ensure that dialogue
with other Federal agencies and the Office of S&T Policy is open and
transparent.
technology strategy
Question. What weaknesses, if any, do you see in the current
Defense S&T strategic planning process?
Answer. I do not have enough insight into the internal DOD
Strategic planning process to judge this activity.
Question. What do you believe are the key attributes for a good
strategic plan that can be effectively utilized for programming and
budgeting purposes?
Answer. I believe a good strategic plan should be simple, clear,
realistic, and widely disseminated. Additionally, a strategic plan
should be linked to higher goals and provide guidance for subordinate
organizations.
Question. If confirmed, how would you work to ensure that strategic
plans are utilized during the budget planning and programming process?
Answer. Before recommending how I would do this, I need to
participate in the DOD budget planning and programming process and will
do so if confirmed.
technology transition
Question. The Department's efforts to quickly transition
technologies to the warfighter have yielded important results in the
last few years. The Department's fiscal year 2010 budget proposes
increases across a spectrum of technology transition programs.
Challenges remain, however, in successfully transitioning new
technologies into existing programs of record, fielded systems, and
major weapons systems and platforms.
What challenges exist in technology transition within the
Department?
Answer. Based on my experience, lack of funding flexibility and the
extended timelines of DOD requirements and budget processes are
challenges to technology transition. Successful transition requires an
appropriately mature technology, a user need, an insertion window in
the program of record, and budgeted resources for implementation. This
alignment is hard to achieve and maintain, and the gap between S&T and
acquisition often needs bridge funding in the execution year.
Question. What would you do, if confirmed, to address these
challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the mechanisms and processes
that are in place and determine if improvements are needed.
Question. What is the role of the DDR&E in facilitating
communication between technical communities, acquisition personnel, and
end users to speed technology transition?
Answer. I believe one key factor to successful technology
transition is early engagement. If confirmed, I will foster
relationships among these communities by understanding the needs of the
warfighter and by interpreting those needs in a manner that allows the
acquisition system to respond.
Question. Do you believe that we need to change the manner in which
we fund technology transition in DOD? If so, what changes would you
recommend?
Answer. I am aware that the 2009 National Defense Authorization Act
mandates the Department to develop an assessment of various technology
transition programs within DOD, and that an assessment is being
performed by the DDR&E staff. If confirmed, I will ensure that the
assessment goals meet the intent of the language, and that appropriate
action is taken to balance our technology transition portfolio with the
needs of the warfighter.
systems engineering and prototyping
Question. Do you feel that DOD has sufficient systems engineering
expertise in its current workforce or contractor base?
Answer. I am aware that some aspects of prior acquisition reform
initiatives may have removed technical capability from the government
workforce and delegated them to the contractor base.
Question. What changes do you anticipate will be made in the
Department's systems engineering organization and practices as a result
of the enactment of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009?
Answer. The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009
identifies a key role for systems engineering in the acquisition
process. I believe there will be opportunities to strengthen systems
engineering in response to this act.
Question. What is the value of competitive prototyping in
increasing the success of DOD acquisition efforts?
Answer. I regard prototyping as a critical path to enhanced
technology development and reduced technical risk. Through competitive
prototyping we should be able to achieve more predictable cost,
schedule and performance outcomes leading to increased success with our
DOD acquisition programs.
Question. What impact do you expect the Weapon Systems Acquisition
Reform Act of 2009 to have on competitive prototyping efforts by DOD?
Answer. I expect the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009
to have a positive impact by adding significant authority to the DOD's
competitive prototyping policy. The competitive prototyping
clarification, combined with the systems engineering emphasis provided
by the legislation, offer the opportunity to identify, scope, resource
and execute the pre-milestone B activities collaboratively between the
requirements and the acquisition communities to develop the data
required to fully inform the milestone B.
Question. If confirmed, how will you work to increase the amount of
systems engineering projects and competitive prototyping efforts that
are undertaken by DOD and its contractor base?
Answer. If confirmed, I will facilitate communication between the
S&T community and the systems engineering community to engage with
programs early in the acquisition lifecycle, and work to ensure
maturity and integration issues of critical technologies are fully
addressed.
venture capital strategies
Question. In recent years, some components of DOD have attempted to
follow the lead of the intelligence community by using venture capital
firms to make investments in developing technologies.
What role do you believe that venture capital firms should play in
DOD's investments in developing technologies, including in the Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program?
Answer. Venture capital firms can provide access to innovative
companies that might not normally gain exposure to DOD. If confirmed, I
will explore opportunities within DOD guidelines to capitalize on the
ability of venture capital firms to reach companies to identify
technology solutions of interest to DOD within legal authorities.
Question. What advantages and disadvantages do you see in the use
of venture capital strategies?
Answer. The advantage of venture capital strategies is that they
provide windows to companies that are not traditional DOD partners. The
disadvantage to venture capital strategies is that small firms are not
often fully cognizant of government practices.
Question. When DOD does decide to use venture capital strategies,
what steps do you believe the Department should take to ensure that DOD
funds are invested in technologies and companies that properly reflect
national defense priorities, avoid the potential for conflicts of
interest by industry partners, and ensure that the Department's
investments are not diluted?
Answer. I believe before investing in a venture capital
opportunity, the project should be reviewed to ensure it will meet a
military requirement and is not duplicating the work that is already
being supported through other programs. The review should include the
full participation of interested parties and potential users within
DOD.
Question. What other strategies do you intend to employ, if
confirmed, to ensure that the nation's most innovative companies work
on DOD research and engineering programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will conduct a review of existing
mechanisms that allow innovative companies to work with DOD and
identify any obstacles that prevent innovative companies from working
with DOD.
international research cooperation
Question. In your view, how should increased globalization of
defense technology affect DOD's research and technology development and
investment strategy?
Answer. The increased globalization of defense technology impacts
the DOD on several levels. First, the intellectual capital advantage
the U.S. once enjoyed is being eroded as other nations' R&D investments
increase. The U.S. no longer enjoys a monopoly in some technologies.
Finally, the non-U.S. science and engineering labor force continues to
expand at a greater rate than that of the U.S. Because technology is
becoming a global commodity, I believe the Department should look to
expand, within policy guidelines, international S&T awareness. If
confirmed, I will work towards that goal.
Question. What is your assessment of the value of cooperative
research and development programs with international partners?
Answer. From my current vantage point, I understand the value of
cooperative research and development with international partners. This
value needs to be balanced with national security factors to maximize
research and development output without security risk. If confirmed, I
will review international cooperative agreements in this light.
Question. In your view, what are the obstacles to more effective
international cooperation, and, if confirmed, how would you address
those obstacles?
Answer. From my current vantage point, I am unable to assess
obstacles to more effective international cooperation, but if
confirmed, I will work hard to balance the benefits of international
cooperation, which I believe exist, with the risks, and take
appropriate action.
Question. How will increased international technology cooperation
affect our domestic defense industrial base?
Answer. My experience has shown me that a case-by-case assessment
of the impact of any proposed international technology cooperation
includes the impact on the domestic industrial base.
Question. How should DOD monitor and assess the research
capabilities of our global partners and competitors, and of the global
commercial sector?
Answer. I am aware all of the Services have offices around the
globe to assess the research capabilities of our global partners. Since
global technology is important, if confirmed, I will examine the output
of these offices and take steps to strengthen their capability if
needed.
test and evaluation
Question. What are your views on the adequacy and effectiveness of
the Department's development and OT&E activities?
Answer. From my current vantage point, I am not able to
comprehensively assess the adequacy of the Department's developmental
or OT&E activities. I do know that a properly defined test plan should
improve technology development, and, if confirmed, I would be
responsible as CTO for demonstrations, and would review test plans
accordingly.
Question. What changes do you anticipate will be made in the
Department's developmental testing organization and capabilities as a
result of the enactment of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of
2009?
Answer. From my reading of the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform
Act of 2009, I understand that the statute requires creation of a
position entitled D,DT&E. Since such a position does not currently
exist, I believe the new statute will drive change to D,DT&E.
Question. What modifications would you recommend to the test and
evaluation processes in DOD to more efficiently and quickly develop and
deliver operationally effective and suitable technologies to the
warfighter?
Answer. I believe it is important that equipment and technology
acquired by the Department be subject to robust Systems Engineering,
comprehensive Developmental Test and Evaluation, and realistic OT&E. If
confirmed, I would enforce the provision of the Weapons Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 that addresses the technology maturity
issue through the activities of the DDR&E, in consultation with the
D,DTE.
small business issues
Question. If confirmed, how would you work to ensure that the SBIR
program serves a useful purpose in meeting the Department's research
goals?
Answer. The DOD SBIR program represents a substantial augmentation
to the Department's core tech base research funds. SBIR research topics
and contracts should support DOD priority needs, and be complementary
to core research investments. If confirmed, I will review the current
DDR&E process for coordinating the SBIR program and will work to ensure
that this process yields a valuable contribution to the Department's
research investments.
Question. What guidance or direction do you consider necessary
regarding transition of the research results of SBIR programs to major
weapons systems and equipment?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the DOD Office of Small
Business Programs, and other appropriate offices, to develop mechanisms
to improve the visibility of SBIR technologies to major weapons
programs, as well as with the Services SBIR program managers to make
sure the SBIR research is as relevant as possible.
Question. What emphasis would you place, if confirmed, on
participation by the acquisition community in setting research
priorities for the SBIR and in accepting new solutions into existing
programs of record?
Answer. I do not know the current process for balancing SBIR
priorities, but I believe that acquisition programs should be a source
of SBIR research topics, and should be an interested and willing
customer for SBIR products. Topics for new SBIR competitions should be
informed by acquisition community needs and shortcomings. If confirmed,
I will encourage Service Acquisition Executives to play a vigorous role
in developing new SBIR research topics, and in fostering adoption of
mature SBIR technologies into programs of record.
Question. In your judgment, are modifications needed to the
Department's SBIR program to ensure it meets the Department's goals and
is updated to support research costs of the small business community?
Answer. In general, I believe that the Department is best served by
an SBIR program that enables contracts in each SBIR phase to be
properly scaled for anticipated costs of the intended research, and
that the size limit on SBIR-eligible firms should be strictly applied
so as to encourage maximum participation by small firms. If confirmed,
I will examine the SBIR program in more detail to determine if
modifications are needed.
defense laboratories
Question. What is your overall assessment as to the technical
capabilities and quality of Defense laboratories relative to their
Department of Energy, FFRDC, industry, academic and foreign peers?
Answer. I believe that a robust and rigorous S&T program, which
includes high-performing DOD laboratories, is important to our national
security. The DOD laboratories provide a unique and dedicated array of
capabilities for the military. The DOD labs, working in partnership
with other agency and university laboratories, have historically played
a major role in our military's technology superiority. However, based
on recent assessments, there may be a need for improvement. If
confirmed, I will place a priority on examining our Defense
laboratories and workforce. We will study comparisons between the
Department of Energy national laboratories, NASA research centers, the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, as well as universities
and industry. If necessary improvements are identified, a plan will be
developed for their implementation.
Question. What are your views on the most effective management
approach for personnel at these facilities?
Answer. The ability of the DOD laboratories to support the
Department's missions through research and technology development is
important for our national security. The keys to a productive
laboratory are its workforce and providing a state-of-the-art technical
environment in which scientists and engineers have the opportunity to
develop innovative concepts. Providing laboratory directors flexibility
in their ability to hire, train, and retain a talented technical
workforce and providing them with facilities conducive to scientific
discovery are essential. If confirmed, I will study which management
practices have yielded good results and work towards expanding their
use.
Question. A review of defense laboratories operations shows various
deficits in personnel management, infrastructure renewal, physical
plant recapitalization rate, support services adequacy, etc. Some
analyses have indicated that these deficiencies result from excessive
centralized control.
Do you support significantly increased delegation of operating
authority to the lab director?
Answer. I believe in aligning responsibility at the lowest possible
level needed to execute. Consequently, I support, in principle,
delegating increased operating authority to laboratory directors. If
confirmed, I will direct the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Laboratories and Basic Sciences (USD(LABS)) to review personnel
management, infrastructure recapitalization, and other lab issues, and
provide recommendations to address identified problems. I will then
work towards developing the necessary authorities for lab directors
based upon these recommendations.
Question. If confirmed, what steps, if any, will you take to
improve the quality, technical capabilities, and mission performance of
the Defense laboratories?
Answer. The first step to take towards improving any enterprise is
to assess objectively the current state of the enterprise. Before
delineating specific steps to take to improve the DOD labs, if
confirmed, I would take steps to fairly assess their quality, technical
capabilities, and so forth. In general, I believe the labs are a
critical element in addressing identified warfighting capability needs,
both current and future, as well as developing technology to meet
potential threats in the future. I believe it is important to preserve
this capability.
Question. Would you support transitioning certain laboratory
capabilities into Federally-Funded Research and Development Centers or
Government Owned-Contractor Operated facilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ask the Deputy USD(LABS) to study
these options, and provide recommendations.
laboratory personnel management
Question. The Department's research and development laboratories
perform unique functions in serving national security missions and do
not readily fit into the general operational management structure. The
JASON study observed that ``civilian career paths in the DOD research
labs and program management are not competitive to other opportunities
in attracting outstanding young scientists and retaining the best
people.'' Congress has enacted legislation granting special authorities
to the Secretary of Defense for flexible management and personnel
demonstration experiments at the laboratories and has exempted the
demonstration laboratories from inclusion in the National Security
Personnel System until 2012.
Would you support making the laboratories' exemption from NSPS
permanent and enabling them to make full use of the flexibilities
inherent in the laboratory demonstration program's enabling statutes?
Answer. Based on recent news articles, I believe DOD is currently
assessing the implementation of NSPS and is also assessing flexible
hiring authorities. The result of that assessment would be a factor in
any decisions about further implementation of lab management.
Question. What particular workforce challenges does the Office of
the DDR&E have?
Answer. A technically skilled and competent workforce is essential
to the success of technology development and acquisition programs.
Attracting, hiring, training, and retaining a technical workforce is a
pressing challenge facing many organizations. If confirmed, I would
take steps to attract and retain the best possible personnel. Such
steps include but are not limited to ensuring effective outreach
programs to students, offering competitive salaries to employees,
training personnel to ensure they maintain their skills, and providing
an environment which stimulates innovative thinking and risk taking.
Question. If confirmed, how will you go about making the resource
assessment required by section 104(b) of the Weapon Systems Acquisition
Reform Act of 2009?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ask my Director of Plans and Programs
to work with the Deputy USD(LABS), the Director of the Test Resource
Management Center, and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology to develop an analytical estimate of the
resources required.
technical and acquisition workforce issues
Question. In your view, does the Department have adequate technical
expertise within the government workforce to execute its designated
acquisition and technical development missions?
Answer. Based on my current vantage point, any assessment of the
adequacy of the DOD technical workforce would be an opinion, not an
analytical assessment. Because of the importance of people to the
technical product, I believe such an assessment needs to be based on
hard facts and data. If confirmed, I would require the DDR&E staff to
develop the data needed for an analytical assessment before providing
an opinion or taking any actions.
Question. What efforts will you undertake, if confirmed, to improve
the technical capabilities of DOD in critical areas, such as systems
engineering, information assurance, social and cultural sciences, and
software engineering?
Answer. I am aware that the DDR&E is responsible for the overall
Department's Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
education oversight. If confirmed, I would first review existing
programs to assess adequacy of the technical workforce, then seek to
adjust the programs designed to develop new scientists and engineers to
match the supply to the demand.
defense science board study on the roles and authorities of the
director of defense research and engineering
Question. Have you reviewed the report of the 2005 Defense Science
Board Task Force on the Roles and Authorities of the DDR&E?
Answer. I have read the 2005 Defense Science Board Task Force on
the Roles and Authorities of the DDR&E.
Question. If so, what are your views of this report and, if
confirmed, how would you plan to utilize the findings of the Defense
Science Board Task Force?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the report in detail to
determine which recommendations remain relevant, and work with
leadership of DOD on determining what findings and recommendations
should be implemented and how best to implement these recommendations.
defense advanced research projects agency
Question. What is your view of the appropriate relationship between
the DDR&E and the Director of DARPA?
Answer. The Director of DARPA reports to the DDR&E per DOD
Directive 5134 and I have no reason to believe that changes should be
made to this relationship.
Question. What do you believe is the proper research mission for
DARPA?
Answer. DARPA has a long and storied history of being an engine of
innovation for the U.S. DARPA's ability in being able to tackle some of
the most difficult problems facing the DOD, and apply very innovative
solutions is unique. I believe the proper role for DARPA is to conduct
the high-risk, high-payoff research for the Department, and to share
that work with the Services and others within the government.
Question. What adjustments do you expect to make, if confirmed, to
the current style of DARPA research program management and investment
strategy?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with DARPA, as well
as the Services, to provide a balanced technology approach for the
Department. If confirmed, I will closely examine the current DARPA and
Service management processes to determine if adjustments are required,
and if they are, how to provide the best possible, but balanced product
to meet current and future needs of DOD.
Question. What do you believe are the key characteristics of an
effective DARPA Director?
Answer. I believe the DARPA Director should have the skills to
effectively communicate the value of the DARPA product, have an ability
to build teams outside of DARPA, and finally, be infused with a spirit
that does not accept that something cannot be done.
Question. What, in your view, is the appropriate relationship
between DARPA and the Service S&T programs?
Answer. The appropriate relationship between DARPA and the Services
should be complementary. DARPA pushes the far side to develop the big
leap-ahead advances, while the Service S&T programs draw upon these
technological advancements to develop products. Any S&T program that
does not balance these two forces is, I believe, suboptimal. If
confirmed, I will work to maintain this balance.
Question. What, in your view, is the appropriate relationship
between DARPA and the Service laboratories?
Answer. The laboratories and DARPA are partners in developing
technology solutions for the warfighter.
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education
Question. Do you believe that DOD specifically and the Nation as a
whole is facing a crisis in STEM education?
Answer. Based on recent blue ribbon studies and my own experience,
I believe both the DOD and the Nation have a challenge in STEM
education, and our ability to educate, train, and retain students and
workers in the STEM fields. This is a particular challenge for DOD,
which manages a large part of the Federal science and engineering
workforce and 35,000 at the DOD laboratories.
Question. In your view, how will this affect DOD's ability to
prosecute its missions?
Answer. The ability of the Department in carrying its missions
depends on an educated and talented STEM workforce; consequently, if
confirmed, maintaining STEM personnel will be important to me.
Question. What role do you think DOD should play in supporting STEM
education?
Answer. I believe the Department should be actively engaged at all
levels across the STEM education continuum--pre-college through
graduate--and, more importantly, work with the Office of S&T Policy,
the National Science Foundation and other Federal components involved
in national security, to generate a ``whole of government'' approach to
workforce development.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information. Do you agree, if
confirmed for this high position, to appear before this committee and
other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the DDR&E?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
Question. 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?
Answer. Yes.
______
[The nomination reference of Zachary J. Lemnios follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
May 18, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Zachary J. Lemnios, of Massachusetts, to be Director of Defense
Research and Engineering, vice John J. Young, Jr.
______
[The biographical sketch of Zachary J. Lemnios, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Zachary J. Lemnios
Zachary J. Lemnios is Chief Technology Officer at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) Lincoln Laboratory. He is responsible for
coordinating technology strategy across the laboratory and for
establishing and growing strategic external relationships to support
current and future laboratory missions. These strategic technology
efforts include collaboration with MIT Campus to develop and leverage
research projects in support of defense and related activities. He is a
member of the Director's Office Staff and Laboratory Steering
Committee.
At Lincoln Laboratory, Mr. Lemnios has served as Assistant Division
Head of the Solid State Division, a member of the Senior Management
Council, and co-chair of the New Technology Initiatives Board. As a
Senior Staff member in the Solid State Division, he led efforts to
develop novel system applications for a broad range of materials
including CMOS/SOI, SiC, GaN, AIGaN and GaAs. He also developed and
inserted advanced microelectronics technology into performance-driven
Department of Defense (DOD) applications.
During 2003-2005, Mr. Lemnios was Director of the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Microsystems Technology Office,
responsible for developing and implementing the strategic vision and
technical plans for the office and for transitioning those elements to
the DOD. From April 2002 to July 2003, he was the Deputy Director of
the Information Processing Technology Office, where he was instrumental
in developing and launching a new DARPA direction in cognitive systems.
Prior to joining Lincoln Laboratory, Mr. Lemnios was Assistant
Director of the Electronics Technology Office, also at DARPA, and led
the development and insertion of advanced microelectronics into many
DOD systems. In addition to launching national research initiatives in
advanced microelectronics, he sponsored the development of the first
250 nm CMOS/bulk and SOI manufacturing technology base. His further
support of wideband and high linearity analog-to-digital converters
resulted in key system insertions for critical DOD applications.
Within industry, Mr. Lemnios has held various positions at Hughes
Aircraft Company, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and Ford
Microelectronics, Inc. He has served on numerous DOD, industry, and
academic committees, including various Defense Science Board studies,
the DARPA Information Science and Technology Study Group, and the DARPA
Defense Science Research Council.
He holds a BSEE degree from the University of Michigan and an MSEE
degree from Washington University in St. Louis, and attended the
Harvard Kennedy School of Government Program for Senior Executives in
National and International Security. He is also a Senior Member of the
IEEE, has authored over 40 papers, holds 4 patents, and has been
awarded the Office of the Secretary of Defense Medal for Exceptional
Public 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 Zachary J.
Lemnios 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.)
Zachary J. Lemnios.
2. Position to which nominated:
Director, Defense Research and Engineering.
3. Date of nomination:
May 18, 2009.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
February 21, 1955; Cambridge, MA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Stephanie Bicoulis.
7. Names and ages of children:
Melanie, 29; Grace, 26; Sarah, 24; Jon, 22.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
University of Michigan, 1972-1976, Bachelor of Science in
Electrical Engineering Washington University in Saint Louis, MO, 1977-
1979, Masters of Science in 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.
08/06 to present, Special Government Employee, Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency.
08/06 to present, Chief Technology Officer, MIT Lincoln Laboratory,
Lexington, MA.
03/05 to 08/06, Assistant Head, Solid State Division, MIT Lincoln
Laboratory, Lexington, MA.
06/03 to 03/05, Director, Microsystems Technology Office, Defense
Advanced Research Project Agency, Arlington, VA.
04/02 to 06/03, Deputy Director, Information Processing Technology
Office, Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, Arlington, VA.
03/97 to 04/02, Senior Staff, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington,
MA.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Defense Science Board Study Participant, 2006 to present.
DARPA Defense Science Research Council, Red Team, 2008 to present.
DARPA Information Science and Technology, Red Team, 2008 to
present.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
I am a Senior Member of the Institute of Electronic and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE).
I am currently serving as Parish Council President for the Hellenic
Orthodox Association, Inc. This is the nonprofit corporation that was
established to operate the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church of
Lexington, MA.
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.
February 2005 - Awarded Office of Secretary of Defense Medal for
Exceptional Public Service.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
See Attachment 1.
[Attachment retained 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.
Z. Lemnios, ``Creating Capability Surprise,'' Keynote Speaker for
NDIA/DOD Science & Engineering Technology Conference/DOD Tech
Exposition, Charleston, SC, April 2009 (included in attachment).
[Attachment retained in the committee's executive files.]
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Zachary J. Lemnios.
This 8th day of May, 2009.
[The nomination of Zachary J. Lemnios was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on June 18, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on June 19, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Lt. Gen. Dennis M.
McCarthy, USMC (Ret.), by Chairman Levin 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. Yes. I believe the act can be made even more valuable.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. Expand application of the act to more Reserve component
personnel, and ensure that educational opportunities are available to
enable Reserve component personnel to meet applicable requirements.
duties
Question. Section 138 of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs shall have ``as his
principal duty the overall supervision of Reserve component affairs of
the Department of Defense (DOD).''
If confirmed, what duties do you expect that the Secretary of
Defense will prescribe for you?
Answer.
(1) Travel widely to meet with Citizen Warriors, their
families and employers to ensure I can provide an accurate
assessment of the state of this important triad.
(2) Be an advocate for the effective use and long-term
sustainment of the Reserve components.
(3) Meet with combatant commanders and other gaining force
commanders to ensure I understand their views of the
effectiveness of Reserve component policy and funding to meet
their requirements.
Question. What background and experience do you have that you
believe qualifies you for this position?
Answer. Forty-one years total Marine Corps service; command and
staff assignments in both Active and Reserve units; service as a
traditional reservist, balancing employment, family, and military
demands; service as a Reserve component chief; service as the Marine
component commander of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM); service on the
Reserve Forces Policy Board; leadership of the Reserve Officers
Association of the United States; a wealth of friendships and
relationships with people both in and out of uniform who are interested
in the success of the National Guard and Reserves.
Question. What actions will you take to enhance your ability to
perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve
Affairs?
Answer.
(1) Ensure that I understand the intent of the Secretary of
Defense;
(2) keep the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Under
Secretary of Defense (USD) for Personnel and Readiness fully
informed in whatever ways they require;
(3) maintain close personal contact with both military and
civilian stakeholders to keep up my situational awareness of
the status and capabilities of the Reserve components; and
(4) make every effort to ensure that the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense Reserve Affairs (OSD(RA)) team
understands my intent and is empowered to take appropriate
action.
Question. In carrying out these duties, what would be your
relationship with the following officials:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. Since this position reports directly to the USD Personnel
and Readiness, my relationship would be through the USD to the
Secretary of Defense. I'm sure there will be ``other duties as
assigned'' and I will carry them out to the best of my ability.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The same will hold true for Deputy Secretary Lynn.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness.
Answer. I intend to work within whatever framework is established
by the Under Secretary. I will encourage a transparent information flow
both in and out.
Question. The Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness .
Answer. I intend to have a collegial relationship with the
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense and support his/her efforts
to support the USD, even though this position is not in the reporting
chain.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense
and Americas' Security Affairs.
Answer. A key partner. Developing a collaborative relationship with
Assistant Secretary Stockton will be an immediate priority if I am
confirmed.
Question. The General Counsel of DOD.
Answer. I intend to seek his advice, concurrence, and counsel on
matters that fall under the purview of that office.
Question. The combatant commanders, particularly the Commander,
NORTHCOM.
Answer. I view them as ``customers'' whose principal interest
regarding the Reserve component is having capable Reserve component
forces when and where they are needed. I would seek to leverage my
prior service with both NORTHCOM and U.S. Joint Forces Command to meet
their needs.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries in the military departments
responsible for Reserve matters.
Answer. As I understand it, the office has an open communication
with the Assistant Secretaries at all levels. I would certainly
continue to encourage that.
Question. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau (NGB).
Answer. A key partner. OSD(RA) must provide service that enhances
his ability to provide forces as required, and to sustain those forces.
It is essential that I understand his needs and that I effectively
communicate the Secretary of Defense's intent to him.
Question. The Chiefs of Reserves of each of the Services.
Answer. Same as Chief, NGB.
Question. The Assistants to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff for Guard and Reserve Matters.
Answer. Achieve an open and transparent relationship in order to
leverage their insights into the Chairman's thinking and the status of
Joint Staff initiatives.
Question. The Reserve Forces Policy Board.
Answer. Achieve a collaborative relationship that reinforces the
Board's ability to fulfill its role as an independent information
resource for the Secretary on matters and issues assigned by him to the
Board.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs?
Answer. I believe that our country is in an era of persistent
conflict that requires our military forces to fulfill a broad range of
missions. Success in this struggle will continue to require the
contributions of Reserve component forces, which provide operational
capabilities and strategic depth to meet U.S. defense requirements
across the full spectrum of conflict. A key challenge, from my
perspective, is to sustain the Reserve component as an integral part of
the All-Volunteer Total Force.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work with all interested and
affected parties in working toward successful solutions. I anticipate
focusing on maintaining a balance for servicemembers among Military
Service, families, and employers. I expect to emphasize the continuum
of service as a means to sustain the All-Volunteer Force with flexible
service options that are attractive to a broad population. It is my
perspective that the implementation of the Department's utilization
rules that govern the frequency and duration of activations provides
predictability for servicemembers and effectively manage the
expectations of our servicemembers, their families, and employers.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Reserve Affairs?
Answer. If confirmed, I would have to take the time to ascertain
what if any problems there are. It would be presumptuous of me to make
a judgment one way or the other. My predecessor, Tom Hall, is a great
leader and probably left me an outstanding organization. It is,
however, safe to say that effective communication up and down the chain
of command is an ongoing challenge for every organization. If
confirmed, I will work hard on that issue.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. I won't know until I get my marching orders from the
Secretary, the Deputy, and the Under Secretary, and until I've had some
time to meet the people in OSD(RA).
recruiting and retention
Question. Some have expressed concern that use of the Reserve
component as an operational force and the current mobilization of
Reserve component members for lengthy deployments will have an adverse
effect on recruiting and retention in the Reserve components.
If confirmed, what actions will you take to enhance recruiting and
retention of experienced members of the Reserve components?
Answer. All of the recent figures I have seen indicate that overall
recruiting and retention goals are being met. OSD(RA) should support
effective implementation of currently successful efforts that enhance
recruiting and promote retention. Supporting families and enhancing
partnerships with employers are two of the most effective, albeit
indirect, ways to influence retention because they can reduce home and
job stress.
Question. Historically, the Reserve components have successfully
recruited prior service personnel as they leave active duty. With the
increased retention of Active-Duty Forces, the pool of prior service
personnel available to the Reserve components is shrinking.
Additionally, servicemembers who have been deployed multiple times may
be less interested in continuing service in the Reserve components
because of the potential for mobilization and additional deployment.
If confirmed, what actions will you take to assist the recruiting
efforts of the Reserve components?
Answer. Primarily, I will listen to the Reserve Chiefs and their
leaders to ensure I understand what they need to succeed in these
areas. I also believe that OSD(RA) can be a ``think-tank'' for new
ideas and approaches. For example, changes in the over-all mix of prior
service and non-prior service personnel may indicate that new programs
are required to provide noncommissioned officers, warrant officers, and
company grade officers in some components. OSD(RA) should support
service experimentation efforts to address new challenges that emerge
in this era of persistent conflict.
medical personnel recruiting and retention
Question. Much of the medical infrastructure for DOD is in the
Reserve components. DOD has significant shortages in critically needed
medical personnel in both the Active and Reserve components. The
committee is concerned that growing medical support requirements will
compound the already serious challenges faced in recruitment and
retention of medical, dental, nurse, and behavioral health personnel.
If confirmed, will you undertake a comprehensive review of the
medical support requirements in the Reserve components and the
sufficiency of plans to meet recruiting and retention goals in these
specialties?
Answer. I will continue to support the joint, collaborative effort,
known as the Medical Recruiting and Retention Working Group, co-led by
Personnel and Readiness leaders from Reserve Affairs, Military
Personnel Policy and Health Affairs. Their charter is to review and
evaluate total force (Active and Reserve) health professions personnel
recruitment and retention policies, programs and procedures with an eye
toward optimizing tri-service, multi-component cooperation in meeting
recruiting and retention requirements.
Question. What legislative and policy initiatives, including
greater involvement personnel in recruiting and enhanced bonuses and
special pays, do you think may be necessary to ensure that the Reserve
components can continue to meet medical support requirements?
Answer. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
included the consolidation of special and incentive pay authorities.
The consolidation provides the Department with the increased
flexibilities needed to better target recruiting and retention dollars
to specific skills, and enables the Department to more effectively and
efficiently manage our personnel. At OSD(RA) they have begun the
adaptive planning process for transitioning the bonuses and special
pays that meet all the Reserve components' health professions long-term
recruiting and retention needs.
use of guard and reserves
Question. Today's total force concept relies heavily on National
Guard and Reserve Forces for both day-to-day and contingency
operations. The role of the Reserves is so integral in the total force
that military operations involving major, extended missions are
required to include Reserve participation. Members of the National
Guard and Reserve Forces are performing more and more duties that have
been traditionally performed by active duty forces. The Commission on
the National Guard and Reserves concluded that ``for the foreseeable
future, there is no reasonable alternative to the Nation's continuing
increased reliance on its Reserve components for missions at home and
abroad, as part of an operational force.''
In your view, is such extensive use of National Guard and Reserve
personnel for duties that have historically been performed by members
of the Active components the best use of Reserve component personnel?
Answer. Yes. My experience tells me that the vast majority of
Reserve component personnel will rise to meet any challenge, if they
are provided the resources to succeed in the field and the supportive
services to care for their families and provide employment security.
Every member of the National Guard and Reserve serving today has made a
conscious decision to do so, knowing full well the demands their
service would entail.
Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to enhance the
support of civilian employers of members of the Guard and Reserves?
Answer.
(1) Expand the Army Reserve's current employer partnership
initiative to a joint service program;
(2) support the National Committee for Employer Support of
Guard and Reserves and Defense Advisory Board for Employer
Support in expanding their efforts to make themselves more
relevant and responsive to both employers and employees;
(3) use all means available to gauge the level of
satisfaction and support for the Operational Reserve by private
and public sector employers;
(4) maintain close liaison with the Department of Labor on
issues pertaining to the Uniform Servicemembers Employment and
Re-employment Rights Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act;
(5) review existing policies and programs in the areas of
healthcare, family support, and veterans assistance to
streamline the transition of Reserve component members between
periods of military service and employment; and
(6) strive to act as a channel of communications between DOD
and employers regarding Reserve component employment issues.
homeland defense and homeland security
Question. What do you see as the appropriate role of the National
Guard and Reserves in homeland defense and homeland security?
Answer. I believe that homeland defense and homeland security is a
Total Force responsibility. However, experience has shown that the
Nation needs to focus on better use of the extensive competencies and
capabilities of the National Guard and Reserves in support of priority
missions. If confirmed, I will update my understanding of the roles,
missions, and capabilities of the National Guard and the Reserves and
will work to ensure that they have the equipment, training, and
personnel to accomplish their missions, both at home and abroad. As
stated earlier, I intend to work collaboratively with the Assistant
Secretary for Homeland Defense and to support the Commander, NORTHCOM,
as directed by the Secretary of Defense.
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 arose in the
planning and procedures for mobilization and demobilization, e.g.,
inadequate health screening and medical readiness monitoring errors
caused by antiquated pay systems, limited transition assistance
programs upon demobilization, and lack of access to members of the
Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). Reserve force management policies and
systems have been characterized as ``inefficient and rigid'' and
readiness levels have been adversely affected by equipment stay-behind,
cross-leveling, and reset policies.
What is your assessment of advances made in improving Reserve
component mobilization and demobilization procedures, and in what areas
do problems still exist?
Answer. It is my understanding that advances have been made in
increasing the alert and notification times prior to mobilization. This
provides predictability to servicemembers, their families and
employers. Additionally, this allows the units identified for
mobilization to receive increased funding for training and readiness.
Servicemembers receive TRICARE medical benefits in advance of
mobilization, increasing their fitness for duty and reducing the time
to mobilize. The standardization of procedures at home station allows
the mobilization station to certify deployment readiness. Pay systems
and duty statuses still suffer from antiquated divisions between Active
and Reserve components and need improvement.
Question. What do you consider to be the most significant enduring
changes to the administration of the Reserve components aimed at
ensuring their readiness for future mobilization requirements?
Answer. It is my understanding that one of the most significant
enduring changes is the implementation of Service force generation
plans that enables units to train and deploy on a more predictable time
line.
Question. Do you see a need to modify current statutory authorities
for the mobilization of members of the National Guard and Reserves?
Answer. I am not currently aware of any need for changes in these
authorities. If confirmed, I intend to study this issue.
Question. Do you agree that National Guard and Reserve personnel
should be mobilized to augment civilians deployed to Afghanistan?
Answer. The Department currently has Reserve component members
deployed in Provincial Reconstruction Teams and Army National Guard
volunteers in Agriculture Development Teams. It is my understanding
that the Department of State and United States Agency for International
Development have had contact with DOD in their efforts to fill
requirements in Afghanistan. Should they require DOD capacity, I have
been told that the Secretary has directed the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness to identify civilian employees
capable of deploying to Afghanistan in support of U.S. Government
initiatives; and should available DOD civilian employees not meet
immediate needs, we will work to identify members of the Reserve
components available for voluntary deployment, on military orders and
in uniform, to fill the requirement.
Question. Do you believe that Reserve personnel should be subject
to involuntary call to active duty to respond to national or manmade
disasters and other emergencies?
Answer. Homeland Defense and Defense Support to Civil Authorities
are Total Force missions. I believe a change to the law would have to
occur to allow this. If I am confirmed I will look into all the
ramifications involved.
lessons learned
Question. What do you believe are the major personnel lessons
learned from Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi
Freedom (OIF) which you would seek to address if confirmed?
Answer.
(1) The advisability of adopting a ``train-mobilize-deploy''
strategy that increases the flexibility of Reserve component
forces, but puts greater emphasis on pre-mobilization readiness
in all areas;
(2) the importance of maintaining unit integrity wherever
possible to permit Reserve component units to mobilize, deploy,
and return as whole units with their own leaders;
(3) the critical importance of permitting units to maintain
their unit integrity and resume normal activities (including
training) as soon as possible after returning from combat;
(4) the critical importance of fielding modern equipment to
units to train with before mobilization. The Services must find
ways to ``horizontally field'' some amount of the most modern
equipment to Reserve component units for training prior to
mobilization. A ``train-mobilize-deploy'' force cannot see
modern equipment for the first time after mobilization.
operational and personnel tempo
Question. Current DOD policy is that Reserve component members
should have 5 years of dwell time for each year they are mobilized.
What is your view of the achievability of this goal? What measures
must be taken to be able to achieve it in 5 years or less?
Answer. I believe the 1 to 5 dwell-time ratio is achievable and
progress is being made toward that goal. We must ensure that continuing
efforts to rebalance Active and Reserve component units in high-demand/
low-supply capabilities are completed and set the conditions to comply
with the Department's 1-year involuntary mobilization policy.
Question. In your view, how will shifting resources from Iraq to
Afghanistan affect dwell-time ratios?
Answer. I am not currently knowledgeable about specifics on this
shift. My goal would be to continue policies that support the
attainment of the 1 to 5 dwell goal for all Reserve components.
Question. How will the end of the use of stop-loss affect dwell-
time ratios?
Answer. I do not expect the end of stop-loss to have an effect on
dwell-time ratios due to the small number of servicemembers affected.
Question. What measures are being taken 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, medical personnel, and truck drivers?
Answer. I am told the Services are expanding capacity in selected
areas, continuing to rebalance the Active component/Reserve component
mix where appropriate, and using joint solutions.
Question. In your judgment, what would be the impact on the current
rates of operations and personnel tempo of assigning principal
responsibility for support to civil authorities for consequence
management of natural, domestic disasters to Reserve component forces?
Answer. I am not sufficiently well informed to express a judgment.
However, I believe that we need to guard against ``double-counting''
units. Given the current operations tempo, a unit assigned principal
responsibility for support to civil authorities could not be expected
to respond to an overseas deployment mission within the same timelines
as a unit not so assigned.
stress on families
Question. National Guard and Reserve families have been under great
stress since 2001 as a result of multiple and lengthy deployments in
OIF and OEF.
In your view, what are the key indicators of the stress on Reserve
component families at this time?
Answer. Our Reserve component families do have stress . . . this is
a part of life and certainly part of military service. More than ever
before we are working to understand and manage these stresses. There
are particular indicators of stress on our reservist families that we
must stay aware of and among others these include:
(1) Readiness--how prepared are families to support their
military member's service?
(2) Satisfaction . . . how satisfied is the family with being
part of their particular Service?
(3) Stress . . . What is their reported level of stress?
(4) Retention . . . What is the family's attitude toward
their member staying in the Service?
These key indicators of the stress on our families and how they are
coping are monitored every 6 months by excellent surveys by the Defense
Manpower Data Center.
Question. If confirmed, what will you do to address these key
indicators?
Answer. OSD(RA) should emphasize two key essentials of support for
our families:
1. Reasonable and predictable deployments and dwell-time
ratios
2. Effective means to deliver support information and
resources. Additionally, enhancing employer-employee
partnerships will mitigate a key source of stress--concern
about employment security.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important family
readiness issues in the National Guard and Reserves?
Answer.
(1) Providing as much predictability as possible;
(2) effectively communication between the unit and all family
members;
(3) effectively educating family members about their benefits
and about the predictable consequences of military service;
(4) providing supportive services;
(5) providing employment security; and
(6) ensuring that the Nation realizes that families are
essential to military success.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure support for Reserve
component families, particularly those who do not reside near an
active-duty military installation, related to mobilization, deployment,
and family readiness?
Answer.
(1) Ensure I understand the Reserve component chiefs'
requirements and support them as much as I can;
(2) continue to support Military OneSource;
(3) continue to support the Yellow Ribbon program; and
(4) get as much personal feed-back as possible from Reserve
component families to enable me to assess the effectiveness of
existing programs, and consider new ones.
Question. If confirmed, what additional steps would you take to
ensure that family readiness needs, including child care, are addressed
and adequately resourced?
Answer. This is another area where we must not become
``installation minded.'' Rather, we must continually reach out to
community partners such as the National Association of Child Care
Resource and Referral Agencies. Other resources are well developed and
developing by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the State
Directors of VA, as well as the Governors and the resources they
provide to their citizens.
I also believe we need to increasingly emphasize the one-stop
approach to resources that has developed through Military OneSource.
This clearinghouse of information and resources needs to become a
household name to all Reserve families. We will continue to
increasingly encourage its use by Reserve families in order to link
them to the broad array of support services in the areas where they are
located. We must identify where there are service gaps in communities
and build community capacity.
stop-loss
Question. How will DOD implement the Secretary of Defense's recent
direction to end the use of stop-loss without eroding unit manning and
unit cohesion?
Answer. I expect the Department to maintain our unit manning and
unit cohesion through our existing assignment procedures and increasing
use of incentive pay to stabilize units prior to deployment.
The U.S. Army is the only remaining component that utilizes stop-
loss to meet manning shortfalls. In order to implement the Secretary of
Defense's guidance to end the use of stop-loss, U.S. Army has set
deadlines for the termination of the program. Active Army units
deploying on or after January 1, 2010, will not be subject to stop-loss
policies. Army Reserve units deploying on or after August 1, 2009, and
Army National Guard units deploying on or after September 1, 2009, will
not be subject to stop-loss policies.
Incentive programs such as Deployment Extension Incentive Pay for
soldiers assigned to deploying units that do not have sufficient
obligated service remaining will be used to meet manning requirements.
Question. What is your understanding of the risk the Army must
absorb to end reliance on stop-loss, and what criteria would you apply
in creating financial incentives for soldiers to extend on active duty
for deployments?
Answer. I believe the Army can manage without stop-loss through the
use of incentives and other personnel management policies.
individual ready reserve
Question. DOD established a policy in 2005 mandating the discharge
of officers in the IRR who are beyond their military service
obligations (MSO) unless the officer positively elects to remain in the
IRR. Meanwhile, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves has
found that accessing the IRR as a viable source of manpower for the war
has been problematic and that using the IRR as a solution for unit
manning is a failed concept.
What are your views on the proper role of the IRR in force
management planning?
Answer. The IRR provides the Military Services with depth in force
management planning in both operational and strategic roles. This pool
of pre-trained individuals can, if actively managed, significantly
enhance a Service's flexibility to surge as force requirements dictate.
Question. If confirmed, what changes, if any, do you foresee making
to the IRR recall policy?
Answer. IRR recall policy is a Service option, utilized as manpower
requirements necessitate. I am not presently aware of a need for DOD to
significantly affect the Services IRR recall policy or process.
Question. What are your views about policies affecting continued
service by officer and enlisted personnel in the Reserve components who
have fulfilled their MSO?
Answer. The established DOD policy is a necessary force management
tool. Officers and enlisted who have fulfilled their MSO should be
evaluated by their respective Services for mobilization potential.
Officers shall be advised to resign, request transfer to the Standby
Reserve, or actively participate in the Reserves. Enlisted shall also
be required to participate or be denied reenlistment. Leveraged
technology and enhanced training opportunities will improve readiness
for those who remain active participants.
Question. What is your assessment of the adequacy of the system in
place for members in the IRR receiving orders to active duty to request
a delay or exemption for that activation, including the procedures in
place for appealing the decision on that request?
Answer. My understanding is the current system of delay/exemption
has worked well. I do not anticipate making significant changes unless
circumstances dramatically change.
Army IRR mobilizations were capped at 6,500 in January 2004. Marine
Corps IRR mobilizations were capped at 2,500 in August 2006. No more
than 6,500 soldiers or 2,500 marines can be on orders at any one time.
Question. What is your assessment of the value of the IRR to the
All-Volunteer Force?
Answer. The IRR is fundamental to the All-Volunteer Force and an
important manpower asset. The nation needs a strategic, as well as an
Operational Reserve. The IRR provides the primary source of pre-trained
individual manpower for the Strategic Reserve.
medical and dental readiness of national guard and reserve personnel
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.
If confirmed, how would you seek to clarify and coordinate
reporting on the medical and dental readiness of the Reserves?
Answer. I would review the medical and dental readiness programs
across the Services, to include command emphasis that is a cornerstone
for success. Success of medical and dental readiness is based on three
factors: (1) accurate reporting of readiness statistics; (2) fixing
minor medical and dental problems; and (3) command emphasis to ensure
timely evaluation of members. An electronic readiness record for the
Reserve component is vital to this process and linkages must be made
with the Active component systems for efficiency and continuity.
Additionally, incentives should be in place to motivate members to
maintain readiness, a challenge that cannot be accomplished without a
commitment from the Services' leadership. To succeed in improving
medical and dental readiness reporting, policies must include
standardized reporting capabilities with emphasis placed on command
accountability for unit readiness.
Question. How would you improve upon the ability to produce a
healthy and fit Reserve component?
Answer. Recognizing the value of preventative health practices and
providing individuals access and incentives to participate in such
practices are the cornerstones for a healthy and fit Reserve component.
Encouraging members to maintain optimal health, implementing policies
that enable them to do so, and authorizing leadership to provide the
means to enforce such policies is critical to a lifetime of fitness for
our operational Reserve Forces.
health care for reservists
Question. Members of the Reserve and National Guard who are ordered
to active duty for more than 30 days are eligible for the same health
care and dental benefits under TRICARE as other active duty
servicemembers.
What are your views on the adequacy of Reserve health care?
Answer. Great strides have been made towards the improvement of
health care across the Reserve components. TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS)
is now available to the Selected Reserve and their families, the
exception being those members who are eligible for the Federal Employee
Health Benefits Plan. This, however, has not resolved all of the health
problems our Reserve and Guard members face during their continuum of
service. There are gaps in care for those members who have service-
connected illness or injuries that are not diagnosed until their
TRICARE eligibility has expired. There are also gaps in health care for
IRR who are mobilized or volunteer for service. This group is not
currently eligible for TRICARE plans other than dental when not on
active duty orders, yet they are expected to maintain their medical and
dental readiness in order to be eligible to participate.
Question. Do you have any suggestions for improving continuity of
care for Reserve members and their families?
Answer. Since the inception of the Total Force and now an
Operational Reserve, the fragmented health care system has impacted not
only our members, but also their families. Many continuity of care gaps
have been bridged through the expansion of TRS, but gaps still remain.
Selected Reserve members and their families now have the option of a
continuum of care through the TRICARE network as long as the member
participates in the Selected Reserve. Members of the IRR and their
families do not have this option. We need to look at the feasibility of
somehow filling this gap in coverage for the small group of IRR members
who actively participate.
We must expedite in the development of an electronic health record
to provide adequate care for our Reserve component members. This record
should follow the members from enlistment through retirement with a
mechanism for transferring the information to the Veterans
Administration for follow on care.
We must also look for ways to expand the number of health care
providers who will accept TRICARE.
Question. TRS authorizes members of the Selected Reserve and their
families to use TRICARE Standard military health care program at a
subsidized rate when they are not on active duty.
What is your assessment of TRS?
Answer. TRS, established in 2005, has been enhanced to provide
nearly universal coverage to most members of the selected Reserve. Yet
studies have shown that the number of uninsured reservists has not
significantly changed. Further, there is no evidence that the increase
in health care coverage has improved medical readiness or had an effect
on recruiting and retention. So far, very few Reserve members have
enrolled in TRS--less than 4 percent of those eligible.
At the beginning of January 2009, the monthly premiums for TRS were
significantly reduced, dropping from $81 to $47.51 for single coverage
and from $253 to $180.17 for family coverage. It remains to be seen
whether this reduction in premiums will have a significant impact on
the number of members electing to purchase TRS. However, I understand
the enrollment in TRS continues to increase, so this change seems to be
helping. We need to evaluate how to leverage this valuable program to
improve the health and readiness status of our Reserve component
members. I believe we need to do a better job of educating leaders
about TRS so they can better inform their troops.
Question. Will TRS enhance recruiting for the Reserve components?
Answer. What we have seen with TRS is that it has not been
successfully used as either a recruiting or retention tool. I
understand that the enrollment rate has been steadily increasing,
especially since the premiums were reduced significantly in January.
Rather than discount the value of TRS as a recruiting or retention
tool, we need to re-evaluate TRS in the current economic light. With
the high rates of unemployment and the increase in the number of
uninsured in the general population, TRS may be regarded as a tangible
incentive to a prospective recruit and may provide an affordable
continuum of health for the member who might otherwise consider
separating. We need to re-energize a communication plan to educate our
members and potential members about the value of TRS for our members
and their families. We should also explore the best ways to use TRS in
connection with our efforts to collaborate more effectively with
employers.
national guard organization, equipment, and readiness
Question. Legislative proposals introduced in recent years and
recommendations of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves
have proposed numerous changes to the roles and responsibilities of the
National Guard and Reserves. Several of the proposed changes have been
implemented, and numerous others are under consideration.
How do you assess the changes in the roles, mission, and
authorities of the Chief of the NGB and the Army and Air National
Guard?
Answer. Positive. The 2008 DOD directive codified the organization,
management, responsibilities and function, relationships and
authorities of the Chief, NGB. As this new relationship matures, I am
sure this will enhance the effectiveness of the Department.
Question. In your view, do the current Army and Air Force processes
for planning, programming, and budgeting sufficiently address the
requirements of the Army and Air National Guard?
Answer. I am not sufficiently well informed to answer this
question.
Question. What is the appropriate role of the Chief of the NGB in
this regard?
Answer. The role of the Chief, NGB is that of advisor to the
Secretary of the Army and Secretary of the Air Force in addition to the
combatant commanders. This should ensure that the Chief, NGB is well
positioned to fully engage in the program-planning-budgeting system
process to identify NGB and National Guard requirements.
reserve forces policy board
Question. What is your view of the appropriate role, function, and
membership of the Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB)?
Answer. I believe the Secretary's recent report to Congress
regarding the RFPB laid out an extremely effective proposal for
organizing and utilizing the RFPB.
employment of full-time support personnel
Question. Active Guard and Reserve personnel providing full time
support are not authorized to perform State active duty missions even
in emergencies or disaster situations. On occasion, this can deny an
important resource, e.g., aviation capability, to a State Governor in
need of assistance.
Do you think that, as a matter of policy, Active Guard and Reserve
members should be prohibited in all cases from performing State active
duty missions?
Answer. If the law prohibits Active Guard and Reserve personnel
providing full-time support from performing State active duty missions
even in emergencies or disaster situations, I would expect the DOD to
follow the law.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe such use
should be authorized?
Answer. If confirmed, I would look forward to examining this issue
more closely and, if appropriate, providing the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the Secretary of Defense with
recommendations for change.
quadrennial review of military compensation
Question. Last year, the Department completed work on the 10th
Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC), releasing Volume I
of its report in February 2008 and Volume II in July 2008. Among other
recommendations, the QRMC proposes a new defined benefit retirement
plan that more resembles the benefits available under the Federal
Employee Retirement System than the current military retirement
benefit.
What is your assessment of the QRMC recommendations, particularly
the proposed new defined retirement plan?
Answer. While similar proposals were entertained by the Defense
Advisory Committee on Military Compensation (DACMC), my concern is that
any proposed retirement alternative replicates the experience mix of
personnel in the current system and the desired career lengths
determined by the RC force management plans.
Question. What recommendations, if any, would you propose that
Congress implement?
Answer. If Congress chooses to consider the QRMC's recommendations
for a defined benefit and contribution retirement plan, it should also
agree to conduct the QRMC-proposed multiyear demonstration project
prior to force-wide implementation, in order to reduce the
uncertainties and risks associated with a transition to a new
retirement system.
Question. Are the pay and benefits for Reserve personnel
appropriate for the types of service they provide?
Answer. Although we have seen significant enhancements in military
pay and benefits in the past 7 years, I plan to continue ongoing
efforts to achieve equity in Reserve compensation.
Question. If confirmed, would you recommend any changes to Reserve
personnel compensation policies and statutes?
Answer. A few perceived inequities are still a matter of concern
for certain Reserve component members. I will conduct a close review of
certain basic allowances and reimbursements. The actions Congress has
taken with regard to Reserve retirement have been positive.
gi bill benefits
Question. Last year, Congress passed the Post-September 11 Veterans
Educational Assistance Act that created enhanced educational benefits
for servicemembers who have served at least 90 days on active duty
since September 11. The maximum benefit would roughly cover the cost of
a college education at any public university in the country.
What is your assessment of the effect of this act on recruiting and
retention in the Reserve components?
Answer. I believe it is too early to assess the post-September 11
effects on recruiting and retention, but I will be closely monitoring
its implementation and corresponding RC enrollment.
Question. What is your understanding of the sufficiency of the
implementation plan for the transferability provisions contained in the
act?
Answer. I understand that the implementation of the transferability
provisions of the post-September 11 GI Bill have been coordinated
within the DOD and are in the final stages of interagency coordination.
Also, the proposed policies and procedures have been furnished to the
field and fleet and DOD expect the final results to mirror those
provisions. The Reserve components have been integral in the
development of these polices and are poised to implement.
Question. Montgomery G.I. Bill educational benefits for members of
the Selected Reserve under chapter 1606 of title 10, U.S.C., are an
important recruiting and retention incentive. However, the level of the
monthly benefit has not risen proportionately over time with that of
Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits payable to eligible veterans under
chapter 30 of title 38, U.S.C.
What is your view of the adequacy of the current monthly benefit
levels under the Selected Reserve Montgomery G.I. Bill?
Answer. Educational assistance benefits under chapter 1606--the
Montgomery G.I. Bill-Selected Reserve--have not kept pace with the
rising cost of college education; in 2008 the monthly benefit level of
$317 covered only 22 percent of tuition, fees, room and board.
Question. Would you recommend any changes to this program?
Answer. I believe that an increase in the monthly benefit is
necessary to maintain the attractiveness of the Montgomery G.I. Bill-
Selected Reserve as a force management tool.
science and technology academies reinforcing basic aviation and space
exploration (starbase) program
Question. The DOD STARBASE program is an effective community
outreach program that operates under the oversight of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. The goal of the DOD STARBASE
program is to raise the interest and improve the knowledge and skills
of at-risk youth in math, science, and technology by exposing them to
the technological environment and positive role models found at
military bases and installations. It currently operates at 54 locations
throughout the United States.
What are your views about the STARBASE Program?
Answer. The President has taken a position to make math and science
education a national priority. The program supports this effort. I have
had an opportunity to read the DOD STARBASE Program Annual Report and
agree with my predecessor that ``the strength of the program lies in
the three-way partnership between the military, the local communities
and the school districts. . . . In the end, the success of the program
depends on the student experience and the quality instruction delivered
by DOD STARBASE Program staff and military volunteers.'' General
Renuart, Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command and
NORTHCOM stated ``The partnership among local military installations,
school districts, and the surrounding communities created by
participation in the DOD STARBASE Program ensures all are valued and
equal stakeholders in the education of our children and that we are all
accountable for the product: well-educated, articulate young men and
women who are ready to take on the environment they will see in their
future.''
Question. Do you believe that Guard and Reserve personnel should be
involved in the STARBASE program?
Answer. Yes, because the students benefit by becoming exposed to
our military culture which values knowledge, opportunity, and
diversity. In the report, General Renuart also stated that military
personnel get the chance to act as a role model, to teach
responsibility and leadership, and to shape the lives of these young
students. In addition, exposing the students to our wonderful role
models, they become embraced to core values like service, integrity,
and pursuit of excellence.
Question. Do you believe that it is appropriate to fund this
program through the DOD budget?
Answer. Yes, for the reasons stated in my answers to the previous
questions. Furthermore, in the report General Chilton, Commander of
U.S. Strategic Command, stated that DOD STARBASE is a DOD program that
provides opportunities where young students can learn, pursue their
dreams, and make them come true. Students get to see and do,
experiencing first hand the wonders of learning, and get them
interested in science, technology, math and engineering.
national guard youth challenge program
Question. In 1993, the National Guard, as part of their community
mission, established the Youth Challenge Program to help at-risk youth
improve their life skills, education levels, and employment potential.
In 1998, the Federal share of funding for this program was reduced to
75 percent, with a subsequent annual decrease of 5 percent each year
through 2001, so that the Federal share is now 60 percent. Advocates
for Youth Challenge have urged that the Federal Government fund 100
percent of the costs during the first 2 years of operation of a State
program and restoration of the 75 percent Federal and 25 percent State
cost sharing after 2 years in order to increase the number of youths
who are able to participate and to facilitate more states offering
programs.
Question. What are your views about the National Guard Youth
Challenge Program?
Answer. The President has taken a position to address the high
school dropout crisis. General McKinley, Chief of the NGB, acknowledged
that the National Guard Youth Challenge Program helps address this
dropout crisis. It has been reported that over 84,700 students have
successfully graduated from the program, with 80 percent earning their
high school diploma or general education degree. On average, 26 percent
go on to college, 25 percent enter the military, and the remainder join
the work force in career jobs. A longitudinal study conducted by MDRC
reported that the early results of their evaluation suggests that
partway through the cadets Youth Challenge experience, they are better
positioned to move forward in their transition to adulthood.
Question. Do you believe this Program should be funded through the
DOD budget, or through some other means?
Answer. The National Guard Youth Challenge Program should be funded
and managed by the DOD and the NGB because of the strong military
linkage which is a key element to the program's success.
Question. What is your recommendation regarding the appropriate
level of Federal (versus State) funding of this program?
Answer. The change to the Federal share is appropriate and similar
to other cost share requirements. In addition, reducing the State cost
share burden would make the continued viability of the National Guard
Youth Challenge Program more likely during these economic conditions.
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 agree.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Reserve Affairs?
Answer. Yes, I agree.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided in a timely manner to
this committee and its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes, I agree.
Question. 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?
Answer. Yes, I agree.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
stress on reserve component families
1. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General McCarthy, you discussed key
indicators of stress on reservists' families in your responses to the
committee's advance policy questions. You stated that efforts are being
made to understand and manage these stresses. What do you consider to
be the most significant indicators of stress as a result of
deployments?
General McCarthy. I am responding with a personal opinion, rather
than a professional one, because I am not trained in this area. The
most obvious indicators of family stress seem to me to be: changes in
overall divorce rates; increase in incidents of domestic discord;
declines in school performance by the children of Reserve component
members; and increase in suicides involving Reserve component family
members. Again, speaking as someone without training in sociology and
related fields, precisely assessing these issues would seem very
difficult unless one had baseline measurements that were drawn at some
period shortly before partial mobilization began in 2001.
2. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General McCarthy, please elaborate on
the surveys that are being conducted and how accurate you consider them
to be and what actions you will take, if confirmed, to gauge the well-
being of Reserves and their families.
General McCarthy. If confirmed, I will rely heavily on professional
collection and analysis of data by agencies such as the Defense
Manpower Data Center. Its ``2008 Survey of Spouse Perceptions of
Deployment Support'' was the primary study to which I referred in my
previous responses. However, I also believe strongly in listening to
troops, their commanders and family members in attempting to assess
their morale and level of satisfaction. As Secretary Gates has said,
there is no substitute for first-hand contact with our forces and their
families.
application of goldwater-nichols act to reservists
3. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General McCarthy, you have expressed
the view that the requirements of the Goldwater-Nichols Act should be
expanded to apply to more reservists and that greater educational
opportunities need to be made available to reservists and guardsmen.
Please explain your thinking in this regard.
General McCarthy. (a) I generally concur with the recommendations
of the Commission on National Guard and Reserves in this area, and I
believe Secretary Gates' directive on implementing these
recommendations is the correct way ahead. (b) The active component was
significantly improved by the original congressional mandates for joint
education and qualification. The Reserve component will be similarly
improved if those mandates are extended to the Reserve components in an
achievable manner. (c) Extending the requirement for Reserve component
personnel to become ``joint qualified'' will require expansion and
improvement of the way ``joint'' education is delivered. DOD should be
authorized to make greater use of distance learning in this area for
both Active and Reserve component personnel. Doing so will increase
accessibility, and I believe it can be done without reducing the
quality of the educational experience. Assessment and calculation of
``joint service credit'' will also require some adjustment to comport
with the reality of Reserve component assignment and service patterns.
4. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General McCarthy, where are the
deficiencies today, and what do you consider to be the most pressing
changes that should be made?
General McCarthy. As stated above, I believe accessibility to joint
education, and opportunities for Reserve component personnel to serve
in joint assignments should both be expanded.
5. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General McCarthy, while there are
many calls today for greater opportunities for Reserve and Guard
personnel to serve in senior leadership positions, I have concerns
about the adequacy of general officer development in the Guard and
Reserve and whether the Services and the Office of the Secretary of
Defense can predictably produce a pool of officers with the necessary
experience and qualifications to assume the most senior command and
staff positions. Can you comment on your experience and on what steps
should be taken?
General McCarthy. I am confident that the talented men and women
who serve as flag and general officers in the Reserve components will
rise to meet any challenge. Given the education, training and
experience, they will match the development of their age and grade
peers in the active component. We need a human capital strategy that
views the most senior officer and enlisted personnel as ``talent
resources'' to be used where they can best contribute to national
defense and security, without regard to the component from which they
are drawn.
tricare for reserves
6. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General McCarthy, there has been a
recent surge in enrollment in the program created by Congress to allow
reservists in a non-active status and their families to enroll in the
TRICARE program. Has this program met the goals of improving retention
in the Reserves as well as improving continuity of health care services
and if not, how would you seek to improve it, if confirmed, as
Assistant Secretary?
General McCarthy. I have been told that, at present, retention in
all services within the Reserve component is meeting desired levels. I
am sure that TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) is one factor in a Reserve
component member's decision to remain in uniform. How much any one
factor influences such a complex decision probably cannot be stated
with absolute certainty. TRS does contribute significantly to
``continuity of health care'' in that in enables the family of a
servicemember to remain in the same healthcare network whether the
sponsor is on or off active duty. I believe we still need to improve
the awareness of servicemembers and their families about how TRS works.
I also believe we should look for ways to expand the network of health
care providers who will accept TRICARE, and that we should find a cost-
effective way to extend TRS to members of the Individual Ready Reserve.
Lastly, I believe we should engage in discussions with the Nation's
employers to find out whether TRS can be one element of a ``win-win''
relationship between them and their Reserve component employees.
______
[The nomination reference of Lt. Gen. Dennis M. McCarthy,
USMC (Ret.), follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 1, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Dennis M. McCarthy, of Ohio, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense, vice Thomas Forrest Hall.
______
[The biographical sketch of Lt. Gen. Dennis M. McCarthy,
USMC (Ret.), which was transmitted to the committee at the time
the nomination was referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Lt. Gen. Dennis M. McCarthy, USMC, (Ret.)
Since 2005, Dennis McCarthy has been Executive Director of the
Reserve Officers Association of the United States. This 67,000 member
organization is chartered by Congress to ``support and promote . . . a
military policy for the United States that will provide adequate
national security.'' He has written extensively on Reserve and National
Guard issues, and worked closely with the Commission on National Guard
and Reserves and other groups studying Reserve component policy.
Lieutenant General McCarthy began his military service in combat in
Vietnam, and remained on active duty until 1978. He then served as an
infantry officer in the ``traditional Reserve,'' and was recalled to
active duty for Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm and on several
subsequent occasions.
During the course of his career in uniform, he commanded eight
different Marine or joint organizations for more than 160 months. Among
these commands was the 3rd Marine Division where he was the first
Reserve General Officer to command an active duty Marine Division.
He also served as a senior staff officer in a number of Marine
headquarters and unified commands. He served on the Secretary of
Defense Reserve Forces Policy Board. During Operations Desert Shield
and Desert Storm he was recalled to active duty to lead significant
pre-deployment training programs at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat
Center at Twentynine Palms, CA. He was Vice Director of Operations at
the Atlantic Command during parts of Southwest Asia Operations Desert
Thunder I and II, Operation Desert Fox and during U.S. operations in
Kosovo. He was Atlantic Command's Director of Operations and Plans in
that campaign's immediate aftermath.
He assumed command of Marine Forces Reserve in June 2001 and led
the Force throughout the first 4 years of what would become the largest
mobilization of Reserves in Marine Corps history. General McCarthy is a
graduate of St. Ignatius High School in Cleveland, the University of
Dayton, and the Capital University Law School. While serving as a
traditional reservist from 1978 to 1999, he practiced law in Columbus,
OH, as a civil litigator. He was also actively involved in legal
education as a lecturer and adjunct faculty member.
Since his retirement from the Marine Corps, General McCarthy has
served on several corporate boards, and is a ``Leader in Residence'' at
the Franklin University Leadership Center in Columbus, OH.
He has been married for almost 42 years to Rosemary Bednorz
McCarthy of St. Paul, MN, and Springfield, OH. They have two sons, both
of whom are military officers (one in the Army National Guard and one
in the Marine Corps Reserve) and three grand children. Mrs. McCarthy is
widely recognized as a leader and innovator in developing and
supporting family readiness programs for the Marine Corps and its
Reserve.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Lt. Gen.
Dennis M. McCarthy, USMC (Ret.), 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.)
Dennis M. McCarthy.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.
3. Date of nomination:
June 1, 2009.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
February 1, 1945; Cleveland, OH.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Rosemary Bednorz McCarthy.
7. Names and ages of children:
Sean V. McCarthy, 40; Michael D. McCarthy, 33.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
St. Ignatius High School (Cleveland) 1959-1963; Diploma (1963).
University of Dayton (Ohio) 1963-1967; BA (1967).
Capital University Law School (Ohio) 1972-1975; JD (1975).
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
1988-2000, McCarthy, Palmer Volkema and Thomas, Co. LPA (Partner).
1999-2001, U.S. Marine Corps (Director, Reserve Affairs Division,
HQMC).
2001-2005, U.S. Marine Corps (Commander, Marine Forces Reserve and
Marine Forces North).
2005-present, Reserve Officers Association (Executive Director).
2006-present, Medifast Incorporated (Indep. Director and Vice
Chairman of the Board).
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
1967-2005, USMC.
1997-2001, Reserve Forces Policy Board, Department of Defense.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Reserve Officers Association (Executive Director).
Rivada Networks LLC (Board Member).
Medifast Inc. (Board Member).
Smoothie Sailing LLC, Franklin University Leadership Center
(consultant).
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Reserve Officers Association (Life Member).
Marine Corps Reserve Association (Life Member).
Ohio State Bar Association.
Columbus Bar Association.
Franklin University Leadership Center.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
None.
14. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Military: DSM, JSSM, MSM, NCM (with V), CAR, unit and campaign
decorations.
ROA Minuteman Hall of Fame.
Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers Distinguished Service Award.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
``The Officer'' ROA Editorials (10/year) since August 2005.
``Continuum of Service,'' Joint Forces Quarterly, Vol 36, (Quarter
1, 2005).
``A Continuum of Service,'' Armed Forces Journal (September 2008).
``We need another `Greatest Generation,' '' Naval Institute
Proceedings (March 2004).
``Combat Arms Warrant Officers,'' Marine Corps Gazette (June 2008).
``Commander's Intent,'' Marine Corps Gazette (est. Sept. 2001).
Numerous legal articles and book chapters, all published before
1999.
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.
Reserve Officers Association Testimony: ``Fiscal Year 2009 Reserve
Component Budget'' Hearing before the Subcommittee on Defense
Appropriations, Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senate, June 4, 2008.
Reserve Officers Association Testimony: ``Fiscal Year 2008 Reserve
Component Budget'' Hearing before the Subcommittee on Defense
Appropriations, Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senate, May 16, 2007.
Reserve Officers Association Testimony: ``The Reserve Components of
our Armed Forces'' Hearing before the Subcommittee on Defense
Appropriations, Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senate, May 24, 2006.
Reserve Officers Association Testimony: TRICARE'' before the
Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Senate Armed Services Committee,
U.S. Senate, March 14, 2006.
United States Marine Corps Reserve Commander, Marine Forces Reserve
Testimony: ``Reserve Matters'' before the Subcommittee on Personnel,
Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, 13 April 2005.
United States Marine Corps Reserve Commander, Marine Forces Reserve
Testimony: ``Fiscal Year 2005 National Guard & Reserve Budget'' before
the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, Appropriations Committee,
U.S. Senate, April 7, 2004.
United States Marine Corps Reserve Commander, Marine Forces Reserve
Testimony: ``Reserve Component Transformation and Relieving the Stress
on the Reserve Component'' before the Subcommittee on Total Force,
House Armed Services Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, 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.
Dennis M. McCarthy.
This 10th day of June, 2009.
[The nomination of Lt. Gen. Dennis M. McCarthy, USMC
(Ret.), was reported to the Senate by Chairman Levin on June
24, 2009, with the recommendation that the nomination be
confirmed. The nomination was confirmed by the Senate on June
25, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Dr. Jamie M. Morin by
Chairman Levin 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 am familiar with the history of the Goldwater-Nichols Act
and strongly support its intent. The Act has been extremely successful
to date, and has also benefitted over the years from periodic
incremental changes to reflect lessons learned and the changing world
situation.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to
address in these modifications?
Answer. At present, I do not see any needs for modifications. If I
am confirmed and I identify areas that I believe merit changes, I will
propose those changes through the established process.
duties of the assistant secretary of the air force (financial
management)
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management)?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force (Financial Management) is principally responsible for the
exercise of the comptrollership functions of the Air Force, including
all financial management functions. Additionally, this individual is
responsible for all financial management activities and operations of
the Air Force and advising the Secretary of the Air Force on financial
management.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. For the last 6 years, I have served as the senior defense
analyst at the Senate Budget Committee, with lead responsibility for
the committee's work on the defense, foreign affairs, and intelligence
budgets. Budget Committee Chairman Senator Kent Conrad has been
particularly interested in Air Force matters, and directed me to devote
particular effort to reviewing the Air Force budget request. This
experience has familiarized me with many Air Force programs and has
also allowed me to get to know many of the senior Air Force leaders,
both civilian and military. Additionally, given the committee's
interest in overall Federal spending and financial management, I have
been exposed to many of the financial management challenges which exist
throughout the Department of Defense (DOD). Earlier in my career, I
worked as an economist and strategy consultant. I have also held
fellowships from various public policy and defense think tanks and
spent 4 months during graduate school working in the Office of the
Secretary of Defense.
My academic preparation includes a Ph.D. in political science,
where I focused my research on congressional involvement in the defense
budgeting process, as well as an M.Sc. in public administration. My
training included econometric methods and similar rigorous quantitative
work that will help me oversee the Air Force's economics and cost
estimation operations, if I am confirmed. These specialized graduate
studies complement my undergraduate work in national security policy.
Question. Do you believe that there are any actions that you need
to take to enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management)?
Answer. Although I have some insight into Air Force financial
operations, if confirmed I will need to develop a much deeper
understanding of the operational challenges facing the Air Force
financial management organization, particularly when it comes to
information technology development and audit readiness projects. As a
general matter, I believe strongly in the need for managers to
understand the operational processes of their organizations, so if
confirmed I would intend to devote a portion of my time to
familiarizing myself with those processes.
relationships
Question. What is your understanding of the relationship between
the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management) and
each of the following?
The Secretary of the Air Force.
Answer. It is my understanding that the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force (Financial Management) is the principal advisor to the
Secretary of the Air Force on financial management matters and performs
other duties as the Secretary may prescribe.
Question. The Under Secretary of the Air Force.
Answer. It is my understanding that the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force (Financial Management) is also the principal advisor to the
Under Secretary of the Air Force on financial management matters and
performs other duties as the Under Secretary may prescribe.
Question. The other Assistant Secretaries of the Air Force.
Answer. It is my understanding that the Assistant Secretary
(Financial Management) works closely with the other Assistant
Secretaries of the Air Force by providing advice and input on financial
matters, as well as financial management policy leadership, guidance,
implementation and coordination, as appropriate.
Question. The General Counsel of the Air Force.
Answer. It is my understanding that the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force (Financial Management) has a close working relationship with
the General Counsel of the Air Force and Air Force fiscal counsels to
assure an understanding of any and all legal implications in Air Force
financial matters and compliance with the appropriate rules and
regulations.
Question. The Director of the Air Force Business Transformation
Office.
Answer. It is my understanding that the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force (Financial Management) works with the Air Force Chief
Management Officer and Air Force Business Transformation Office (BTO)
in support of their business transformation initiatives. These
initiatives align with the mission of the Business Transformation
Agency (BTA) of executing enterprise level business transformation for
DOD.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
Answer. It is my understanding that the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force (Financial Management) works closely with the Under Secretary
of Defense (Comptroller) in the development and execution of financial,
budgetary, and fiscal policies as they relate to the Air Force.
Question. The Deputy Chief Management Officer of DOD.
Answer. It is my understanding that the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force (Financial Management) would support the Deputy Chief
Management Officer of DOD in close coordination with the Air Force
Chief Management Officer in their responsibilities to manage the
business operations of the Department as they relate to and support the
business operations of the Air Force.
Question. The Director of the BTA.
Answer. It is my understanding that the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force (Financial Management) works with the Director of the BTA to
accomplish the BTO mission of executing enterprise level business
transformation.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and
Information Integration/Chief Information Officer.
Answer. It is my understanding that the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force (Financial Management) works closely with the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Networks and Information Integration) to ensure
that Department of the Air Force's diverse and extensive information
technology systems are properly managed and resourced to accommodate
and perform the full spectrum of financial management functions and
reporting which is required to achieve the Air Force's financial
management reporting goals.
Question. The Director, Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation.
Answer. It is my understanding that the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force (Financial Management) would work with the Director, Program
Analysis and Evaluation to ensure the program priorities of the Air
Force are well understood and thorough Air Force program reviews are
conducted within the framework of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting,
and Execution process and timetables. Additionally, the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management) works closely with
the Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and Programs to convey
and communicate the results to Air Force leadership, and ensures the
results of the program reviews are in line with overall DOD strategy.
Question. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
Answer. It is my understanding that the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force (Financial Management) would work closely with the Chief of
Staff to provide support required in order to execute his duties and
responsibilities to achieve the overall mission of the Air Force.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries for Financial Management of the
Army and the Navy.
Answer. It is my understanding that the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force (Financial Management) works closely with the Assistant
Secretaries of the Army and Navy in the area of financial management in
an effort to facilitate integrated and coordinated decisionmaking at
all levels and achieve the strongest cooperation between the Services
possible. A cordial and productive working relationship with these
colleagues and the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is
essential to successfully supporting the efforts of the Secretary of
Defense.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial
Management)?
Answer. In my opinion, the primary challenge the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management) will face is the need
to help develop and implement a balanced Air Force budget at a time
when our Nation faces a serious fiscal situation and must provide the
resources needed to meet wartime requirements. Improving the
transparency and fidelity of the Department's financial processes is
essential to ensure that senior leadership can make the best possible
decisions about prioritization among military requirements.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have to
address these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Air Force senior
leadership to develop workable budgets which rebalance Air Force
programs to address our Nation's commitment to our uniformed
servicemembers, provide the capabilities needed in the wars we are
fighting today, and prepare for the uncertain conflicts of the future.
Additionally, I will work with Air Force and DOD leadership to
enhance our efforts to improve business processes and systems, and will
seek to ensure that the Air Force can recruit, train, and retain a work
force that can meet defense financial management needs into the 21st
century. I will play an active role in the Air Force's part of the
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) and Enterprise
Transition Plan (ETP) programs and will provide aggressive leadership
and support for my staff in these critical efforts.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force (Financial Management)?
Answer. The Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force have
indicated that their top five priorities are to reinvigorate the Air
Force nuclear enterprise, to partner with the joint and coalition team
in winning today's fight, to develop and care for airmen and families,
to modernize equipment, organizations, and training, and to recapture
acquisition excellence. If confirmed, my intention would be to work
within the Air Force corporate process to ensure that these priorities
are appropriately resourced. Within the Financial Management
organization itself, I would intend to focus on three main priorities:
improving the transparency and fidelity of the Department's financial
processes in order to provide senior leaders with a clearer picture of
the Air Force's fiscal situation, developing and empowering financial
management professionals across the Air Force, and enhancing Air Force
cost estimation capabilities as part of the Department's commitment to
improving the defense acquisition processes.
civilian and military roles in the air force budget process
Question. What is your understanding of the division of
responsibility between the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
(Financial Management) and the senior military officer (the Director,
Air Force Budget) responsible for budget matters in the Air Force
Financial Management office in making program and budget decisions,
including the preparation of the Air Force Program Objective
Memorandum, the annual budget submission, and the Future Years Defense
Program (FYDP)?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force (Financial Management) has the responsibility and authority
for all budget matters within the Air Force. The Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Budget, the senior military officer responsible for Air
Force budget matters in the Financial Management office, reports
directly to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial
Management). As the primary advisor to the Assistant Secretary on
program and budget issues, the Deputy Assistant for Budget is
responsible for the formulation, justification and execution of the Air
Force budget, including the preparation of the Air Force Program
Objective Memorandum and the FYDP.
financial management and accountability
Question. DOD's financial management deficiencies have been the
subject of many audit reports over the past 10 or more years. Despite
numerous strategies and attempts at efficiencies, 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 Air Force?
Answer. The most recent Air Force financial statements include 3
pages of discussion of material weaknesses or significant deficiencies
in General Fund financial reporting. Many audit reports confirm these
weaknesses. Continued improvement in business processes and operations
is the top priority, followed by continued improvements in business
systems (though some critical business systems are joint) and
addressing the organizational culture to embrace and support these
system and process improvements.
Question. If confirmed, how would you plan to ensure that progress
is made toward improved financial management in the Air Force?
Answer. If confirmed, my initial plan to ensure financial
management progress continues would be to: evaluate, support and
enhance the Air Force efforts to improve business processes and
operations (including to support the Air Force's compliance with the
FIAR and ETP programs); communicate the benefits of process and systems
improvements; enhance training and education across the financial
management spectrum; and work with other parts of the Department to
benefit from best practices and exploit synergies.
Question. If confirmed, what private business practices, if any,
would you advocate for adoption by DOD and the Department of the Air
Force?
Answer. Although DOD and the Department of the Air Force are
different from the private sector in their mission and in many
operational aspects, there are certainly a number of financial and
management practices which are similar to the private sector and could
benefit from best practices being used elsewhere. If confirmed, I would
encourage the sharing of best practices with the other Services,
agencies, and departments in the Federal Government, but would also
strongly advocate awareness and adoption of private sector practices
where the Air Force would benefit from emulating them.
Question. What are the most important performance measurements you
would use, if confirmed, to evaluate changes in the Air Force's
financial operations to determine if its plans and initiatives are
being implemented as intended and anticipated results are being
achieved?
Answer. Performance metrics play a significant role in the success
of any financial operation. I am not sufficiently familiar with the
current financial performance metrics to judge whether they are fully
appropriate. If confirmed, I will work to understand and manage the
current financial performance metrics the Air Force is employing and
also will work with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to
ensure the financial performance metrics the Air Force uses in the
future will support the financial operations success of both DOD and
the Department of the Air Force.
Question. The Business Tranformation Agency (BTA) was established
in DOD to strengthen management of its business systems modernization
effort.
What is your understanding of the mission of this agency and how
its mission affects the responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force (Financial Management)?
Answer. It is my understanding that the mission of the BTA is to be
responsible for executing enterprise level business transformation and
that it therefore works with the functional leaders and components to
accomplish its mission. Given the stated mission of the BTA and the
tiered accountability approach to execution, it is my understanding
that the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management)
will be allowed the flexibility to direct the requirements for the Air
Force financial management mission, while continuously coordinating and
integrating with the BTA to ensure meeting enterprise level mission
requirements as well.
Question. What is your understanding of the role of the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management) in providing the Air
Force's views to the Agency, or participating in the decisionmaking
process of the agency, on issues of concern to the Air Force?
Answer. It is my understanding that the implementation of BTA
mission within DOD divides governance and accountability for business
modernization initiatives between Military Services and the Secretary
of Defense. The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial
Management) continuously coordinates and integrates with the BTA to
ensure the BTA is aware of the ongoing Air Force issues, as well as to
understand the challenges and issues at the enterprise level.
Question. Section 904 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 designated the Under Secretary of the Air Force as the
Chief Management Officer of the Air Force. Section 908 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 required the
establishment of a Business Transformation Office (BTO) within the Air
Force to assist the Chief Management Officer in carrying out his
duties.
If confirmed, what would your role be in the Department's business
modernization effort?
Answer. If confirmed, I believe my role as the Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force (Financial Management) would be to work closely with
the Air Force BTO and the Air Force Chief Management Office to ensure
Air Force financial management mission and requirements are coordinated
and integrated with the enterprise business operations, plans, and
modernization efforts of both the Air Force and DOD.
Question. What is your understanding of the relative
responsibilities of the Chief Management Officer, the Air Force BTO,
and the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management) in
Air Force business systems modernization and improvements in financial
management?
Answer. Public Law 110-417, section 908 required the Secretary of
the Air Force to establish a BTO to develop and implement a business
transformation plan with measurable performance goals and objectives to
achieve an integrated management system for the business operations of
the Air Force. If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
(Financial Management), I would work closely to coordinate and
integrate the requirements of the financial management mission within
this framework and to support the Air Force Chief Management Officer
and BTO in the accomplishment of their business transformation
responsibilities.
Question. Do you believe the organizational structure of the
Department of the Air Force is properly aligned to bring about business
systems modernization and improvements in the financial management of
the Air Force?
Answer. At this point, I am not sufficiently familiar with how the
specifics of the Air Force's organizational structure affect efforts at
the business systems modernization and desired improvements in the
financial management of the Air Force. As with any large, complex
organization the Air Force has multiple stakeholders with sometimes
competing equities in any business system or process modernization
effort.
Question. If not, how do you believe the Department should be
restructured to more effectively address these issues?
Answer. At this point, I do not have a sufficient understanding of
how the Air Force organizational structure affects these modernization
efforts to make recommendations. If confirmed, I would work to assess
whether the current organizational structure of the Air Force is
properly aligned to accomplish business systems modernization and
improvements in Air Force financial management. If I identify
shortfalls, I would intend to raise them with the Chief Management
Officer and the BTO in order to develop a consensus on any necessary
restructuring.
Question. Section 2222 of title 10, U.S.C., requires DOD to develop
a Business Enterprise Architecture and Transition Plan to ensure that
the Department's business systems are capable of providing timely,
accurate, and reliable information, including financial information, on
which to base management decisions. The Department also prepares an
annual FIAR plan aimed at correcting deficiencies in DOD's financial
management and ability to receive an unqualified ``clean'' audit.
Section 376 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006 required that the FIAR plan be systematically tied to the actions
undertaken and planned pursuant to section 2222.
If confirmed, what role would you expect to play in the formulation
of the Air Force's contribution to the Business Enterprise Architecture
and Transition Plan and the FIAR plan?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to work closely with the Air Force
Chief Management Officer and BTO to continuously coordinate and
integrate Air Force financial management requirements with the Business
Enterprise Architecture and Transition Plan to ensure they are linked
and consistently executed with the FIAR Plan.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
the Air Force's contribution to the FIAR plan is systematically tied to
actions undertaken and planned in accordance with section 2222?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to ensure Air Force FIAR
initiatives are closely coordinated and integrated with the FIAR Plan
and Business Enterprise Architecture and Transition Plan to ensure we
focus on the business and financial information needed to manage the
department and the Air Force.
Question. The Comptroller General has testified that 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?
Answer. I agree with the judgment of former Comptroller General
David Walker that a focus on financial systems and underlying problems
standing in the way of reliable financial data must take precedence.
Additionally, I believe that the complex interdependency between
department-wide, Service-level, and other financial systems means that
a ``big bang'' type approach to auditability is unlikely to succeed.
Question. What steps need to be taken in the Air Force to achieve
the goal stated by the Comptroller General?
Answer. In general, compliance with the FIAR and ETP programs (as
they relate to the Air Force) are going to be significant contributors
to achieve the goals the Comptroller General is proposing.
leasing major weapon systems
Question. What is your opinion of leasing versus buying major
capital equipment?
Answer. In both the private sector and the Federal Government both
options have value, but the best choice is strictly contingent upon the
financial and operational variables involved, and each situation is
unique. The Federal Government's lower cost of capital will often tip
the balance against leasing major capital equipment in cases where the
government anticipates an enduring need for the items in question.
However, decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis. If
confirmed, I will ensure that the Air Force adheres to OMB guidance and
pursues the option that most benefits the taxpayer.
Question. Is leasing a viable and cost-effective option for
procuring Department of the Air Force equipment, and if so, in what
situations?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I would intend to investigate the
specifics of any major leasing proposal before consulting with the
functional experts and this Committee to arrive at a financial
management recommendation on the option which is the highest, best and
most proper use of the taxpayer's dollars.
incremental funding
Question. Both the executive and legislative branches have
traditionally followed a policy of full funding for major capital
purchases such as aircraft.
What is your view of the incremental funding of major capital
investments?
Answer. As I understand it, the Office of Management and Budget has
long had a policy that programs be fully funded upfront. I believe that
the full funding principle is appropriate as a matter of policy. It
protects the taxpayer and helps to ensure the government does not waste
resources on projects that cannot be supported in future years. There
may, however, be limited circumstances in which it is appropriate to
waive that policy or find workarounds such as phasing of projects in
order to best serve the interests of the Air Force and the taxpayer.
supplemental funding and annual budgeting
Question. Since September 11, 2001, DOD has paid for much of the
cost of ongoing military operations through supplemental
appropriations. The fiscal year 2010 budget includes a full-year
request for overseas contingency operations.
What are your views regarding the use of supplemental
appropriations to fund the cost of ongoing military operations?
Answer. As a congressional staffer, I was active in efforts to
reduce DOD's reliance on supplemental appropriations for expenses that
could reasonably be anticipated. My personal view is that the
Department should include predictable costs in the base budget request
to the maximum extent possible. At times, the dynamic nature of these
operations will surely require short notice requests for funding, but
this should be the exception, not the norm. Where supplementals are
needed, their negative aspects can be minimized by subjecting them to a
level of scrutiny similar to that applied to regular budgets, within
the time constraints imposed by operational needs.
Choices about how to request the funding for overseas contingency
operations will be made by the President through OMB. Ultimately the
decision about how to provide this funding will be made by Congress. If
confirmed, I will work with the Air Force, Department leadership and
Congress to support the presentation of the budget in which ever
fashion is chosen.
authorization for national defense programs
Question. Do you believe that an authorization pursuant to section
114 of Title 10, U.S.C., is necessary before funds for operations and
maintenance, procurement, research and development, and military
construction may be made available for obligation by DOD?
Answer. Yes. I recognize situations do occur where funds have been
appropriated but not authorized in the Department, and it is my
understanding it is the Department's practice to work with all the
oversight committees to communicate and resolve these situations. If
confirmed, I will work closely with the oversight committees to achieve
a resolution of the situation, if it arises, and will respect the views
and rights of the committees.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force (Financial Management)?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
Question. 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?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Question Submitted by Senator John McCain
supplemental funding and annual budgeting
1. Senator McCain. Dr. Morin, what are your views about the
feasibility of elimination of wartime supplemental appropriations?
Dr. Morin. My personal view is that the Department should include
predictable contingency costs in the base budget request to the maximum
extent possible. Doing so should help reduce the frequency and the size
of any future supplemental appropriations requests. At times, the
dynamic nature of overseas contingency operations could certainly
require short-notice requests for funding, but this should be the
exception, not the norm.
______
Question Submitted by Senator John Thune
air force financial service center
2. Senator Thune. Dr. Morin, the Air Force Financial Service Center
opened in 2007 at Ellsworth Air Force Base. The Air Force is leading
the way when it comes to financial transformation to serve our Nation's
airmen. Not only is the Center important to South Dakota, but it also
provides the Air Force with a vital service. The Center currently
employs over 500 people and, in this fiscal year alone, the Financial
Service Center has processed close to a half a million Air Force pay
and travel documents. Are you familiar with the Air Force Financial
Service Center and do you support the Air Force financial service
transformation efforts that are being undertaken at Ellsworth Air Force
Base?
Dr. Morin. Yes, I am familiar with the Air Force Financial Services
Center and I support the effort to modernize the provision of financial
services in the Air Force. The success of the financial service
transformation effort would increase efficiency and yield significant
savings. If confirmed, I will ensure Financial Services within the Air
Force continues to support our Nation's airmen.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. Jamie M. Morin follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
May 11, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Jamie Michael Morin, of Michigan, to be an Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force, vice John H. Gibson, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. Jamie M. Morin, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. Jamie M. Morin
Since 2003, Jamie Morin has been a member of the professional
staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget. In this capacity, he
has served as the committee's lead analyst for the defense,
intelligence, and foreign affairs budgets, responsible for drafting the
relevant sections of the congressional budget resolution and advising
the Senate on enforcement of budget rules. Additionally, he advises
Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad on the full range of national
security issues.
Dr. Morin has previously worked in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense and as an economic development strategist with the firm J.E.
Austin Associates, where he performed contract research for the US
Agency for International Development. He has held in-residence
fellowships at the University of Virginia's Miller Center for Public
Affairs and at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments,
where he conducted research for the Pentagon's Office of Net
Assessment. He also served as a policy advisor on President-elect
Obama's defense transition team.
Dr. Morin received a Ph.D. in Political Science from Yale, an M.Sc.
in public administration and public policy from the London School of
Economics, and a B.S. in Foreign Service from Georgetown. His academic
research focused on U.S. national security policy, particularly the
role of Congress in defense budgeting and policy making.
A native of Michigan, Dr. Morin currently lives with his wife and
son in Washington, DC.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. Jamie M.
Morin 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.)
Jamie Michael Morin.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management and
Comptroller.
3. Date of nomination:
May 11, 2009.
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, 1975; Southfield, MI.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Megan Anne Baker-Morin.
7. Names and ages of children:
William (Liam) Morin, 4.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Yale University, 1998-2003:
Ph.D. in Political Science, 2003.
M.Phil, in Political Science, 2001.
M.A. in Political Science, 2001.
London School of Economics, 1997-1998, M.Sc. in Public
Administration and Public Policy, 1998.
Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, 1993-1996, B.S.F.S
in International Security and Diplomacy, 1996.
University of Detroit Jesuit High School 1989-1993, High School
Diploma, 1993.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Senior Defense Analyst, U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget,
Washington DC (July 2003 to present).
National Fellow in Public Affairs, Miller Center for Public
Affairs, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (July 2002 to July
2003).
Various Teaching Fellowships in International Relations and
American Politics, Yale University Department of Political Science, New
Haven, CT (January 1999 to June 2002).
Visiting Fellow, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments,
Washington DC (June 2001 to September 2001).
Economist and Strategy Specialist, J.E. Austin Associates
(international economic development consultancy), Arlington, VA (May
2000 to September 2000; previously worked for this firm from October
1995 to September 1997).
Intern (GS-9), Office of the Secretary of Defense (Directorate of
Requirements, Plans, and Counterproliferation Policy), Arlington VA
(June 1999 to September 1999).
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.
As a visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments, I assisted with research and writing of a study for the
Department of Defense's Office of Net Assessment on the British Royal
Navy's response to technological change during the late 19th and early
20th centuries.
As a consultant with J.E. Austin Associates, I supported several
USAID economic development projects, primarily related to private
sector and agricultural development in African and Latin American
countries.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member of Yale, Georgetown, and University of Detroit Jesuit High
School alumni associations.
Member of National Military Family 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.
Volunteer advisor on defense budget policy, Obama for America,
2007-2008.
Volunteer, Virginia Campaign for Change, November 2008.
Volunteer, Jim Webb for Senate, November 2006.
Volunteer, John Kerry for President, November 2004.
(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.
$250 - Barack Obama (General Election), October 22, 2008
$200 - Barack Obama (Primary), July 9, 2008
$200 - Barack Obama (Primary), January 8, 2008 (estimated).
14. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Dirksen Center - Congressional Research Award (2003)
Miller Center (UVA) - National Fellow in Public Affairs (2002-2003)
Yale University - Yale University Fellowship (1998-2002),
Dissertation Fellowship (2002-2003)
Smith-Richardson Foundation - Research Fellowship (2001, 2002)
Nominated by students for the Yale College Teaching Prize (1999)
DACOR Bacon House Foundation - Tutthill Fellowship (1997)
Krogh Scholar, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service
(1995-1996)
Eagle Scout, Boy Scouts of America (1992)
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Squaring the Pentagon: The Politics of Post-Cold War Defense
Retrenchment, Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University Department of
Political Science, (2003).
``The Politics of Post-Cold WarDefense Retrenchment,'' Paper
presented to the NewFaces in International Security Conference,
Triangle Institute for Security Studies, (2003).
``Did Congress Shape America's Post-Cold War Defense? Measuring the
Politics of Budgetary Retrenchment,'' Paper presented to the American
Political Science Association's 2003 annual conference.
``Explaining the Shape of the Post-Cold War U.S. Military,'' Paper
presented to the Miller Center Fellows Conference, (May 2003).
``Congressional Assertion in Defense Budgeting During
Retrenchment,'' Presentation to the Miller Center Fellows Kick-off
Conference (2002).
``Comment on Josef Joffe's `Who's Afraid of Mr. Big,' '' The
National Interest (Fall 2001).
``European Economic and Monetary Union and Trans-Atlantic Security
Relations,'' International Security Review (London, RUSI: 1999).
``EMU and U.S. Troops in Europe,'' Royal United Services Institute
Newsbrief (London, RUSI: April 1998).
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.
Jamie M. Morin.
This 15th day of May, 2009.
[The nomination of Dr. Jamie M. Morin was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on June 18, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on June 19, 2009.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Daniel B. Ginsberg by
Chairman Levin 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 Department of Defense (DOD), working with Congress,
should continually assess the law in light of improving capabilities,
evolving threats, and changing organizational dynamics. There have been
legislative initiatives from Congress in recent years to clarify the
role of the National Guard in DOD's organization but I am currently
unaware of any reason to fundamentally amend Goldwater-Nichols. If
confirmed, I will have an opportunity to assess whether the challenges
posed by today's security environment require broad 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. At this time, I am unaware of any reason to fundamentally
amend the Goldwater-Nichols Act. If I am confirmed and I identify areas
that I believe merit changes, I will propose those changes through the
established process.
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 ``as his principal duty the overall supervision of manpower
and Reserve component affairs of the Department of the Air Force.''
If confirmed, what duties do you expect that the Secretary of the
Air Force will prescribe for you?
Answer. The principle duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force are to support the tasks assigned by the Secretary of the Air
Force. These duties include providing guidance, direction, and
oversight for Air Force military and civilian manpower/personnel
programs; medical readiness and health care; plus Reserve component
affairs. The Assistant Secretary is also responsible for oversight of
the operation of the Air Force Review Board Agency and its component
board.
Question. What actions will you take to enhance your ability to
perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to immersing myself into the
Air Force's mission, organizations and its people, to maximize the
duties expected of me and to support the Total Force. I will work hard
to understand the Air Force's challenges and the resources necessary to
sustain yet continue to transform the Total Force. To that end I will
seek advice and counsel from the many and diverse stakeholders
dedicated to the success of the Air Force.
Question. In carrying out these duties, what would be your
relationship with the following officials:
The Secretary of the Air Force.
Answer. If confirmed, I will meet and communicate with the
Secretary of the Air Force on a regular and as required basis. I will
provide him with my honest assessment and advice and support him in the
implementation of his decisions and policy.
Question. The Under Secretary of the Air Force.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Under Secretary
and communicate on a regular basis.
Question. The other Assistant Secretaries of the Air Force
Answer. 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 Air
Force.
Question. The General Counsel of the Air Force.
Answer. The Air Force General Counsel has a significant role to
play in virtually all policy decisions in the Air Force. If confirmed,
I expect to have a strong relationship with The General Counsel to
provide consistent and sound legal advice.
Question. The Inspector General of the Air Force.
Answer. If confirmed, I will establish and maintain a close and
professional relationship with the Inspector General as this office has
an important role in inquiring and reporting on matters that are the
cornerstone of our readiness (such as efficiency, training, discipline,
and morale).
Question. The Chief of Legislative Liaison of the Department of the
Air Force.
Answer. If confirmed, I will establish and maintain a close and
professional relationship with the Director of Legislative Liaison who
plays an integral role in ensuring that the Air Force maintains
positive relations with Congress and coordinates the Air Force's
legislative strategy.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness.
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to foster a harmonious working
relationship with all my civilian contemporaries in the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD). 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 Air Force.
Question. The Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness.
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to establish the same
harmonious relationship that I intend to establish with the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.
Question. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
Answer. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, except as otherwise
prescribed by law, performs his duties under the authority, direction
and control of the Secretary of the Air Force and is directly
responsible to the Secretary. If confirmed, I would, as the senior
civilian charged with policy decision for manpower and Reserve affairs
work hand in hand with the Chief of Staff to carry out the duties
prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force.
Question. The Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force for Manpower
and Reserve Affairs.
Answer. Much of the day-to-day operations involving Air Force
personnel are actually handled by the staff members of the Deputy Chief
of Staff for Manpower, Personnel, and Services. As such, this office
implements the policies approved by the Office of the Secretary of the
Air Force. I understand that the Secretary of the Air Force has
clarified that relationship through recent revisions to mission
directives.
Question. The Surgeon General of the Air Force.
Answer. If confirmed, it will be my priority to ensure that our
airmen continue to receive quality medical support. I will work closely
with the Surgeon General of the Air Force to ensure the Air Force
medical system supports a medically ready force.
Question. The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force.
Answer. I expect to establish a relationship with the Judge
Advocate General of the Air Force as the Air Force's senior military
legal counsel and senior leader of the Air Force Judge Advocate Corps.
Question. The Chief, National Guard Bureau.
Answer. I have a history of working successfully with the National
Guard Bureau on a range of issues. If confirmed, I expect to maintain a
close working relationship with the Chief on matters relating to the
National Guard and the Air National Guard. It will be my priority to
ensure that our National Guard meets requirements whether in Federal or
State status.
Question. The Director of the Air National Guard.
Answer. The Air National Guard is one of the two Air Reserve
components with which, if confirmed, I expect to be in close, constant
communication. I understand Air National Guard issues and challenges
well and know that the Reserve components are key to Air Force mission
success.
Question. The Chief of Air Force Reserve.
Answer. If confirmed, I expect that my relationship to the Chief of
Air Force Reserve to be virtually identical to that of the Director of
the Air National Guard. However, because the Air Force Reserve is
limited to the Federal mission, I would expect some differences in
challenges and issues.
Question. The Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB).
Answer. I understand that the RFPB is the principal policy adviser
to the Secretary of Defense on matters relating to the Reserve
components. If confirmed, I will be a member of the RFPB. I will use
that role to ensure that the Air Force communicates its Reserve
component issues and priorities with the other Service RFPB members and
the Secretary of Defense.
Question. The Air Force Reserve Forces Policy Committee.
Answer. The Air Force Reserve Forces Policy Committee advises the
Secretary of the Air Force on major policy matters directly affecting
the Reserve components and the mobilization preparedness of the Air
Force. If confirmed, I will fully support the Air Force Reserve Forces
Policy Committee in its statutory role and provide such other support
as directed by the Secretary of the Air Force.
Question. Airmen and their families.
Answer. Ultimately, the individual airmen and their families will
determine whether the Air Force is successful in any endeavor. If
confirmed, I will devote the necessary energies to improving the
policies, processes, and programs under my purview that will ensure our
airmen mission success and the quality of life they deserve.
qualifications
Question. What background and experience do you have that you
believe qualifies you for this position?
Answer. The United States Air Force and our Airmen have remained a
lifelong concern, personally, intellectually, and professionally. I
have spent more than a decade working directly on military personnel,
readiness, and Reserve issues in the United States Senate, which has
constitutionally derived oversight responsibilities over DOD. With the
Senate Armed Services Committee during the chairmanship of Sam Nunn of
Georgia, I saw how Congress made providing for the men and women in
uniform a paramount concern to the basic functioning and strength of
the armed services. As an adviser on defense, veterans, and national
security to Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, I directly assisted the
Senator is his role as a senior member of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee and as cochair of the Senate's National Guard Caucus,
which has worked successfully to pass far-reaching legislation to
improve the benefits, equipment, and organization of the reserves,
including the Air National Guard and the Air Reserves. I provided
direct support and helped coordinate--among others--efforts to provide
affordable health insurance to members of the Select Reserve, provide
more uniform housing allowances, and improve the Department's ability
to carry out domestic operations in support of civilian authorities. I
have recently traveled with Senator Leahy to Kuwait, Iraq, and
Afghanistan saw first-hand some of the contributions and challenges
facing our deployed U.S. airmen.
Second, military personnel policy, the relationship between the
military and its civilian leadership, and the historical development of
the Air Force has been a special focus of my education, whether in my
undergraduate studies at the University of Michigan and the London
School of Economics or in my graduate work at the Johns Hopkins Nitze
School of Advanced International Studies and the University of Chicago.
Finally, the United States Air Force has been a lifelong interest to
me. Before my eyesight deteriorated and my interests and goals evolved,
I dreamed of flying the F-15 Eagle, the Air Force's longtime, main air
superiority fighter. In my childhood and teen years, I read about the
Service intensely, visited many U.S. Air Force bases across the globe,
and took private pilot lessons to begin to build basic flying skills.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs?
Answer. I believe the Air Force's ability to prevail in current
operations and to sustain global commitments is critical. The Air Force
must balance the employment of the Regular forces with those of the
Guard and Reserve. If confirmed, I will lead and partner on efforts to
formulate policies that will help facilitate our airmen's ability to
provide a continuum of service.
Family support programs are more important than ever in light of
continued deployments and the related stress, both on the members of
the armed services and their families. I understand the Air Force is
establishing a first class Wounded Warrior program to provide high
standards of care in a compassionate and supportive way.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I would be honored to do all that I can to
work with the rest of the Department and the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) to promote a high standard of care for our Wounded
Warriors and to ensure our families receive the support they require.
active-duty end strength
Question. The Air Force has requested an active-duty end strength
of 331,700 for fiscal year 2010--an increase of about 15,000 from last
year's authorization. This follows several years of declining Air Force
end strength.
What is your view of the required Air Force active-duty end
strength?
Answer. The 331,700 active-duty end strength should allow the Air
Force to fund its most pressing requirements, such as robusting its
nuclear forces as well as supporting new and emerging missions. If
confirmed, I look forward to reviewing and assessing the Air Force end
strength requirement.
officer management issues
Question. As the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower
and Reserve Affairs you would have significant responsibilities with
regard to officer management policies, the promotion system, and
recommending officers for nomination to positions of authority and
responsibility.
If confirmed, what changes, if any, would you make to the officer
management system?
Answer. It's well known that the Air Force has an exceptionally
talented and highly trained officer corps supporting not only the
mission of the Air Force but also the joint warfighting mission as
well. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing officer management
processes and policies to ensure the optimal development of the officer
corps.
Question. Do you believe the current Air Force procedures and
practices for reviewing the records of officers pending nomination by
the President are sufficient to ensure the Secretary of the Air Force,
the Secretary of Defense, and the President can make informed
decisions?
Answer. Based on my conversations with the Service, I believe that
Air Force officer promotion procedures are sufficient and ensure the
Air Force selects only the best qualified officers for promotion.
Should I be confirmed, I will ensure the promotion selection procedures
continue to be sufficiently rigorous to ensure officers meet the
statutory requirement of exemplary conduct both before and after the
convening of a promotion selection board.
Question. In your view, are these procedures and practices fair and
reasonable for the officers involved?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Air Force's promotion
system is fair and reasonable for all eligible officers. Officers are
considered based on a ``whole-person'' concept that gives ultimate
consideration to their demonstrated potential to serve in the next
higher grade. If confirmed, I will continuously monitor board processes
to ensure fairness and legal compliance.
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 OSD prior to nomination.
If confirmed, what role would you play in the officer promotion
system, particularly in reviewing general and flag officer nominations?
Answer. The Secretary of the Air Force is directly involved in the
General Officer nomination process working with the Chief of Staff. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with senior Air Force leadership
to execute the duties of the office of the Assistant Secretary for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
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. While I have not made a complete assessment, it is my
understanding that under current Department of the Air Force practice,
the adverse information presented to promotion selection boards is
culled from numerous Air Force organizations that maintain relevant
data, and generally has been found to be accurate and timely.
Certainly, if confirmed, this will be a key area to explore.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that
only the best qualified officers are nominated for promotion to general
and flag officer rank?
Answer. As previously stated, the Secretary of the Air Force works
directly with the Chief of Staff on this matter, however, if requested
by the Secretary, I stand ready to advise, if confirmed.
technical training of general officers
Question. In your view, do a sufficient number of Air Force general
officers have advanced training and degrees in scientific and technical
disciplines?
Answer. At this time I cannot answer definitively, however, if
confirmed, I will engage and advise where necessary.
Question. Are the career paths for officers with technical skills
appropriate to ensure that the Air Force can execute complex
acquisition programs, adapt to a rapidly changing technological threat
environment, and make informed investment decisions on DOD and Air
Force resources?
Answer. I have been informed that the Air Force carefully manages
its officer corps to the appropriate level of adaptability and
technical expertise relevant to each career field. I also understand
that the Air Force is presently studying its Acquisition Corps to
insure career paths for officers provide them with the technical skills
and experiences to take on the responsibilities of our complex
acquisition programs. If confirmed, I look forward to the results.
Question. What actions would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
Air Force officers can capably perform these missions?
Answer. As I mentioned, the Air Force is in the process of studying
its Acquisition Corps to ensure that the Air Force better develop our
officers to meet our Acquisition requirements at the general officer
level. If confirmed, I look forward to engaging with the Assistant
Secretary for Acquisition to rectify any deficiencies.
medical personnel recruiting and retention
Question. The Air Force is facing significant shortages in
critically needed medical personnel in both the Active and Reserve
components. The committee is concerned that despite authorizing large
bonuses for critically short medical specialties, serious challenges
remain in recruitment and retention of medical, dental, nurse, and
behavioral health personnel.
If confirmed, will you undertake a comprehensive review of the
medical support requirements for the Air Force and the sufficiency of
the plans to meet recruiting and retention goals in these specialties?
Answer. I appreciate the committee's concerns regarding this issue,
and if confirmed, I pledge to consider this matter with the seriousness
it requires. Medical support is critical to the success of our All-
Volunteer Force, and I intend to pay special attention to the Air
Force's medical personnel requirements. Recruiting and retention of
healthcare professionals is challenging in all areas of the country at
this time, and the Air Force is experiencing shortages in several
medical specialties and disciplines. However, even during these
challenging times, I am pleased to note that Air Force continues to
attract and produce world-class physicians, dentists, nurses, and
medics.
Question. What legislative and policy initiatives, including
increased involvement of Air Force medical personnel in medical
recruiting and bonuses and special pays, do you think may be necessary
to ensure that the Air Force can continue to meet medical support
requirements?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to review the Air Force's programs for
recruiting and retaining military and civilian medical personnel. I
will also work closely with the Air Force Surgeon General and the
Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel, and Services to evaluate
requirements and support ongoing programs and develop initiatives to
enhance the Air Force's ability to recruit and retain health care
providers and support personnel with the requisite critical skills.
Should legislative or policy changes be required, I will work with the
Secretary of the Air Force, other Air Force leaders, the leadership of
DOD, and Congress to bring them to fruition.
lessons learned
Question. What do you believe are the major Air Force personnel
lessons learned from Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation
Iraqi Freedom (OIF) which you would seek to address if confirmed as
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs?
Answer. From what I have observed, two major themes stand out from
lessons derived from OEF and OIF:
In interviews, senior leaders expressed the view they could not
distinguish between Active, Guard, and Reserve Forces. We need to
maintain a ``total force'' by sustaining equal training and inspection
standards, and recognizing the contribution of the Reserve component by
improving health, education, pay and retirement benefits for our airmen
when they return home.
Airmen supporting OEF and OIF from continental United States
locations are providing critical space and cyberspace capabilities to
overseas forces. These airmen are seeing substantial increases in
mission requirements with no proportional increase in manning, which is
putting great strain on the force. The Air Force must recruit, train,
support, and retain these highly skilled individuals to fulfill these
vital missions.
If confirmed, I will continuously monitor and seek out other
lessons learned and apply them to the personnel challenges and
complexities of our contingency operations.
tricare fee increases for military retirees
Question. Secretary Gates recently told officers at the Air War
College that ``health care is eating the (Defense) Department alive.''
How do you interpret this statement and do you agree with the
Secretary's assessment?
Answer. As I understand it, healthcare costs in DOD and the
civilian sector have increased disproportionately due to many factors.
I believe that over the past 10 years, the Air Force worked diligently
to streamline medical infrastructure and capitalize on advancements in
the field of medicine. This resulted in rightsizing many of our
facilities without compromising care provided to our airmen and their
families. The Air Force currently leverages strategic partnerships with
civilian trauma centers, university medical centers, Veterans Affairs,
and other DOD facilities to provide quality care and the broadest range
of clinical opportunities for our entire medical team. If confirmed, I
will optimize the use of our assets and those of our partners to ensure
the greatest return on our investments.
Question. What is your view of the need for increased beneficiary
payments in reducing overall health care costs to the Department?
Answer. I am advised that costs have grown due to many factors
including increased utilization by a mobilized Reserve component force,
expansion of benefits to support basic healthcare needs of severely
wounded and their families, increased retiree healthcare utilization,
healthcare inflation, and the same TRICARE premiums for the past 10
years. I believe that a sound medical benefit program directly impacts
the retention of airmen and their families. If confirmed, I will
support a DOD review of the current beneficiary payment structure to
ensure that future benefit costs are sustainable.
Question. What other reforms in infrastructure, benefits, or
benefit management, if any, do you think should be examined in order to
control the costs of military health care?
Answer. Military health care is critical to our force and if
confirmed, I will study this issue further and work with the other
Services and DOD to determine the best structure for the future.
personnel and entitlement costs
Question. In addition to health care costs, personnel, and related
entitlement spending continues to soar and is becoming an ever
increasing portion of the DOD budget.
If confirmed, what actions will you take to control the rise in
personnel costs and entitlement spending?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with our finance
community to strike a balance between appropriate personnel costs and
military pay or benefits.
Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to avoid a
requirement for massive end-of-year reprogramming to cover personnel
costs?
Answer. As is the case with regard to change in any large
organization, military personnel changes take time to execute and
implement throughout the force. In order to avoid unnecessary changes,
if confirmed, I will work closely within the Air Force and with DOD to
accurately project requirements, and will then monitor execution,
strength, and incentives, to ensure the Air Force remains in balance.
family readiness
Question. If confirmed, how would you address family readiness
needs in light of global rebasing, base realignment and closure, and
continuing deployments for both Active and Reserve component Air Force
personnel?
Answer. To use a quote from Air Force Chief of Staff General
Schwartz, ``We are committed to ensuring that we not only address the
needs of the military member, but recognize the fact that families make
sacrifices, too. It's this larger acknowledgement of a sense of
community, a sense of family--that the United States Air Force isn't
just machines, it's people, it's families.''
In that spirit, if confirmed, I will continue to identify and
address the needs of the Total Force and the Total Family with
deliberate attention directed toward the ongoing improvement in the
quality of their environment.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure support for Reserve
component families, particularly those who do not reside near an
active-duty military installation, related to mobilization, deployment,
and family readiness?
Answer. Family readiness is a very important issue to me.
Geographically separated families are entitled to all of the programs
and services necessary to enhance and maintain their family readiness.
Standardized programs across the Air Force benefit both Active and
Reserve components. The Yellow Ribbon Reintegration program can also
play an important role in helping relieve some of the stresses that
grow out of military service and frequent deployments. That being said,
if confirmed, I will address and bridge any gaps that may exist for the
Total Force and will continue to focus on providing child care and
youth program options for geographically separated airmen and their
families.
Question. In your view, what progress has been made, and what
actions need to be taken in the Air Force to provide increased
employment opportunities for military spouses?
Answer. I understand that the Air Force has made continuing
progress in addressing the needs of military spouses. If confirmed, I
will continue to pursue the initiatives that have been established and
develop new initiatives as needed, to benefit military families.
Question. If confirmed, what additional steps would you take to
ensure that family readiness needs, including child care, are addressed
and adequately resourced?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue to support childcare space
growth and recapitalization. I would provide support for expanded
childcare aid subsidy programs and work to increase the availability of
childcare for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve. I would
also review the ability to expand childcare options for families with
children who have special needs (respite care).
quality of life
Question. In May 2004, DOD 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. I understand that the Air Force prides itself on its
commitment to quality of life, a strong point in recruiting and
retention efforts. If confirmed, I will continue to make quality of
life a priority in the Air Force, just as I have worked in the past to
promote quality of life in the Reserve components.
Question. If confirmed, what further enhancements to military
quality of life would you make a priority, and how do you envision
working with the other Services, combatant commanders, family advocacy
groups, and Congress to achieve them?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to work with family advocacy
groups and all of the Air Force quality of life providers in their
transformation efforts aimed at improving airmen and their families'
quality of service. Additionally, joint basing has forced all of the
armed services to work together to find ways to improve the delivery of
quality of life to our troops and their families. Fortunately, there is
support both from Congress and the President, who are committed to
taking care of military families.
support for the single airman
Question. While the percentage of married servicemembers has
steadily increased, a substantial portion, especially young
servicemembers, are single.
What are the unique support needs of single airmen, especially
those returning from combat?
Answer. It is my understanding that the needs of single airmen
differ from those of the married airmen. Recognizing those differences
led to the development of programs and services that targeted the
single airman and their parents, siblings and significant others and
their ability to stay connected.
Question. If confirmed, what would you do to address these needs?
Answer. It is my understanding that support programs for single
airmen are being reviewed and improved, with determinations as to what
will be kept, altered and appropriately discontinued to better meet the
needs of single airmen. If confirmed, I will review these programs
designed to improve the quality of life for all airmen--Active and
Reserve component, single and married, with a view toward ensuring that
these programs are effective in meeting the specific needs of each
group.
national security personnel system
Question. Section 1106 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 restored the collective bargaining rights of
civilian employees included in the National Security Personnel System
(NSPS) established by DOD pursuant to section 9902 of title 5, U.S.C.
Under section 1106, the Department retains the authority to establish a
new performance management system (including pay for performance) and
streamlined practices for hiring and promotion of civilian employees.
Senior DOD officials have stated that they do not intend to expand NSPS
to include employees in bargaining units that are represented by
employee unions.
What is your view of the NSPS, as currently constituted?
Answer. I understand that the key features of NSPS (i.e. flexible
civilian compensation, staffing, classification, and performance
management systems) were designed to provide effective management of a
mission-oriented and results-driven civilian workforce that is vital to
the success of DOD missions. I understand that DOD and the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) are conducting a comprehensive evaluation of
the NSPS system. If confirmed, I look forward to seeing the results of
DOD and OPM's comprehensive evaluation of NSPS in order to work toward
addressing any identified concerns.
Question. Do you support the pay-for-performance approach adopted
for civilian employees in the NSPS?
Answer. As a general principle, I support pay-for-performance; an
employee's compensation should be based on contribution to mission. If
confirmed, I look forward to seeing the results of DOD and OPM's
comprehensive evaluation of NSPS in order to work toward addressing any
identified concerns.
Question. Do you believe that the Department needs streamlined
authority for hiring and promotion of civilian employees to meet its
human capital needs?
Answer. I am advised that the Department is challenged in meeting
increased civilian labor requirements in critical occupations and
developing human capital strategies to respond to these challenges. It
is my understanding that there are situations where specialized hiring
authorities are required in order to provide sufficient qualified
applicants to meet mission needs. If confirmed, I will review creative
and active use of available authorities and will explore the need for
and use of direct and expedited hiring authorities to assist in
achieving the Department's human capital objectives.
Question. In your view, is it viable in the long run for the DOD to
maintain two separate systems (NSPS and the General Schedule) for its
civilian employees?
Answer. It is my understanding that DOD has a number of other
personnel systems, such as Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel
System. If confirmed, I will work with DOD and OPM to assess the
appropriate number and types of personnel systems for effective and
efficient personnel management.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the NSPS
authorizing legislation? What changes, if any, would you recommend to
the NSPS regulations?
Answer. It is my understanding that DOD, in conjunction with OPM,
is conducting a comprehensive evaluation of NSPS, as currently
implemented. If confirmed, I would seek to ensure that the Air Force
participates fully in this evaluation. Depending on the outcome of this
evaluation, legislation and/or policy changes may be appropriate to
ensure that NSPS is on track to achieve its full potential.
balance between civilian employees and contractor employees
Question. In recent years, DOD and the Air Force have become
increasingly reliant on services provided by contractors. Over the past
8 years, DOD's civilian workforce has remained essentially unchanged in
size. Over the same period, the DOD's spending on contract services has
more than doubled, with the estimated number of contractor employees
working for the Department increasing from an estimated 730,000 in
fiscal year 2000 to an estimated 1,550,000 in fiscal year 2007. As a
result of the explosive growth in service contracts, contractors now
play an integral role in the performance of functions that were once
performed exclusively by government employees, including the management
and oversight of weapons programs, the development of policies, the
development of public relations strategies, and even the collection and
analysis of intelligence. In many cases, contractor employees work in
the same offices, serve on the same projects and task forces, and
perform many of the same functions as Federal employees.
Question. Do you believe that the current balance between civilian
employees and contractor employees is in the best interests of the Air
Force? In your view, has the Air Force become too reliant on
contractors to perform its basic functions?
Answer. I agree with President Obama's government contracting
memorandum of March 4, 2009, directing the Federal Government to ensure
that functions that are inherently governmental in nature are not
outsourced. If confirmed, I would work with the Secretary of the Air
Force, and leaders across the Air Force to assess this matter so as to
ensure compliance with the law and with the President's policy.
Question. Do you believe that the current extensive use of personal
services contracts is in the best interests of the Air Force?
Answer. As I understand it, the Federal Acquisition Regulation
restricts the use of personal services contracts. If confirmed, I would
work with the Secretary of the Air Force, and leaders across the Air
Force to ensure compliance with applicable law and policy.
Question. Do you believe that the Air Force should undertake a
comprehensive reappraisal of ``inherently governmental functions'' and
other critical government functions, and how they are performed?
Answer. I support fully the principles and policies set forth in
President Obama's memorandum of March 4, 2009. That memorandum directs
the Office of Management and Budget, in coordination with the Secretary
of Defense, among others, to ``develop and issue by July 1, 2009,
Government-wide guidance to assist branch agencies in reviewing, and
creating processes for ongoing review of, existing contracts in order
to identify contracts that are wasteful, inefficient, or not otherwise
likely to meet the agency's needs and to formulate appropriate
corrective action in a timely manner.'' I believe that any such review
must include a review of inherently governmental functions and other
critical government functions and how they are performed. If confirmed,
I will support any such review and corrective action, particularly as
it relates to matters under the purview of the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
Question. If confirmed, will you work with other appropriate
officials in the Air Force to address these issues?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work collaboratively with other Air
Force officials to ensure these matters are addressed in the best
interest of the Air Force and DOD.
Question. One reason for the explosive growth in DOD's contractor
workforce has been the continuing limitation placed on the number of
civilian employees of DOD. Rather than saving money as intended, this
limitation has shifted all growth to contractor employees.
Would you agree that the balance between civilian employees and
contractor employees in performing Air Force functions should be
determined by the best interests of the Air Force and not by artificial
constraints on the number of civilian employees?
Answer. Yes, I agree.
Question. If confirmed, will you work to remove any artificial
constraints placed on the size of the Air Force's civilian workforce,
so that the Air Force can hire the number of employees most appropriate
to accomplish its mission?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support all efforts to ensure
compliance with the law, and if modifications are determined to be
necessary, to work with Congress as necessary.
sexual assault prevention and response
Question. Numerous cases of sexual misconduct involving
servicemembers in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan have been reported 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 Services have failed to respond appropriately by
providing basic services, including medical attention and criminal
investigation of their charges.
What is your understanding of the resources and programs the Air
Force has in place in deployed locations to offer victims of sexual
assaults the medical, psychological, and legal help that they need?
Answer. I am aware of recent congressional testimony on this matter
and understand that the Air Force goes to great lengths to ensure
appropriate levels of support are available to our deployed Airmen. I
understand that the Air Force deploys a fully trained Sexual Assault
Response Coordinator (SARC) to each of our Air Expeditionary Wings and
is posturing to support an additional location. While deployed, it is
vital to have a robust sexual assault training and awareness program to
ensure all personnel, regardless of military branch, know that the SARC
is there to support them. I understand the Air Force's SARCs must
complete a mandatory training before they can assume the role and
responsibility. Combined with strong base leadership support, SARCs
provide a 24/7 response capability. Responsibilities include conducting
weekly in-processing briefings to newly arrived personnel and monthly
case management team meetings to review ongoing cases. Air Force SARCs
also address process improvements with representatives from Medical,
Office of Special Investigations, Security Forces and Judge Advocate
and Chaplain communities and provide outreach and prevention programs
across their installation and supported Geographically Separated Units.
If confirmed, I will continue to study this matter in greater depth
with a view to ensuring that the Air Force continues to take
appropriate steps to aid victims of sexual assault, both in garrison
and in deployed locations.
Question. What is your view of the steps the Air Force has taken to
prevent additional sexual assaults at home stations as well as deployed
locations?
Answer. In my opinion, the Air Force has taken several extremely
important steps in its campaign to prevent sexual assaults both at home
station and deployed locations. For instance, I have learned that from
the beginning of the Air Force's institutional program in 2005,
prevention approaches have been included with our awareness and
response efforts. Most prominent has been the inclusion of bystander
awareness and how each Airman has a role in preventing sexual assaults.
Part of the Air Force's continuous improvement to our training has been
a long-term project to develop specific bystander intervention training
modules for men, women, and leaders. If confirmed, I will continue
these vital initiatives and assess whether additional steps should be
taken.
Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the training and
resources the Air Force has in place to investigate and respond to
allegations of sexual assault?
Answer. I have been informed that from the time when the Sexual
Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program was created just 3 years
ago, the Air Force believes they have implemented a sound response
capability at the installation level. Since 2006, all airmen entering
Basic training and all precommissioning programs are educated about
sexual assault, their reporting options, and how to seek assistance if
they have been a victim of this crime. Education and training courses
have been designed and are ready to implement across the Air Force this
year to reach airmen throughout their time in the Air Force regardless
of the length of their service. If confirmed, I will assess whether
additional steps should be taken to support victims and hold offenders
accountable.
Question. Do you consider the Air Force's current sexual assault
policies and procedures, particularly those on confidential, or
restricted, reporting, to be effective?
Answer. Since the Air Force's program formally launched in 2005, I
understand great progress has been made in policies and procedures,
however, if confirmed, I will work with knowledgeable professionals to
assess and ensure the continuation of such progress.
Question. What problems, if any, are you aware of in the manner in
which the restricted reporting procedures have been put into effect?
Answer. While not extensively familiar with restrictive reporting
problems, we must always be aware of what victims are experiencing and
recognize that many will not report for a multitude of reasons. Many of
those barriers are similar to what civilian victims endure who have no
association with the military, as well as, some very unique challenges
to those who are in the military. If I am confirmed, I will constantly
engage to determine whether improvements are needed in the area of
restrictive reporting.
Question. 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. If confirmed, I will have an active role in the oversight
and implementation of the Air Force's SAPR Program. I'm committed to
creating a culture of zero-tolerance regarding the crime of sexual
assault. I recognize the importance of sustained partnerships with DOD,
and with national subject matter experts and advocacy groups to get it
right.
united states air force academy
Question. What is your assessment of the policies and procedures,
including the frequency and use of surveys, at the United States Air
Force Academy to prevent and respond appropriately to sexual assaults
and sexual harassment and to ensure essential oversight?
Answer. I understand the Academy has institutionalized a
comprehensive program of both prevention and response to sexual assault
and sexual harassment, and that surveys are a necessary and important
part of that program. I am not familiar exactly with the extent to
which surveys are currently used at the Academy. If confirmed I will
ensure vigilant oversight of this critical issue and, if necessary,
adjust policies and resources.
Question. What is your assessment of the policies and procedures at
the United States Air Force Academy to ensure religious tolerance and
respect?
Answer. It is critical that one consistent set of guidelines that
are fair to everyone be applied equally across the board because the
Air Force Academy cannot be an institution unto itself but must be part
of the larger Air Force. If confirmed, I expect the Air Force Academy
to remain in full compliance with OSD and Air Force-wide policy.
religious guidelines
Question. What is your understanding of current policies and
programs of DOD and the Department of the Air Force regarding religious
practices in the military?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Air Force has supported
policies of religious tolerance and mutual respect. If confirmed, I
would continue the Air Force's commitment to upholding the
Constitutional tenets of the ``free exercise'' and ``establishment''
clauses, and review policies as necessary to assure continued
compliance with the First Amendment.
Question. Do these policies accommodate, where appropriate,
religious practices that require adherents to wear particular articles
of religious significance?
Answer. Like other religious practices, I would expect that the
principles of ``free exercise'' would be balanced against the interests
of the Air Force in standardized uniform wear. If confirmed, I will
review these policies, as required.
Question. In your view, do these policies accommodate the free
exercise of religion and other beliefs without impinging on those who
have different beliefs, including no religious belief?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to review in depth the Air
Force's policies regarding free exercise of religion and other beliefs.
If confirmed, I will study this issue to determine if changes in policy
are necessary.
Question. In your opinion, do existing Air Force policies and
practices regarding public prayers offered by military chaplains in a
variety of formal and informal settings strike the proper balance
between a chaplain's ability to pray in accordance with his or her
religious beliefs and the rights of other servicemembers with different
beliefs, including no religious beliefs?
Answer. I understand that chaplains are not compelled to offer
prayers that are inconsistent with their faith, but are expected to
remain sensitive to the pluralistic Air Force and society they serve.
In my opinion, such an approach strikes an appropriate balance given
the diversity of religious views in the Air Force. If confirmed, I am
willing to study this issue further to determine if changes in policy
are necessary.
suicide prevention
Question. The committee is concerned about the increasing rate of
suicides in all of the Services.
In your view, what is the cause of this increase in suicides in the
Air Force?
Answer. I understand the Air Force has experienced an upward trend
in suicides in 2008 compared to 2007. I believe that deployments and
heavy operational tempo place a heavy strain on airmen and their
families. If confirmed, I will aggressively work with other Air Force
leaders, DOD and outside agencies to give this our full attention.
Question. What is your assessment of the Air Force's response to
this increase in suicides?
Answer. It is my understanding that Air Force leadership has
aggressively responded to the increase in suicides. The Air Force
continues to look at many successful initiatives to build on an
established Suicide Prevention Program. In my view, the Air Force has a
benchmark program that we can continue to improve on to provide a
comprehensive and collaborative approach to enhancing the psychological
health and resiliency of airmen. If confirmed, I will fully support and
build upon the Air Force Suicide Prevention Program.
Question. What is your assessment of the adequacy of Air Force
programs in place to reduce or eliminate the incidence of suicides in
the Air Force?
Answer. While one suicide is too many, I believe the Air Force
Suicide Prevention Program has been an effective program. The program
engages leadership at all levels; incorporates suicide prevention into
Air Force education and training programs; utilizes recurrent mental
health screening; and fosters a cross-functional approach to enhance
our ``Wingman'' culture and strengthen the psychological health and
resiliency of airmen.
foreign language proficiency
Question. A Foreign Language Transformation Roadmap announced by
DOD 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. More recently, Congress
authorized incentive pay for members of precommissioning programs to
study critical foreign languages.
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. In my view, our Nation's current and future involvement in
overseas contingency operations will rely heavily on both foreign
language skills and cultural knowledge. I recommend that all Federal
agencies develop and incentivize organic foreign language capability
within their respective organizations. These skills will allow us to
strengthen and multiply our forces' capabilities across the full
operational spectrum.
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. I have been advised that the Air Force is currently
participating in a DOD-directed, Joint Chiefs of Staff-led Capabilities
Based Assessment; this joint effort is tasked to address the issue of
foreign language requirements and the shortfalls we currently have in
the Department. If confirmed, I would continue to assess and monitor
this process and impact Air Force policy to ensure that we best utilize
our resources to make up the shortfalls and continue to grow this high-
demand capability within in the Air Force for the benefit of the
Nation's defense.
Question. What is your assessment of an appropriate time frame
within which results can be realized in this critical area?
Answer. I have been advised that the Air Force is in compliance
with the requirements outlined in the Defense Language Transformation
Roadmap (DLTR) and we are in close coordination with the Defense
Language Office in the preparation of goals and action plans for the
next phase of the DLTR which will provide a more focused approach to
build out foreign language capability. If confirmed I will continue to
monitor compliance and closely coordinate with necessary agencies
throughout DOD.
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 required
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 the total number of Air Force personnel currently assigned
as legislative fellows, and what grades are these officers in?
Answer. I have been told that for academic year 2008-2009, the Air
Force has 35 participants in the Air Force Legislative Fellowship
Program. They have 32 officers in the O-4 grade and three DOD civilians
in the Pay Band 2/GS-12/13 range attending.
For academic year 2009-2010, the Air Force has 36 individuals
projected to start in July 2009. All military members are in the grade
of O-4 (28 are active duty officers, 2 are Air National Guard members,
and 2 are Air Force reservists). The remaining four are DOD civilians,
again in Pay Band 2/GS-12/13. Describe how the Air Force selects
individual officers for participation in its legislative fellows
program.
As I understand the process, the Air Force Personnel Center
advertises for nominations during the annual Intermediate and Senior
Developmental Education selection process. Air Force Legislative
Fellows are initially recommended by their senior Air Force leadership
and then vectored by their Air Force Developmental Team to the Air
Force Developmental Education Designation Board for selection.
Civilian Fellows meet an internal Civilian Developmental Education
Board from which they are selected and forwarded to the Developmental
Education Designation Board.
Question. What is your assessment of the value of the Legislative
Fellows program to the Air Force and the utilization of officers who
have served as legislative fellows?
Answer. I am familiar with the Air Force Legislative Fellows
program and many other agency programs from my time spent on the Hill.
I'm an advocate of these fellows programs as they provide participants
a comprehensive understanding of the complexities of legislative
operations and Congress's role in the process of government as a whole.
As a development opportunity for our Airmen, fellowships enable first-
hand understanding of legislative branch functions and how
congressional decisions affecting Federal agencies' programs are made.
This exposure provides participants the opportunity to learn how
legislation is crafted, as well as enabling a fundamental understanding
of the legislative role in military requirements and procurement. This
is an experience that will serve these officers well as they progress
into senior leadership roles. If confirmed I look forward to working
with the Air Force personnel community to ensure optimum utilization of
the Fellows' recent experience with Congress.
defense integrated military human resources system
Question. The Department and the Services have been moving toward
adoption of Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS)
as a cross-service, fully integrated personnel and pay system. Under
the proposed timeline, the Army is the first in line to launch DIMHRS,
with the Air Force to follow. Recent reports indicate technical
difficulties will postpone the Army's launch date.
What is the status of the Air Force's implementation of DIMHRS?
What is your assessment of the need for an integrated, cross-service
personnel and pay system?
Answer. I understand that DOD is in the process of transitioning
the core DIMHRS software to the Services for completion of tailored
operational systems. The Air Force is establishing an acquisition
program office to complete the solution, and will use the core software
to the maximum extent practical and if confirmed, will aggressively
engage to ensure fielding of the system.
Question. What is your understanding of the Air Force's evaluation
of the adequacy of DIMHRS and other alternative personnel management
systems for the Air Force?
Answer. If confirmed, I will carefully evaluate the adequacy of
DIMHRS and other alternative personnel management systems for the Air
Force?
Question. If confirmed, what changes, if any, would you recommend
to the implementation schedule and process currently in place?
Answer. If confirmed, I would review the assessment and
implementation plan to ensure it reflects best practices and is
supported by a solid business case. If I discover deficiencies in the
plan, I will make appropriate recommendations, after cross-Service
coordination.
gi bill benefits
Question. Last year, Congress passed the Post-September 11 Veterans
Educational Assistance Act that created enhanced educational benefits
for servicemembers who have served at least 90 days on active duty
since September 11. The maximum benefit would roughly cover the cost of
a college education at any public university in the country.
What is your assessment of the effect of the act on recruiting and
retention of servicemembers?
Answer. I understand the GI Bill has always been a positive
recruiting and retention tool and I expect the post-September 11 GI
Bill to continue this legacy. I believe it is too soon to have
empirical data regarding the exact effect the new GI Bill has on
recruiting, but there are stories from the field that the new GI Bill
is a major point of discussion for potential recruits and is a major
recruiting incentive. In addition to the revised education benefits, I
believe the revised eligibility and transferability will have a
positive effect on morale in general.
If I am confirmed I will share any empirical data regarding the
effect of the post-September 11 GI Bill on recruiting, retention, and
morale with this committee.
Question. What is your evaluation of the sufficiency of the
implementation plan for the transferability provisions contained in the
act?
Answer. I have been informed that the Air Force is working closely
with DOD on the implementation of this new program and that DOD will
publish its implementing policies in the near future. If confirmed, I
will continue to ensure a close working relationship with DOD and our
Sister Services so that the program is well-executed and consistent
with Air Force policy.
air national guard
Question. The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves (CNGR)
issued its report in January 2008, and since then the Department has
been engaged in evaluating and implementing the Commission's
recommendations.
What do you consider to be the most important recommendations of
the Commission relating to the National Guard, and which
recommendations, in your view, should receive the highest priority for
implementation?
Answer. The CNGR report in 2008 provided 95 recommendations for
change. I believe the CNGR did a remarkable job of examining the issues
of the Reserve components. Every recommendation provides a level of
importance within its own right. There are themes that remain
consistent throughout the report. These include transforming the Guard
and Reserve with the means to become an Operational Reserve of the 21st
century with the effective implementation of a continuum of service for
its members. Generically, this core concept provides for Reserve
component changes in training, equipping, career progression, family
and member benefits, and employer support.
Question. In your view, would it facilitate integration of Active
and Reserve components if the Director of the Air National Guard was
dual-hatted with responsibilities under the Chief of Staff of the Air
Force?
Answer. The Director of the Air National Guard reports to the Chief
of the National Guard Bureau (CNGB). Under current DOD Directive, the
CNGB serves as the principal advisor to the Secretary of the Air Force,
and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, on matters relating to the Air
National Guard. As I understand it, dual-hatting the Director of the
Air National Guard would be contrary to current DOD Directives and the
National Guard Bureau Charter.
Question. With respect to the wearing of the military uniform,
under what circumstances should personnel of the National Guard be
authorized to wear their Air Force uniforms?
Answer. Present and retired members of the Air National Guard
should wear the Air Force uniform on occasions and under circumstances
prescribed by current Air Force and Air National Guard Instructions.
Question. Do you believe that Air National Guard personnel should
be allowed to wear their uniforms at political rallies or events
related to advancing legislation of interest? If so, under what
circumstances?
Answer. Air National Guard members should only wear the Air Force
uniform as prescribed by current Air Force regulations and supplemented
by Air National Guard Instructions.
Question. From an organizational and force management perspective,
what goals do you hope to accomplish with respect to the Air National
Guard if you are confirmed?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to support the needs of the Air
Reserve components as part of the totally integrated Air Force through
policy oversight of human resources and Reserve component programs.
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 arose in the
planning and procedures for mobilization and demobilization, e.g.,
inadequate health screening and medical readiness, monitoring,
antiquated pay systems, limited transition assistance programs upon
demobilization, and lack of access to members of the Individual Ready
Reserve. Reserve Force management policies and systems have been
characterized in the past as ``inefficient and rigid'' and readiness
levels have been adversely affected by equipment stay-behind, cross-
leveling, and reset policies.
What is your assessment of advances made in improving Air Force
Reserve component mobilization and demobilization procedures, and in
what areas do problems still exist?
Answer. It is too early for me to make an assessment of the
problems that may exist in the mobilization and demobilization process.
From the outside looking in, the Air Force seems to do very well with
the way it employs the Reserve components.
Question. What do you consider to be the most significant enduring
changes to the administration of the Reserve components aimed at
ensuring their readiness for future mobilization requirements?
Answer. The Air Force's Total Force approach resourcing and
training the Reserve components goes a long way to ensuring their
readiness for mobilization and air expeditionary force participation.
Question. Do you see a need to modify current statutory authorities
for the mobilization of members of the Air National Guard and Air Force
Reserves?
Answer. At this point, based on my limited knowledge, I feel
current statutory authorities are sufficient to support mobilization
requirements. If confirmed, I will be in a better position to assess
whether to recommend changes to applicable law and policy.
Question. Do you agree that Air National Guard and Air Force
Reserve personnel should be mobilized to augment civilians deployed to
Afghanistan?
Answer. Yes, I believe that National Guard and Reserve component
personnel bring skills and experience that can be used to augment other
executive branch agencies.
medical and dental readiness of air national guard and air force
reserve personnel
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.
If confirmed, how would you seek to clarify and coordinate
reporting on the medical and dental readiness of the Reserves?
Answer. First, let me say that I am extremely proud of our Reserve
component servicemembers and their service to our Nation during this
time of war and transformation. Based upon what I have seen of the Air
Reserve components, this has not been an issue that prevents their
contribution to the Total Force. However, if confirmed I will assess
the effectiveness of reporting on the medical and dental readiness and
to evaluate the need for policy changes and increased oversight.
Question. How would you improve upon the Air Force's ability to
produce a healthy and fit Reserve component?
Answer. At present, the Air Reserve components maintain the same
level of fitness as the Regular Air Force. These standards have served
them well and, if confirmed, I hope to work with the Air Force to
ensure our Reserve components remain healthy and fit.
national guard organization, equipment, and readiness
Question. Legislative proposals introduced in recent years and
recommendations of the CNGR have proposed numerous changes to the roles
and responsibilities of the National Guard and Reserves. Several of the
proposed changes have been implemented, and numerous others are under
consideration.
How do you assess the changes in the roles, mission, and
authorities of the CNGB and the Air National Guard?
Answer. From my perspective, the changes to the roles, mission and
authorities of the CNGB elevates the National Guard to a level of
visibility needed to ensure it is properly equipped and resourced to
carry out its dual-role mission.
Question. In your view, do the current Air Force processes for
planning, programming, and budgeting sufficiently address the
requirements of the Air National Guard? What is the appropriate role of
the CNGB in this regard?
Answer. I have not had sufficient time to examine the Air Force
processes for planning, programming and budgeting, nor, am I aware of
how the CNGB interacts within this process. If confirmed, I look
forward to engaging in this process to ensure our Air Reserve
components are properly equipped and resourced to carry out their
missions and responsibilities.
systems and support for wounded airmen
Question. Wounded soldiers from OEF and OIF deserve the highest
priority from the Air Force 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.
In your view, what were the most critical shortcomings in warrior
care since 2001?
Answer. From my understanding, the Air Force has been doing an
outstanding job caring for our wounded airmen since 2001. The most
critical shortcoming that I have been advised on is retaining
individuals who wished to remain on active duty and providing policy to
ensure they could continue to be productive members of the Service. If
confirmed, it will be my distinct honor and privilege to do all I can
to continue to promote the highest standard of lifelong care for our
Wounded Warriors.
Question. What is your assessment of the effectiveness of the Air
Force's response?
Answer. I have been advised that the Air Force has taken great
action in addressing this issue and made retention, if possible, a
priority. The biggest shortcoming facing the Air Force in the near
future is reintegration into civilian communities if retention is not
possible especially for those with non-visible wounds of war such as
traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder. Employment
for our wounded warriors outside of the Air Force is not just a Service
issue but an American issue. The Air Force must continue to work
through civilian hiring policies to hire wounded veterans when
qualified, partner with organizations like the National Chamber of
Commerce for local placement with business, and other helping
organizations.
If confirmed, I will assess the effectiveness of the Air Force's
response and continue to work with Congress to ensure our warriors and
their survivors receive the highest possible care and support.
Question. If confirmed, are there additional strategies and
resources that you would pursue to increase the Air Force's support for
wounded soldiers, and to monitor their progress in returning to duty or
to civilian life?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continuously assess the efficiency and
appropriateness of the Air Force's Warrior and Survivor Care Program
and implement strategies and seek additional resources as appropriate
to ensure the Air Force meets the needs of our wounded airmen.
Question. Studies following the revelations at Walter Reed point to
the need to reform the DOD disability evaluation system. What is your
assessment of the need to streamline and improve the Air Force's
disability evaluation system?
Answer. I am informed that beginning November 26, 2007, the Army
started to test a revamped physical disability evaluation program at
Walter Reed Army Medical Center, streamlining the process used to
determined soldiers' fitness for service or eligibility for military
and veterans' benefits. I am advised that key features of this pilot
program include a single medical examination and a single-sourced
disability rating. It is my understanding that the Department of VA
conducts a single comprehensive exam and will rate all medical
conditions. The military departments accept the Department of VA rating
for all medical conditions determined unfitting for continued military
service unless the condition involves noncompliance, misconduct, or a
non-service aggravated medical condition which existed prior to
service. Based on the limited information I have so far, I believe the
process does need to be improved. If confirmed, I will work to this end
with stakeholders in the Air Force as well as with experts in the DOD
and the Department of VA.
Question. If confirmed, how will you address any need for change?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I will listen to the information
presented by the experts in this area and study the process myself.
After becoming fully informed on the issues, I would work with the
stakeholders in the Air Force and appropriate personnel in both the DOD
and the Department of VA to determine what areas should be changed and
how best to accomplish those changes.
quadrennial review of military compensation
Question. The Department completed work last year on the 10th
Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC), releasing Volume I
of its report in February 2008 and Volume II in July 2008. Among other
recommendations, the QRMC proposes a new defined benefit retirement
plan that more resembles the benefits available under the Federal
Employee Retirement System than the current military retirement
benefit; increasing TRICARE fees for retirees; and the adoption of
dependent care and flexible spending accounts for servicemembers.
What is your assessment of the QRMC recommendations, particularly
the proposed new defined retirement plan?
Answer. Reductions in current entitlements and benefits could
impact future recruiting and retention efforts. Proposed changes in
military retirement entitlements and benefits must be thoroughly
reviewed to fully understand these impacts. If I am confirmed, I will
be mindful that our military forces, who are often called upon to fight
under extremely arduous conditions, should receive deserving pay and
entitlements.
Question. Which recommendations, if any, would you propose that
Congress implement?
Answer. I believe that any proposed action on the earlier QRMC
recommendation will require thorough review and analysis to understand
the impact. At this time, I do not have a specific proposal for
implementation of any change.
management and development of the senior executive service
Question. The transformation of the Armed Forces has brought with
it an increasing realization of the importance of efficient and
forward-thinking management of civilian senior executives.
What is your vision for the management and development of the Air
Force civilian senior executive workforce, especially in the critically
important areas of acquisition, financial management, and the
scientific and technical fields?
Answer. I am told that the Air Force believes that deliberate
management of this diverse population is of preeminent importance. They
also feel that development of our senior executives--and those who one
day will become senior executives--is equally important. The Air Force
is committed to providing opportunities--educational and experiential--
to enhance leadership skills for all executives, including those in the
acquisition, financial management and scientific and technical fields.
If confirmed, I will continue this vision, ensuring deliberate
management and development of the Air Force senior executive workforce.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes, I do.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of 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 in a timely manner to
this committee and its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
Question. 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?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
political activity by military personnel in uniform
1. Senator McCain. Mr. Ginsberg, in 2005, Senators Bond and Leahy
conducted a political rally across the street from the Senate Russell
Building in connection with their introduction of their National Guard
Empowerment Act. Approximately 30 Air and Army National Guard general
officers in uniform participated in that rally as proponents and
advocates for the legislation. Do you think it is permissible--or good
policy--for military personnel to participate in the political process
while wearing their military uniforms?
Mr. Ginsberg. Sir, though Senator Leahy and Senator Bond organized
and announced this as a news conference and not as a political rally, I
do believe it is neither permissible nor good policy for military
personnel to participate in a political process while wearing their
military uniforms. In fact, Department of Defense guidance states that
members should not wear the military uniform when participating in
public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, or any public
rallies, or in any public demonstration when the Air Force sanction of
the cause for which the activity is conducted may be implied.
2. Senator McCain. Mr. Ginsberg, with respect to members of the
National Guard, reservists, and Active-Duty members, do you think that
under any circumstances they should be authorized to wear their
uniforms while demonstrating in favor of legislation?
Mr. Ginsberg. Sir, no I do not. Service policy for both Army and
Air Force is consistent in prohibiting wearing of the uniform by anyone
participating in the furtherance of political activities or interests
that result in an inference of official sponsorship. Regardless of duty
status, this policy applies to National Guard, Reserve, and active duty
airmen. I believe that this is sound policy and should be continued.
3. Senator McCain. Mr. Ginsberg, do you think that is consistent
with a politically neutral military?
Mr. Ginsberg. My previous answers with respect to military members
not wearing uniforms when participating in public speeches, interviews,
picket lines, etc. is consistent with a politically neutral military.
tricare for reserves
4. Senator McCain. Mr. Ginsberg, the Senate recently adopted a
resolution which Senator Levin and I, along with Senators Ben Nelson
and Graham, co-sponsored recommending that 2009 be recognized as the
Year of the Military Family. Where are the gaps in support for military
families, and what would you do, if confirmed, to close those gaps
within the United States Air Force?
Mr. Ginsberg. I am familiar with the testimony given by Ms. Eliza
Nesmith, a member of the Air Force's Deputy Chief of Staff for
Manpower, Personnel and Services staff, given earlier this month with
respect to gaps in support of military families. I understand the gaps
to include not having a clear understanding of the processes through
which child and family adjustment is enhanced or hindered; not having a
clear understanding of how multiple deployments influence families; and
not having a clear understanding of how deploying through the National
Guard/Reserve versus Active Duty can affect adjustment. I look forward
to working with senior Air Force and DOD leadership to bridge these and
any other gaps that may exist for the Total Force, if confirmed.
personnel reductions in the air force
5. Senator McCain. Mr. Ginsberg, the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2010 includes funding for an Active-Duty end strength of
331,700 airmen. Although this represents an increase of almost 16,000
over previous plans to shrink to 316,000 personnel, there are still
concerns being expressed about the stress on airmen, particularly in
aircraft maintenance and base support functions. Yet, the halt in the
reduction of end strength in fiscal year 2010 is proposed to allow the
Air Force to provide manpower for new and emerging missions as opposed
to backfilling the shortages in existing operational capabilities. If
confirmed, will you immediately assess the effect of manpower
distribution among Air Force specialty codes for maintenance and base
support and report back to this committee with the results of your
review?
Mr. Ginsberg. The 331,700 active duty end strength should allow the
Air Force to fund its most pressing requirements. As I understand it,
the Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services, along
with the Chief of the Staff of the Air Force have already identified
and began assessing the effect of manpower distribution among Air Force
specialty codes to include maintenance and base support, and I will
eagerly join in the assessment to produce a workable and long lasting
solution. If confirmed, upon completion of my review, I will report
back to the committee with my assessment.
6. Senator McCain. Mr. Ginsberg, how will you assess the health and
readiness of the force as Air Force personnel are asked to do more with
less people?
Mr. Ginsberg. If confirmed, I will work with the Deputy Chief of
Staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services, Chief of the Air Force
Reserves, the Director of the Air National Guard, and the Air Force
Surgeon General to assess the health and readiness of the force. I am
told that tools currently exist such as readiness reports and climate
assessments and will work to identify where the largest ``health and
readiness'' gaps exist and direct my focus on those, if confirmed.
______
[The nomination reference of Daniel B. Ginsberg follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 2, 2009.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Daniel B. Ginsberg of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force, vice Craig W. Duehring.
______
[The biographical sketch of Daniel B. Ginsberg, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch by Daniel Ginsberg
Daniel Ginsberg is the Senior Defense Policy Advisor to U.S.
Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Serving as a legislative assistant to
the senior Senator from Vermont since 1999, Mr. Ginsberg assists
Senator Leahy with his work as a top member of the U.S. Senate Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee and as the co-chair of the U.S. Senate
National Guard Caucus.
Prior to this, Mr. Ginsberg served on the staff of U.S. Senate
Committee on Armed Services during the chairmanship of U.S. Senator Sam
Nunn of Georgia. He has held various research positions at the RAND
Corporation, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and the
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. He has also completed
internships at the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, the United States Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public
Affairs), and Senator Nunn's Atlanta Office.
Mr. Ginsberg is a 1995 graduate of the University of Michigan,
including a year abroad at the London School of Economics where he
completed the General Course. He earned an M.A. in international
economics and strategic studies in 1998 from the Johns Hopkins
University's Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. From 1998
to 1999, he undertook a year-long fellowship at the University of
Chicago, carrying studies with the Department of Political Science and
the Committee on Social Thought.
Mr. Ginsberg was born in West Lafayette, IN, and raised in
Dunwoody, GA, an Atlanta suburb. He currently lives in Washington, DC
with his wife Jessica Rose.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Daniel B.
Ginsberg in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Daniel Brian Ginsberg (sometimes known as Danny Ginsberg).
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs.
3. Date of nomination:
June 2, 2009.
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 13, 1974; West Lafayette, IN.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Jessica L. Rose.
7. Names and ages of children:
None.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
University of Chicago, 09/98-05/99, fellowship, no degree
Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies,
09/96-05/98, M.A., 05/98.
London School of Economics, 10/94-05/95, General Course, year
abroad, no degree.
University of Michigan, 09/92-12/95, B.A., 12/95.
Dumwoody High School, Atlanta, GA, 09/89-06/92, high school
diploma, 06/92.
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 Defense Policy Advisor, Office of U.S. Senator Patrick
Leahy, Washington, DC, 11/99-present.
Research Fellow and Consultant, RAND, Washington, DC, 04/99-11/99.
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.
Research Assistant, U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, 05/93-08/93, 05/94-08/94, and 01/96-10/96.
Intern, U.S. Mission to NATO, Brussels, Belgium, 05/95-08/95.
Intern, U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,
Washington, DC, 05/92-08/92.
Intern, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public
Affairs, Washington, DC, 06/91.
Intern, Office of U.S. Senator Sam Nunn, Atlanta, GA, 10/90-05/91
and 09/91-05/92.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
None.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
09/2004, John Kerry for President, $100.
09/2008, Obama for America, $2,000.
10/2008, Obama for America, $195.
14. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
National Guard Association Patrick Henry Award, 2003.
The Military Coalition Freedom Award, 2003.
The Enlisted Association of the National Guard Militia Award, 2002.
The Reserve Officers Association Appreciation Award, 2001.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
From September 2002 through April 2009, I have written articles on
classical music and opera (concert reviews, feature pieces, and
interviews) for the Washington Post and a few other publications,
including the Washington City Paper and Bloomberg News. I have never
accepted any payment for these articles, following Senate rules on
outside writing and speaking. None of the articles related in any way
to the Department of Defense, the U.S. Government, or politics. I have
severed my relationship with the Washington Post and no longer write
music reviews or carry out any music journalism activities. Attached is
a full listing of articles that I have had published.
[Witness responded and information is retained 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.
I have given no formal speeches. Based off general notes, I have
given extemporaneous remarks on several military and defense related
topics at workshops and conferences.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Daniel B. Ginsberg.
This 3rd day of June, 2009.
[The nomination of Daniel B. Ginsberg was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on June 24, 2009, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 6, 2009.]
NOMINATIONS OF GEN. JAMES E. CARTWRIGHT, USMC, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE
GRADE OF GENERAL AND REAPPOINTMENT AS THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT
CHIEFS OF STAFF; AND ADM ROBERT F. WILLARD, USN, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO
THE GRADE OF ADMIRAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, UNITED STATES PACIFIC COMMAND
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 9, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman,
Akaka, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Webb, Udall, Hagan, Begich,
Burris, McCain, Inhofe, Chambliss, and Thune.
Also present: Senator Inouye.
Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Madelyn R. Creedon,
counsel; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member;
Creighton Greene, professional staff member; Jessica L.
Kingston, research assistant; Gerald J. Leeling, counsel;
William G.P. Monahan, counsel; Russell L. Shaffer, counsel; and
William K. Sutey, professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Joseph W. Bowab, Republican
staff director; Adam J. Barker, professional staff member;
Daniel A. Lerner, professional staff member; Lucien L.
Niemeyer, professional staff member; Diana G. Tabler,
professional staff member; Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel;
and Dana W. White, professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Kevin A. Cronin and Breon N.
Wells.
Committee members' assistants present: James Tuite,
assistant to Senator Byrd; Christopher Griffin, assistant to
Senator Lieberman; Nick Ikeda, assistant to Senator Akaka;
Christopher Caple, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Ann
Premer, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Patrick Hayes,
assistant to Senator Bayh; Gordon I. Peterson, assistant to
Senator Webb; Jennifer Barrett, assistant to Senator Udall;
Roger Pena, assistant to Senator Hagan; Lindsay Young,
assistant to Senator Begich; Gerald Thomas, assistant to
Senator Burris; Lenwood Landrum and Sandra Luff, assistants to
Senator Sessions; Clyde A. Taylor, IV, assistant to Senator
Chambliss; Jason Van Beek, assistant to Senator Thune; Brian W.
Walsh, assistant to Senator Martinez; and Chip Kennett,
assistant to Senator Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody.
This morning, the committee meets to consider the
nominations for two very significant military positions.
General James Cartwright, United States Marine Corps, has been
nominated for a second term as Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff; and Admiral Robert Willard, United States
Navy, has been nominated to be the Commander of U.S. Pacific
Command (PACOM).
On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you both for
decades of service to this country and for your willingness to
continue to serve. The country appreciates--and this committee
reflects that appreciation--the sacrifices that you and your
families have made along the way.
The support that our military families provide is critical,
and we want to do all that we can to support them. Both of you
have your family members with you today, and when it comes your
time to give your opening statements, we would welcome your
introducing family members.
Before I give my opening statement, Chairman Daniel Inouye
is with us this morning to make an introduction. Given his
incredible schedule, I am going to call on him before I
complete my opening statement.
It is great to have you with us always, Danny. Senator
Inouye?
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF HAWAII
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
McCain, and distinguished members of the committee.
I am pleased and honored to be here this morning to
introduce Admiral Robert F. Willard, nominee for the position
of Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command.
I commend this wise decision to designate Admiral Willard
as our next PACOM Commander. His invaluable experience as
current Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet will serve him well
as he leads our Nation's oldest and largest command.
He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, an F-14
aviator, operations officer, and executive officer of the Navy
Fighter Weapons School known as ``Top Gun.'' He has commanded
the Screaming Eagles, the amphibious flagship USS Tripoli, and
the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.
His experiences in the Pacific area of responsibility and
his thorough knowledge and understanding of the region's
history would be a tremendous asset to anyone that might assume
the helm at PACOM. Commanding U.S. Naval Forces in the Pacific
has given him tremendous exposure to the challenges and rewards
that face our military in that area of the world.
Because of Admiral Willard's firm grasp of the history of
the Asia-Pacific region, he understands the geopolitical
dynamics at work, which confront the United States. The PACOM
Commander's watchful eye over such an expansive area cannot be
accomplished alone, and this enforces cooperation between U.S.
military forces and those of our friends in the region.
I have had the honor and pleasure of working with Admiral
Willard during his tenure as Commander of U.S. Pacific Fleet on
very important issues that face our Navy in the Pacific Ocean.
The Admiral and I have discussed the value of Pearl Harbor, the
shipyard, the Pacific Missile Range on a number of occasions.
This intimate knowledge of Hawaii's importance to our national
defense is in part why Hawaii will be welcoming the first of
its new Virginia-class submarines, the USS Hawaii, later this
month.
Mr. Chairman, December 7, 1941, is a distant memory for
most Americans. On that quiet Sunday morning, Hawaii's
strategic importance was impressed on this Nation by an attack
on our military forces on the island of Oahu and propelled our
Nation into the 20th century's second world war.
Despite time and technological advances, the significance
of Hawaii's location in the Pacific has not changed, and it is
still essential to the defense of all Americans and our allies
in this region. There are many challenges and opportunities for
the United States in the Asia-Pacific region. I have complete
faith in Admiral Willard's ability to lead PACOM.
It is essential our military have its most capable leaders
at the helm to guide us through this difficult time. Mr.
Chairman and members of the committee, I am confident Admiral
Willard's leadership will benefit all of our forces in the
Pacific and ensure our national security.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator Inouye. It is
always great to have you here. It is a very meaningful
introduction, and I know Admiral Willard is most appreciative
as well.
These nominees are going to face a host of challenges.
General Cartwright is going to continue to serve as our
country's second-highest ranking military officer, carrying out
the Nation's military priorities and playing a major role in
the Department of Defense's (DOD) acquisition process. General
Cartwright is also responsible for making sure that the needs
of the combatant commanders are addressed in a timely fashion--
that they have what they need to carry out their missions when
they need it.
General Cartwright, I first would like to take this
opportunity to thank you for your candor, your accessibility
over the past few years, and to let you know that all of us
appreciate your willingness to meet with both members and staff
of this committee and have so many significant and serious
discussions over those years on a number of issues.
Admiral Willard will assume command of PACOM at a time of
increasing tensions with North Korea and as a result of a
continuing series of provocative North Korean actions and a
major repositioning of U.S. forces within the Pacific Rim.
Both of our nominees will lead our military in meeting the
challenges of preventing the spread of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD), dealing with stateless terrorism, ethnic
conflict, and violent religious extremism. General Cartwright
will face these challenges globally, Admiral Willard in a
region with a particularly troublesome history of
proliferation.
In addition to your responsibilities to act as needed in
the absence of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General
Cartwright, you have important responsibilities in the context
of acquisition, nuclear, space, cyber security, and ballistic
missile defense (BMD) matters.
It is the responsibility of the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council (JROC) which you chair, to identify the
requirements of military commanders and to see that the
acquisition process meets these requirements. An additional
responsibility of yours is to co-chair with the Deputy
Secretary of Defense, the Deputy's Advisory Working Group. This
group makes the key decisions as to the Department's resources
and what major investments will be made.
Between those two groups, the JROC and the Deputy's
Advisory Working Group, you have the opportunity to shape,
through the investment decisions, the long-term capabilities of
the Department and the Military Services. Your experience in
this capacity--General, given that experience, we will be
interested in hearing from you as to how the changes in the
Defense Acquisition Reform Act which Congress recently passed
might assist you in improving the acquisition process.
We also would be interested, General, in your thoughts on
the opportunities for future U.S.-Russian military cooperation,
including missile defense, in light of the recently completed
meetings between President Obama and Russian President Dmitry
Medvedev.
Admiral Willard, you have had extensive experience in the
Pacific, having served as Commander of Carrier Group Five, the
Commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet, as well as a tour of duty as
Deputy Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and now as the
Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
With that considerable regional experience and your many
other impressive accomplishments in the Navy, you bring a
strong background for assignment as the Commander of PACOM.
Admiral, we would be interested in your assessment of the
situation on the Korean peninsula and the current efforts to
track ships suspected of carrying illicit cargo to and from
North Korea in violation of the United Nations (U.N.) Security
Council resolutions. We would be interested also in our
military relations with China and how you see that relationship
evolving.
We look forward to hearing from our witnesses this morning.
We thank them again for their service.
I now call upon Senator McCain for his opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Senator Levin.
Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming General Cartwright
and Admiral Willard and congratulating them on their
nominations. I thank each of them and their families for their
service.
General Cartwright, you have demonstrated an extraordinary
understanding of the global posture the United States must
maintain in this area of constantly changing threats, and I
believe that you are well-qualified for a second term as Vice
Chairman.
I would like to echo the words of Senator Levin. You have
been very candid and forthcoming with the members of this
committee and with the two of us, and it is much appreciated on
many of the difficult issues that we face. I applauded your
comments last March about DOD's acquisition strategy, which you
underscored that we must devote our procurement dollars to
weapon systems that address the most likely threats instead of
what some consider to be the most dangerous.
This was certainly borne out later in Secretary Gates'
recommendations, and I agree with your premise that our weapon
systems must impose greater cost on our potential and current
enemies than they do on us. I hope you and we in Congress will
be able to adhere to this philosophy in the days ahead.
With the recent launch of the major coalition operation in
southern Afghanistan, I look forward to hearing more about how
we intend to proceed in that theater. Success in Afghanistan
requires that we employ troop levels appropriate to the mission
we are asking our military to carry out. As a result, it is
vital that the commanders on the ground are free, and perceive
they are free, to request the forces they conclude are
necessary.
General Cartwright, I hope to hear from you precisely the
degree of freedom that General McChrystal will have to request
troops and resources and how that fits into recent reports
suggesting the administration was preemptively counseling
against higher force levels.
General Cartwright, one of the most--and I will talk about
this more later--extraordinary articles I have seen in my many
years of service appeared in the Washington Post, where
apparently a reporter for the Washington Post was brought into
a meeting in Afghanistan by General Jim Jones, the National
Security Advisor, with the military. At that time, according to
this article, General Jones said there would be no additional
troops under any circumstances.
I will be interested in hearing about how that jives with
the supposed delay in a decision for an additional 10,000
troops that at that time the President had ``delayed'' the
decision on. I must say, I have never seen such a scenario
where a reporter is brought into a briefing between the
President's National Security Advisor and our military
commanders in the field.
With the President just concluding a round of talks with
his Russian counterpart on arms control, our national strategic
capabilities, including missile defense, are currently at
center stage. I have previously advocated for significant
reductions in nuclear arsenals and for other steps that would
reduce the risk that nuclear weapons would ever be used.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the target
numbers of warheads and delivery vehicles announced this week,
and on what the implications of such reductions might be for
the urgent need to invest in the modernization of both the
stockpile and the complex-wide intellectual and physical
infrastructure needs.
With respect to the planned European-based missile defense
system in Poland and the Czech Republic, I am concerned that
there is a perception, one that has been strengthened by the
testimony of administration officials before this committee,
that the United States is preparing to back away, even abandon
commitments made to these countries during the past
administration. I believe it is essential in the future that we
keep faith with our close allies in Poland and the Czech
Republic.
Admiral Willard, you have an outstanding record of joint
and naval service, and you are well-qualified to assume
responsibilities of PACOM Commander. The importance of the
theater, economically and from a strategic security standpoint,
can't be overstated, and there are a number of short- and long-
term challenges facing the United States in the Asia-Pacific
region.
North Korea continues its variety of belligerent actions
with the firing of missiles over the weekend and new reports of
a possible Pyongyang-directed cyber attack on the United States
and South Korea. I look forward to hearing about how PACOM
intends to enforce the latest U.N. Security Council resolution
banning North Korea's transit at sea of nuclear and missile
technologies and what the limits are to that enforcement.
In addition, I hope to hear your thoughts on Japanese
reaction to any changes in our nuclear posture, including arms
reduction carried out through the Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty (START), and about evolving Chinese naval capabilities
and the value of military-to-military exchanges with China.
Again, I thank our nominees and their families for their
service.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator McCain.
General Cartwright?
STATEMENT OF GEN. JAMES E. CARTWRIGHT, USMC, NOMINEE FOR THE
POSITION OF VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
General Cartwright. Thank you, Chairman Levin and Senator
McCain, for this opportunity to appear today.
I believe the support of loved ones reinforces our
servicemembers' ability to serve this Nation. This has been
especially true for me. So, it is with great pleasure that I
have the opportunity to introduce my wife, Sandee, who is able
to be with me this morning, along with our daughter Jayme and
her husband, Chris--both members of the Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA).
Our other daughter, Billee, is awaiting the return of her
husband, who is on his fourth overseas tour. He is a member of
the second battalion of the 19 Special Forces Group of the West
Virginia National Guard. We are waiting in the next couple of
days to welcome him home.
I am grateful for all that they have done and what they
have meant to me throughout my service.
Over the last nearly 2 years, I have had the privilege of
working with the members of this committee on many vital
issues, helping to shape the force, meet the wide variety of
challenges our Nation faces. If confirmed, I look forward to
continuing our efforts in support of the Nation.
I stand ready for your questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, General.
Admiral Willard?
STATEMENT OF ADM ROBERT F. WILLARD, USN, NOMINEE TO BE
COMMANDER, U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND
Admiral Willard. Thank you, Chairman Levin, Senator McCain.
I would like to thank the committee for scheduling this hearing
during such a busy time in Washington, DC.
I would like to thank the Secretary of Defense and
President Obama for their confidence in my service to have put
forward this nomination.
I would like to thank Senator Inouye for his very kind
introduction and for his enduring support to our military
throughout the world and especially in Hawaii.
I am deeply honored to be considered for this command, and
I think I appreciate the vital importance of the Asia-Pacific
region to this Nation.
If I have one best attribute in pursuing this command, she
is sitting behind me. My wife, Donna, pinned these wings on 35
years ago, and since then, she has devoted herself to the
spouses and families of our military. Along the way, she raised
three wonderful children--Jennifer, Bryan, and Mark--who, in
turn, have given us three wonderful grandchildren to enjoy.
I would like to also introduce Donna's brother, who is here
today, Mike Yelverton, a senior executive in DIA; his wife,
Anita; and son Rudy.
I very much look forward to opportunities, if confirmed, to
work with this committee. I thank this committee for their
devotion to our uniformed men and women throughout the country.
Sir, I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Admiral.
Let me ask both of you these questions.
Senator Inouye. May I be excused?
Chairman Levin. Oh, of course. I am sorry. Senator, I
should have given you that formal welcome and farewell before.
Thank you for coming.
These are the standard questions we ask of nominees. Have
you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing
conflicts of interest?
[Both witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which
would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation
process?
[Both witnesses answered in the negative.]
Will you ensure your staff complies with deadlines
established for requested communications, including questions
for the record in hearings?
[Both witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in
response to congressional requests?
[Both witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Will those witnesses be protected from reprisal for their
testimony or briefings?
[Both witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and testify upon
request before this committee?
[Both witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Do you agree to give your personal views when asked before
this committee to do so, even if those views differ from the
administration in power?
[Both witnesses answered 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?
[Both witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Thank you.
Let us try an 8-minute first round today.
General Cartwright, there was a Joint Understanding issued
by President Obama and President Medvedev on Monday indicating
that the target range of deployed strategic nuclear weapons is
in a range of 1,500 to 1,675. The current range under the
Moscow Treaty is 1,700 to 2,200. Now that understanding also
indicates that each party determines for itself the composition
and structure of its strategic offensive arms.
From a military requirements perspective, General, are you
comfortable with those new ranges?
General Cartwright. I am, Senator.
Chairman Levin. Could you tell us briefly from a military
perspective why is the ability to determine composition and
structure important, and does this flexibility allow for
greater reductions in both warheads and delivery systems?
General Cartwright. The key here for the United States is,
at these levels, we will be able to preserve the triad. So the
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile side of the force, which is
our responsive side of the force, is maintained. The survivable
element of our force, which is borne out in the submarines and
the sea-launched ballistic missiles, is maintained, and we are
able to maintain the bombers.
Bringing those numbers down to 1,500 to 1,675 keeps us in
that range and allows us to preserve that triad, which I
believe is important at this stage of the negotiations.
Bringing down the warheads and then bringing down the delivery
vehicles gives us that triad and balance, when added into what
we are now calling the new triad with BMD, gives the Nation the
protections that it will need as we move to the future.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
General, Secretary Gates indicated on April 6 that the
President's budget request relative to missile defense shifts
the focus of our missile defense program to place more emphasis
on theater missile defense capabilities to defend our forward
deployed forces and allies against the many existing short- and
medium-range missiles that we face today and also to place
greater emphasis on the development and the testing of the
longer range missile defense. Do you support that approach of
the administration?
General Cartwright. I do, Senator. It is key from my
perspective, one, that the threats that we are actually facing
today is the proliferation of the short- and medium-range
ballistic missiles, which are the theater threat. We have had a
very good test program with the elements of that part of the
missile defense capability, which are premiered by the Standard
Missile 3, which goes with the Aegis system aboard ship.
The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), which is
the most recent addition, gives us a little more of an area
defense capability, and Patriot, which gives us a point defense
capability, point defense being to protect a base or a station
or something like that.
Having these capabilities and deploying and focusing on
getting these capabilities deployed is going to contribute to
the stability within the region. So in areas like PACOM, we
will be able to defend both the area of the country and the
point at the critical infrastructure, bases, et cetera, for us.
Chairman Levin. Relative to the question of possible
missile defense cooperation, do you agree with President Obama
that missile defense cooperation with Russia would serve our
mutual security interests, could enhance our security against
potential missile threats from nations like Iran not only by
preventing Iran from seeking and gaining any psychological
advantage if they obtain nuclear weapons and missiles, but also
sending a very clear signal to Iran that the United States and
Russia are going to work together in that effort?
General Cartwright. Senator, I believe that multilateral
approaches to missile defense in general are to our advantage,
number one. Number two, any ability to cooperate on the missile
defense with the Russians is highly leveraging for us, both in
the message it sends in a political or diplomatic form and in
the capabilities that they can bring to the table that we might
be able to incorporate into the system.
Chairman Levin. Would the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) support that effort of ours to work
together with Russia against that kind of an Iranian threat?
General Cartwright. I won't speak for all of NATO, but all
of the members, my counterparts that I talk to, support that
effort.
Chairman Levin. General, we asked you a pre-hearing
question relative to the F-22 production. You indicated that
you support the administration's request that we limit that
production.
Can you tell us if, in fact, you do agree to stop F-22
production at 187 aircraft and whether or not there have been
studies conducted by the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) that found that the 187 figure was adequate to confront
future opponents who have robust air-to-air capabilities and
whether there has also been a Joint Staff study assessing the
sufficiency and the proficiency of a buy of 187 F-22 aircraft?
General Cartwright. Senator, I was probably one of the more
vocal and ardent supporters for the termination of the F-22
production. The reason is twofold.
First, there is a study in the Joint Staff that we just
completed and partnered with the Air Force on that, number one,
said that proliferating within the United States military fifth
generation fighters to all three Services was going to be more
significant than having them based solidly in just one Service
because of the way we deploy and because of the diversity of
our deployment. So that is point number one.
Point number two is in the production of the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter, the first aircraft variant will support the Air
Force replacement of their F-16s and F-15s. It is a very
capable aircraft. It is 10 years newer in advancement in
avionics and capabilities in comparison to the F-22. It is a
better, more rounded capable fighter. That is point number one.
Point number two is the second variant which is the variant
that goes to the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps made a
conscious decision to forgo buying the F-18 E/F in order to
wait for the F-35. So the F-35 variant that has the vertical/
short takeoff and landing capability, which goes to the Marine
Corps is number two coming off the line.
The third variant coming off of the line is the Navy
variant, the carrier-suitable variant.
Another thing that weighed heavily certainly in my calculus
was the input of the combatant commanders, and one of the
highest issues of concern from the combatant commanders is our
ability to conduct electronic warfare. That electronic warfare
is carried onboard the F-18. Looking at the lines that we would
have in hot production, number one priority was to get fifth
generation fighters to all of the Services. Number two priority
was to ensure that we had a hot production line in case there
was a problem, and number three was to have that hot production
line producing F-18 Gulfs, which support the electronic warfare
fight.
Those issues stacked up to a solid position, at least on my
part, that it was time to terminate the F-22. It is a good
airplane. It is a fifth generation fighter. But we needed to
proliferate those fifth generation fighters to all of the
Services, and we needed to ensure that we were capable of
continuing to produce aircraft for the electronic warfare
capability, and that was in the F-18. In the F-18, we can also
produce front-line fighters that are more than capable of
addressing any threat that we will face for the next 5 to 10
years.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, General.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I want to thank the nominees for their service. You
both are outstanding examples of service to the Nation, and we
are very proud to have you serve in positions of great
responsibility.
General Cartwright, I would like to return to what I was
talking about in my opening statement and this Washington Post
article, where apparently a reporter was in a meeting with
General Jones and military commanders. During a briefing,
General Nicholson said he was ``a little light,'' more than
hinting he could use more forces, probably thousands more. ``We
don't have enough force to go everywhere,'' Nicholson said.
Then General Jones basically told him, he said, ``How do
you think Obama might look at this?'' Jones asked, ``How do you
think he might feel?''
Then Jones went on, after all those additional troops, if
there were new requests for force now, the President would
quite likely have a ``Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment.'' Jones
finally went on to say with great emphasis to the group of Iraq
veterans, said Afghanistan is not Iraq. ``We are not going to
build that empire again,'' he said flatly.
That empire succeeded where the previous strategy had
failed. I guess my question to you, General Cartwright, and I
may be asking the wrong person, does General McChrystal have
the latitude to request additional forces and materiel that he
may need to prevail in Afghanistan, or is this a clear signal
to the military that ``we are not going to build that empire
again''?
General Cartwright. Senator, let me address it in two ways.
One, I wasn't in the conversation, but the first would be that
we have a new commander. We have a strategy that we have just
stood up. Less than half of the forces associated with that
strategy have been deployed.
We are in the midst of building the infrastructure to
receive them, but most of them, the Marines being the first,
and they have closed. Next comes the Strykers. But they will
close toward the end of this summer.
General McChrystal is doing an assessment right now of the
force strengths and the capabilities he needs in order to in-
place this new strategy. When he comes back to the Pentagon
with that assessment, which I would expect will be toward the
end of this month to middle of August, we will take a look at
what he has now, what he believes he needs to win this fight--
and that is why we are there is to win this fight--and we will
look any request associated with increase in forces.
I will not be bashful about articulating those needs if it
is appropriate. We will look at that in the context of what has
deployed and what is yet to come so that we understand the
difference between his assessment of what he actually has today
versus what it is we are going to deploy.
But I think at the heart of your question, no commander
will be told, at least--if confirmed--by me, to not submit what
he believes he needs or she believes she needs to win the
fight.
Senator McCain. I don't want to belabor it. But he says
that if there were new requests for force now, the President
would quite likely have a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment. That
sends a clear message at least to the military in that room, I
would think. I certainly know that if I were there, I would get
it.
I think you would agree, General, the reason why we
succeeded in this counterinsurgency in Iraq is because we had
sufficient forces to provide an environment of security, so
economic, political, and all the other aspects of a free and
open society could develop. Without the security environment, I
think we proved in the earlier years in Iraq, it doesn't
succeed.
Is there still a pending decision on the part of the
President that 10,000 additional troops may be needed?
General Cartwright. The decision on the additional 10,000
that was made by the previous commander in front of this change
in strategy was tabled at that time, and we all agreed--we all
being the commanders--that was appropriate at the time to
deploy the forces that we really felt we need for the strategy
we really felt could win.
Implementing that, we will go back. General McChrystal will
have the opportunity to look, he won't have to look in the
context of 10,000. He will look in the context of what he
believes he needs to win, and he will articulate that. We will
look at that in the context of what we have yet to deploy in
the force, and if there are mismatches, either in strategy or
in force structure, we will articulate those.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
Admiral Willard, I would like to talk about North Korea and
the U.N. Security Council resolution. If a North Korean ship
vessel like the Kang Nam last month leaves port and is
delivering illicit weapons to an unfriendly port such as Burma,
which we believed at the time was the case, what action can the
United States military take?
Admiral Willard. Senator, the Security Council Resolution
1874 provides for member nations to conduct inspections on the
high seas if the flag nation consents to those inspections
should we have reason to believe that the ship is carrying
illicit materials, as you suggest. So it is a consensual search
that is authorized by the Security Council.
Senator McCain. If the North Korean ship refuses to grant
that consent, then what happens?
Admiral Willard. The flag nation is compelled by the
security resolution to direct that ship into the next
convenient port, and the Security Council resolution then calls
for all nations that might take receipt of that ship in their
territorial water to conduct the search.
Senator McCain. If that ship decides to continue on to its
destination, which may be the port very likely if it is
carrying illicit weapons to an unfriendly port, do we have any
way of forcing them to change course, or do they just arrive at
that port?
Admiral Willard. The Security Council resolution then calls
for the flag nation to communicate the failure of that ship to
adhere to the Security Council resolution call for search, to
report that back to the Security Council itself. The resolution
does not authorize nonconsensual search of those ships.
Senator McCain. I hesitate to ask you what you think the
likelihood of a North Korean vessel carrying illicit weapons
would be to either allow boarding or to proceed to a port of
our choice. It seems to me that it is understandable that the
U.N. Security Council, given China and Russia's behavior, would
not enact meaningful sanctions. But I certainly don't view this
stance in Resolution 1874 as having any impact whatsoever on
North Korean behavior.
Admiral, what level of concern should we have about these
continued tests and launches? Recently, I believe seven short-
range missiles were launched. I have seen pictures recently of
the Dear Leader, and he looks like he is certainly not in great
health, as published reports.
What is your assessment of North Korea's behavior, and do
you have any thoughts as to what might happen in the next few
months or years in regards to North Korea?
Admiral Willard. Senator McCain, I think we are rightly
concerned about the situation in North Korea. I think it is a
mystery to me and I think to most who spend a lot of time
assessing North Korean behavior as to what is behind this
particular round of provocations by the leadership there. But a
confluence of events has occurred that may be contributing to
it.
His ill health and the issue of succession is certainly
part of this calculus, perhaps the change in administration in
South Korea and the relations that have been affected as a
result of that, the change in our administration, the continued
association with the Six Party Talks, and the trends that the
North Koreans were seeing there. So, many things may be
contributing to this round of provocations and the messages
that he is perhaps attempting to send.
As you suggest, they launched a series of short- and
medium-range ballistic missiles in a demonstration last week
and, as we are all aware, a Taepodong 2 missile some weeks ago.
We continue to posture for these and rely on our whole of
government and the international community to continue to
attempt to ascertain North Korea's intent, to try and control
their behavior. In the meantime, we rely on our deterrent level
of effort on the peninsula with the Republic of Korea
Government, the deterrence that is affected by our alliance
with Japan, I think, and our overall posture in the region to
effectively contain the behavior to within what is tolerable.
But I think to your point that we should be concerned about
North Korea and continue to be vigilant in watching over their
behavior and prepare to defend against a provocation should he
follow up one of his threats.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much. Thank you to the
witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to both of you. You are really extraordinarily well-
qualified for the positions that the President has nominated
you for. Our country is lucky to have you in service.
General Cartwright, I know from conversations we have had
that you share the concerns that I and many members of this
committee have about the stress on the United States Army as a
result of its active deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan
particularly and the impact that has on dwell time, on the
soldiers, and on their families.
I am very pleased that our committee, in the mark-up of the
National Defense Authorization Act for next year, has increased
the end strength of the Army authorized by 30,000 for 2011 and
2012. Without going into the details, it was done for those
years, one forward, for budgetary reasons, even though there is
no money attached to it.
It seems to me that with the increased deployments,
including the possibility of additional deployments to
Afghanistan as you have just discussed with Senator McCain, and
the methodical drawdown from Iraq, that the period of great
pressure on the Army will actually be in 2010. I have been
contemplating introducing an amendment on the floor when our
bill comes up next week to include 2010 as a year in which that
increase of 30,000 from 547,000 to 577,000 can begin.
As you and I know, the Secretary of Defense has waiver
authority to nonetheless increase 3 percent those in service in
the Army. I wanted to ask you how you react to the current
stress on the Army and whether the Department would view with
favor the idea of extending this 30,000 increase authority to
2010 as an amendment to the bill next week?
General Cartwright. Senator, we have talked a little bit
about this. The challenge that is introduced is that the
drawdown in Iraq really starts in 2010 in significant numbers
and gets us down to around 50,000 to 35,000 around the end of
August in 2010.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
General Cartwright. Assuming that we stay on a glide slope,
that drawdown is pretty steep. In other words, the forces are
staying there into 2010 for the majority of those that are
there.
The growth in Afghanistan began this year, and so there is
not a separation of the two. For the Marine Corps, for the most
part, they disengaged from Iraq and they have moved to
Afghanistan. The stress is not as significant on the Marines.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
General Cartwright. The work that we have done inside the
Department, particularly with the Army, says there is that
period of 2010 and 2011 in particular where the stress is going
to be there. During 2010, because of execution. During 2011,
because of coming back, refilling, and trying to retrofit, you
are going to have stress on the Army in a significant way. At
the same time, the Army is trying to get out of the stop-loss
construct. All of these things are occurring in 2010 and 2011.
We have looked at this. We have worked in a range from
about 15,000 to 30,000. We believe the character of that
activity should be temporary in nature, very clearly.
Senator Lieberman. I agree.
General Cartwright. I believe the Army is on the same sheet
of music, and so what we are trying to understand is where are
the resources to do it. But we believe there is a case for
something between about 15,000 and 25,000. Thirty thousand
would give us the range in which to work to allow us to do
that.
Resourcing is going to be a challenge, but I believe inside
of the Department that we believe we will find that money if it
is necessary to find it internally to do that. We would like
the help probably. But again, we have to make a decision inside
the Department. We have to work that through. But the case for
the additional forces is clearly there.
Senator Lieberman. I really appreciate that answer, and I
am sure that everybody in the Army and their families
particularly will appreciate it. I look forward to working with
you in the next few days to determine whether an amendment to
the bill to cover 2010 will be helpful to the Department in
trying to achieve that increase in end strength in a timely
fashion.
General Cartwright. Thank you, sir.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you.
General, another question, on a very different subject. Our
committee, in its wisdom, decided to cut the President's
request for 28 UH-1Y Huey helicopters. I know that the
recommendation of the President and the Department was based on
a need to support our marines who are at the front lines in
Afghanistan because they can operate in the high altitudes and
hot temperatures there. That is, these Hueys can.
I want to ask you, because we may be involved on the floor
again in an attempt to restore funding for that procurement,
what your response would be, and do you see operational risks
if we fail to restore that money for the Hueys?
General Cartwright. Senator, I support the President's
budget. I believe that those helicopters are, in fact,
critical. We have had significant press about challenges that
the forces have had with civilian casualties. Until now, we
have had ground forces, maneuver forces, but we have not had
the full complement of supporting arms, particularly in
artillery and in attack helicopters.
Bringing combat aviation brigades and bringing in the
marines who bring in their organic air with them has started to
fill that in. I would take note of the Marine campaign that is
currently ongoing that in that campaign, in all the frontage
that they have covered, we have not had civilian casualties
because we have had our Cobras and because we have had our
artillery, and that is important.
That helicopter for the Marine Corps is their most lethal
weapon. They are the most effective in the battlefield,
particularly in the counterinsurgency arena. They are effective
in built-up urban areas and in compounds because they can be
discreet. The value of those helicopters is significant.
Senator Lieberman. I appreciate your answer, and we will
probably try to act on it next week.
Now I have a very different question. In your prepared
responses, General Cartwright, to the questions that the staff
asked you and the committee did leading up to the hearing, I
thought you had a quite remarkable statement about what is
happening in Iran now: ``We are concerned that the growing
strength of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)
over Iranian politics will result in the militarization of
Iranian foreign policy. Nonetheless, we do not project any
significant changes to Iran's overall foreign policy
objectives. However, should the political unrest continue, it
is possible that Iran could attempt to create an incident or
other crisis that would draw its population's attention away
from internal strife and towards a perceived common threat.''
I thought those were very thoughtful comments and very
important for us to consider, and I want to ask you to just
comment, extend a little bit on those remarks in two regards.
One is the extent to which the growing role of the IRGC may
lead to a militarization of Iranian foreign policy. The second,
of course, is the extent to which the Iranian Government,
therefore, may look for an international incident as a way to
suppress the prominence of the political dissent inside the
country.
General Cartwright. Senator, my comments were really based
on the premise that when confronted with internal unrest, a
tactic is to look external to a common foe that can be
portrayed and, therefore, create a uniting activity within the
country.
Tied with the activities that we have seen particularly in
the Gulf now that the IRGC is controlling the waters rather
than the Iranian navy and that they have shown a proclivity to
be aggressive in their behavior, that we could find ourselves
in a generated military incident which would have significant
overtones in our ability to work any kind of diplomatic
approach to Iran or any kind of Iranian reach-out to the rest
of the world.
That is where I personally am most concerned that our
opportunity right now in the change of our administrations, in
the wake of their elections may be short-circuited. I would see
that as a significantly difficult issue for the region. It
would create instability within the region.
Senator Lieberman. I thank you. That is to me a very
important insight and one I think all of us should keep in
mind.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Lieberman.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I am looking forward to supporting both of
you in your confirmations.
One of the problems that we have, we sit at this table and
we listen to you guys who are experts and know a lot more about
it than we do, that from administration to administration
changes when the circumstances don't always change.
When you were talking about leading the effort to stop the
F-22 at the 187, I can remember sitting up here when they were
talking about 750 F-22s. I remember the number 480. Then there
was an agreement last year that 243 was the figure that was a
``must'' figure. I am not asking, just it appears to be that
way. The same thing is true in the Future Combat Systems (FCS)
and other platforms, and it is true also in missile defense.
Now our President said that the need for action, talking
about North Korea's missile launch, not just here in the U.N.
Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the
spread of these weapons. Despite this, they recommended a
reduction of 16 percent cut in the missile defense budget by
$1.4 billion. Including some of the systems that we have looked
at, the airborne laser that we really think is necessary when
you look at the three phases of capabilities that we want to
have--the multi-kill vehicle, the ground-based interceptors
(GBIs).
Of course, I think you know that goes right back to my
first statement that you hear these figures, and I can remember
when it was 54. We had to have 54, and that was going to be the
one. Then it went down to 44. I know that Senator Begich has an
amendment to try to restore the 44. I will be supporting him on
that. I think it is the right thing.
But with these changes, do you really feel that we are in a
position to adequately move forward in our missile defense
system? The technology is there. We are looking at it. We, at
least I have, sitting at this table here have been convinced
that we need to have all these in the boost phase, the
midcourse, and the terminal phase, that we have to have all
this capability.
I would like to have each one of you respond. Are you
really happy with where we are right now, or is that driven
mostly by budget?
General Cartwright. Let me go ahead and initiate. It is not
driven by budget. I think that we would have made these
decisions with additional resources or without them. For the
GBI and the midcourse phase, 44 is the number that we currently
have under contract. The intent is to put 30 of them in the
ground. Fourteen of them would be used to update configurations
of missiles in older configurations based on the lessons that
we have learned in testing thus far.
Fifteen with the additional radars and systems that we now
have deployed that have been integrated into the system allows
us to move from either three or four missiles in the GBI per
incoming reentry vehicles to two in a construct of shoot-look-
shoot.
So in a construct of 2, that means that we could take on
basically 15 simultaneous inbound threats from a rogue nation.
Neither country that we consider a rogue nation right now, Iran
and North Korea, have the capability yet demonstrated to launch
one successful missile towards the United States and reach it,
number one.
Number two, the opportunity to get to 15 that would be
armed and able to come to the United States is several years
off. So that gives us a point to look at.
With respect to the GBI, we have two decisions that are yet
to be made that may drive us to build additional GBIs. The
first is a decision about the European site, and the second is
a decision that needs to be made about the testing protocols
for aging as the system ages out in its life.
This is testing that you do to ensure that the system is
still good and valid 5 years down the road, 6 years down the
road, et cetera.
The other piece that I would add, and I will close off very
quickly, Senator, is that the terminal side of this equation
with THAAD, with PAC-3, and with SM-3 has performed
significantly better than anybody would have envisioned.
Senator Inhofe. I understand that. My concern has been in
the boost phase, but we are running out of time here.
I did want to get into another area, and that is the age.
We look at the Bradley fighting vehicle, and we look at the
Abrams as 1970s technology, and even before, the Paladin, even
before that, maybe 1950s or World War II technology. General
Eric Shinseki and others have come in here and talked about our
ground capabilities and that we need to have a transformation,
and we have gone through several of these. The last one being,
of course, FCS, and a lot of that is being terminated.
We haven't heard, at least I haven't heard, of anything
really specific about what the next recommendation is going to
be. I understand in August they are going to come up with
something. So rather than to answer a question about that, I
would like you to give me as much information as you can as to
what we could consider.
It bothers me, and I have said this before several times,
that when our guys and gals go out there, there is an
assumption that they have the best of equipment. In many cases,
they don't. Certainly in our Paladin capability, there are some
five countries, including South Africa, that make a better one
than we have. That is where I want to go with this thing to
make sure that we have the very best of everything.
Is there anything you would like to share with us in terms
of where we are now, General Cartwright, in our modernization
program concerning that type of capability?
General Cartwright. I am going back to the FCS and where
you opened your comment, Senator, but I would tend to agree
with what I think you have said, which is that the vehicle that
is of most concern to me for modernization is the Bradley. It
is aging, and it also is significantly underpowered for the
task that it has.
I believe, and I won't foreshadow the Army's analysis, but
that is where we will focus on FCS initially from a vehicle
standpoint.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
Admiral, you talked and responded to Senator McCain
concerning North Korea and some of the capabilities up there. I
have reason to question our own intelligence in terms of what
the capability is there. I can remember in 1998, and you
remember this, too, that we made a request as to when North
Korea would have this motor stage capability. In fact, it was
August 24, 1998.
The response, and I think that was consistent with our
National Intelligence Estimate, was between 5 and 10 years.
Seven days later on August 30, they fired one.
How confident are you in our intelligence on the
capabilities of North Korea?
Admiral Willard. Increasingly confident over time. We have
been looking at this country for 50 years. We pay a lot of
attention to what goes on in North Korea. To your point, there
have been miscalculations at times when North Korea has been
particularly covert in some of their activities.
I think as illustrated in the most recent launch sequences
that have occurred, the intelligence associated with those
launch sequences has been quite good.
Senator Inhofe. Okay. My time has expired. But for the
record, I would like to have each of you respond to my three
favorite programs--the Train and Equip 1206, 1207 International
Military Education and Training program, and Combatant
Commander Incentive Fund--as to the value that you see in those
programs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Willard. Will do.
[The information referred to follows:]
General Cartwright. Building foreign partner capacity is a
fundamental cornerstone of our security strategy and will remain so for
decades. Moreover, the focus of our partnership strategy is
preventative in nature. By helping partners solve problems before they
become crises we can reduce requirements for major military
interventions and enhance the security of the United States and that of
our allies.
We have made significant progress in this area over the past
several years, but the U.S. Government must continue to increase its
efforts to build the capacity of foreign partners to counter terrorism
and promote stability. Our struggle against violent extremists requires
that we work with sovereign countries with whom we are not at war.
Through careful investment, we can help shape the environment to reduce
requirements for major U.S. interventions and their attendant costs.
Foreign partners can also leverage knowledge of language, culture, and
the enemy in ways that U.S. military forces cannot. Use of partner
forces also denies the enemy the ability to use the specter of major
U.S. deployments in foreign territory to build ideological support for
terrorism and as a recruiting tool. Finally, working with partners, we
can help create layers of offense and defense that are difficult to
build or sustain unilaterally.
The programs you have mentioned, 1206/1207/1208, Combatant
Commander Incentive Fund, and International Military Education and
Training, are some of the most important tools the U.S. Government has
to build the capacity of foreign partners. They are flexible,
responsive, and strategically targeted to get the most leverage on the
dollar. I hear frequently from each of our combatant commanders just
how critical and effective these programs are, and how important
dependable authority and funding is to development and execution of
theater security cooperation plans.
These programs are managed collaboratively, by ambassadors and
combatant commanders, and by the Departments of State and Defense. This
requirement for joint formulation and approval of programs has
significantly improved interagency cooperation and effectiveness--
bringing State, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and
DOD together in applying a strategic ``3D'' lens to country
assistance--both in the field and in Washington. The different
perspective each organization brings helps the U.S. Government look at
country assistance holistically and place country-specific requirements
in a broader regional and global context.
Finally, Senator Inhofe, your personal leadership in Congress was
essential to the creation and continuation of many of these critical
programs. I want to express my personal thanks, and that of all of our
combatant commanders, for your leadership. There is no question that we
have an enduring requirement for these programs and we will greatly
appreciate your support for them in fiscal year 2010 and beyond.
Admiral Willard. I believe these programs are critical to our
strategy of building our partner nations' capacities in order to
contribute to the overall security and stability in the region. It is
important to note that these programs are developed in close
cooperation with our country teams in the region. If confirmed, I would
continue this process.
1. International Military Education and Training (IMET) Funding
I have seen IMET programs work effectively in Indonesia,
Bangladesh, Malaysia, and India. These programs provide an excellent
opportunity to train and influence the professional development of
partner-nation military officers. Specific education and training
enables their contributions as effective peacekeeping forces, enhances
their understanding of maritime security and domain awareness, and
supports defense and acquisition reform.
An often unheralded benefit from IMET funded military education is
its long-term effect on personal relationships among foreign officer
alumni. IMET's participants often go on to assume senior leadership
positions in their militaries and governments (approximately 40 percent
of regional Chiefs of Defense and 15 percent of Ministers of Defense
have participated in IMET courses). In my experience, these leaders are
universally proud of their IMET experiences and are keenly aware of
regional counterparts who were their classmates.
2. 1206 Funding
1206 funding has been very effective in building partner-nation
capacity to combat terrorism in Southeast Asia. The most recent
successes have been in the Tri-Border Region (Malaysia, Indonesia,
Philippines). The funds are providing training and equipment to enhance
maritime domain awareness, maritime security, and counterterrorism
skills. 1206 funding for radars, small boats, radios, and command and
control enhancements is helping to limit the mobility and operational
capabilities of violent extremist organizations in the region.
3. 1207 Funding
1207 funding in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka has been used to enhance
community policing and security frameworks to support stabilization and
reconstruction efforts in addition to ongoing counterterrorism
activities.
4. 1208 Funding
1208 funding continues to enhance special operations support to the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in Operation Enduring Freedom-
Philippines and Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines. In
each case, 1208 funded programs are credited with enabling the AFP to
more effectively suppress violent extremist organizations in the
Southern Philippines.
5. Combatant Commander Incentive Fund (CCIF)
CCIF funding was an enabler in the highly successful ASEAN Regional
Forum (ARF) Voluntary Demonstration of Response (VDR) exercise; a
civilian-led, military-supported project, co-hosted by the U.S. and
Philippine Governments. The VDR demonstrated the ability of ARF member-
nations to provide humanitarian assistance and respond to natural
disasters.
Each of these authorities enables the U.S. Pacific Command to build
partner capacity in the region. If confirmed, I will continue to
leverage these various funding authorities to address emerging and
urgent requirements. I look forward to expanding their application into
other important partner-nations, such as Cambodia, Maldives, and
Thailand.
These programs (IMET, 1206, 1207, 1208, and CCIF) should be made
permanent and funded through multi-years to provide stability and
permit long-range planning that will facilitate a more effective and
strategic approach to addressing regional challenges. The multi-year
authority provided last year has allowed us to work with our country
teams in a deliberate planning process instead of hasty end-of-fiscal-
year crisis planning. Single year authorization/funding has resulted in
missed opportunities and constrained our ability to more effectively
shape, influence, and address regional challenges.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
By the way, it was entered last night that our bill will be
first up on the floor on Monday. I think we all know about
that. But in case any of us don't, we can be ready to go on
Monday as soon as we come in, which is good news.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to add my welcome to our military leaders and thank
you and the ranking member for holding this hearing.
I also want to add my welcome to the families of the
General and Admiral as well and also to thank both of you for
the many years of dedicated service you have given to our
country.
Admiral Willard, again, thank you for stopping by, and it
was great to catch up with you. Knowing you out there in the
Pacific, you have shown outstanding leadership as Commander of
the U.S. Pacific Fleet in Hawaii, and I want to congratulate
you and your wife, Donna, on your nomination to become the
Commander of PACOM.
Also congratulations to General Cartwright, Sandee, and the
family as well.
General, Secretary Gates recently ordered the creation of a
new military Cyber Command, and I am asking this question
because of your comment about the fifth generation of weaponry
and equipment. As DOD stands up this new organization, we must
provide our troops with resources that they need to defend our
networks in a timely manner.
General, in March 2009, you stated, ``The current method of
procurement for information technology (IT) is so slow that by
the time software systems are purchased, they are out of
date.''
General, what is DOD doing to meet these challenges in the
timely procurement of IT products?
General Cartwright. Senator, I appreciate the opportunity
to respond to that question and to the quote. We have worked
hard over the last 2 years both on the requirements and the
acquisition side of the house to speed up and move IT programs
of record in a fashion that is more appropriate for Moore's Law
rather than an industrial construct.
Up until now, we had been using the same process we would
build an aircraft carrier for to buy 1,000 lines of code, and
it was just not serving us well. It is not a difference in the
law. It is a difference in how we approach the risk calculus
for what it is we are doing and how we manage that risk in the
acquisition process and the requirements process.
By adjusting that calculus, particularly with our combat
support agency, the National Security Agency, we have been able
to accelerate our ability to buy cutting-edge, competitive
software and hardware for the IT enterprise that we operate in
a way that has advantaged the warfighter.
We are seeing that advantage play out every day in Iraq and
Afghanistan, what we have been able to do because we have not
changed the law. We have not even changed the interpretation.
But what we have done is change the risk calculus that we are
willing to bear for these IT systems and produce them in a
timely fashion. I think that has helped us.
Senator Akaka. General, I am encouraged by the additional
funding in the defense budget for wounded warrior care. I am
asking this as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I
have been working on what I am calling a seamless transition,
and it shows our continued commitment to servicemembers that we
will take care of them as well as their families, and we need
to continue this into their civilian life as well.
How would you assess the approach across the Services to
care for our wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers and their
families?
General Cartwright. We have learned many lessons. We have
been the benefactor of an incredible amount of leverage that
was brought to bear by the Veterans Affairs side of the
equation and the DOD side of the equation partnering to get at
this issue that you are talking about, a seamless transition.
I believe our greatest challenge as we move to the future
has to do with those unseen wounds, so to speak, the wounds of
stress, the wounds of injury, traumatic to the brain, that we
still have a significant amount of work to do between our two
agencies, Veterans Affairs and DOD, to ensure that that
transition and that care is appropriate and that those who
suffer these wounds have an opportunity to heal and reenter
into either the military or the civilian sector in a way that
is appropriate and commensurate with their abilities.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Admiral, Hawaii is the only State where U.S. Northern
Command (NORTHCOM) is not responsible for its homeland
security. For Hawaii, the responsibility goes to PACOM.
What is your understanding of PACOM's homeland security
responsibility and its relationship with NORTHCOM?
Admiral Willard. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
As you have already stated, PACOM has homeland defense
responsibilities for Hawaii, also for our territories
throughout the Asia-Pacific region. NORTHCOM is, in fact, the
supported commander for homeland defense to include BMD of the
mainland United States and Alaska.
PACOM conducts its defense of Hawaii and defense of
territories within the region through a coordinated structure
that is very much married to NORTHCOM and its responsibilities,
Strategic Command (STRATCOM) and the support that it provides
globally in that regard, and across all of the components that
contribute to our homeland defense.
We have a task force commander assigned in Hawaii for
purposes of homeland defense. I am confident that the approach
is the correct one. The relationships, while we continue to
learn to refine those relationships, are solid and maturing. If
confirmed, I will look forward to the defense of that region
and the responsibilities that PACOM bears in that regard.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. My time has expired.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral, General, thank you for your great service to our
country and your willingness to continue to serve and that of
your families, who also sacrifice mightily for our freedoms,
and we appreciate that very much.
General Cartwright, the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is
ongoing within DOD, and yet this week, we have a commitment on
additional strategic warhead and delivery vehicle reductions.
My question is that it appears that we have already determined
the future of U.S. nuclear posture and in some ways preempted
the NPR.
Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Shouldn't the
strategy be derived from the NPR and informed by that, as
opposed to the other way around?
General Cartwright. Senator, I appreciate the opportunity.
We prioritized in the NPR and the Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR) the activities and the analysis that would be necessary
to support the timelines associated with the START
negotiations, or the follow-on START negotiations.
So the combatant commands, the Joint Staff, OSD, all worked
very hard at the analysis that gave us ranges that we could
operate in associated with the structure that would be
appropriate for those ranges of operationally deployed weapons
and then the strategically deployed delivery vehicles. I feel
very comfortable that analysis has served us well.
What remains in the NPR then is how this all integrates
with the general purpose forces in things like missile defense,
cyber, et cetera. But I am very comfortable that we prioritized
that analysis at the front end in order to support these
negotiations.
Senator Thune. Let me ask you about something that was said
last month in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee by
Keith Payne, who is a member of the Congressional Commission on
the Strategic Posture of the United States. He testified that a
post-START arms agreement that significantly reduces the number
of strategic delivery vehicles below 1,600 is good for the
Russians and bad for the Americans.
Specifically, he testified that Russian strategic launchers
will drop from approximately 680 today to about half that
number simply as a result of aging systems and Russia's slow
pace of modernization. So that in order to meet the launcher
reduction commitment, the United States will need to make real
cuts to existing systems while the Russians need only continue
down their current path and that the United States will be
giving up something for nothing in return.
I have an additional concern that by significantly reducing
our strategic delivery vehicles, we may lose the bomber leg of
our nuclear triad. My question is, do you agree with the
commitment to reduce our strategic delivery vehicles to
somewhere in the range of 500 to 1,100 systems, and in your
view, at what point in this range between that 500 and 1,100
would the delivery vehicle reductions necessitate making our
nuclear triad into a dyad?
General Cartwright. Senator, I think there are two pieces
here. The first is that there are a substantial number of
delivery vehicles associated with the United States that don't
deliver anymore. We still count the Peacekeeper silos. We still
count about 50 of the Minuteman silos that were decommissioned.
We have a large number of bombers that have been cut up and are
sitting in Davis-Monthan Air Force Base but are still counted
against us. The B-1s are still counted against us.
So part of what we need to do when we have this dialogue is
to ensure that the assumptions of what we are counting from are
correct. Our first objective is to get what we are calling the
shadows out of the calculus so that the number that we are
talking about is a real number and we all know what they are.
That is point number one.
If we did that, that would bring us down substantially in
what we are credited with having as delivery vehicles. If we go
down in the range, I believe that the range at which we would
if we assumed away all the phantoms, then we get down to a
range somewhere in the 850 to 900 before we would have to start
to cut any real delivery systems.
When we get into that range, and that is what drove the
range is that from about 1,100 down to about 500--500 being
principally where the Russians would like to be, 1,100 being
principally where we would like to be--now the negotiation
starts. I would be very concerned if we got down below those
levels about mid-point, and I certainly would like to have seen
those ranges be closer, but that is a negotiation, and we have
to work our way through that negotiation as we go forward.
I will certainly express my military best judgment to the
leadership if we start to get into a range that I would believe
would endanger prematurely the concept of the triad.
Senator Thune. You have said in previous testimony, in
response to a question that I had asked, General, before this
committee that the Nation does need a new bomber. In your
opinion, should that new bomber be nuclear capable?
General Cartwright. The Nation will need a nuclear-capable
bomber. Whether it is the same as a general purpose force
activity bomber that we build in the future, whether it is a
different variant, or whether we use existing platforms like
the B-2 to carry us further into the future is something the
analysis will have to tell us.
But I believe that a strategic range, air-breathing vehicle
is going to be necessary as far out into the future as I am
willing to trust my crystal ball.
Senator Thune. Do you also believe that we ought to retain
the bomber leg of the triad?
General Cartwright. I do.
Senator Thune. Admiral, earlier this year during a hearing
on current and future worldwide threats, Lieutenant General
Michael Maples, who is the Director of the DIA, said that
``China, from an air defense standpoint, has developed a very
modern, layered air defense capability and depth and is seeking
additional air defense capabilities that will project even out
to a range of 400 kilometers. It significantly affects
potential U.S. operations in that region.''
In an article published in the Foreign Affairs Journal in
January 2009, Secretary Gates wrote, ``The Chinese improved air
defenses, coupled with investments in other asymmetric
capabilities such as cyber warfare, anti-satellite warfare, and
anti-ship weaponry, all threaten our ability to project power
in the Pacific and will require us to rely on long-range, over-
the-horizon systems such as the next-generation bomber.''
Admiral, my question is, do you agree with Secretary Gates'
and Lieutenant General Maples' assessment of China's anti-
access capabilities. As the nominee to be combatant commander
responsible for the Pacific theater, how important is it to you
that the Air Force field a new long-range bomber in the 2018
timeframe that is capable of penetrating these advanced
defenses?
Admiral Willard. Senator, we lay down our long-range
bombers today in the theater for their deterrent effect. The
flexibility of having a long-range bomber capability is very
important, I think, to the region, particularly given anti-
access capabilities that we see in development there.
To your point, there will come a time when certainly the
follow-on bomber will be required. Whether it is 2018, I think,
will be determined as a result of the analysis ongoing in the
QDR and the NPR, to General Cartwright's previous statement.
Senator Thune. Do you agree with the assessment of China's
anti-access capabilities, though?
Admiral Willard. I do.
Senator Thune. Okay. Do you think that bomber, when it is
fielded, should be nuclear capable?
Admiral Willard. I do.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Thune.
Senator Hagan.
Senator Hagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to once again thank both of you for your
service to our country. You are certainly outstanding
individuals, and I look forward to your confirmation.
I also want to welcome the families because I think it is
so important to have the family members standing with you and
to be here at this hearing.
General Cartwright, I did have a couple of questions
concerning what is going on in the Helmand Province right now,
and I know that the ongoing offensive led by Brigadier General
Nicholson, who is the Commander of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary
Brigade from Camp Lejeune, is implementing the Department's
shift to protect the Afghan civilians.
Obviously, protecting the Afghan civilians is critical
because what we don't want to happen is for the Taliban to
frame our operations as a war against the Afghan Pashtuns,
which comprise about 42 percent of the Afghani population,
which is some of the same ethnicity as the Taliban.
My hope is that the Marines can hold the areas inside the
Helmand Province long enough for civil-military reconstruction
efforts to enable the Afghan Government to begin administering
the basic services there. Can you give me your thoughts on the
latest NATO and U.S. force offensive currently in the Helmand
Province?
General Cartwright. Senator, I think you have framed it
very well. The intent here is a shift in strategy to a more
counterinsurgency-type strategy of clear, hold, and then build.
We have been in the Helmand Province before with Marines and
other forces and done clearing actions. The challenge is that
when we finish the clearing actions, we return to our bases and
the local population takes the brunt of the punishment after we
leave.
What is fundamentally different in this campaign is that as
the Marines move through along with their Afghan counterparts,
we are leaving forces behind in the villages and the towns to
protect those villages and towns and hold that area. The hold
part of this is the key, and the additional force has allowed
us to do that.
What we are seeing in response, number one, I had already
alluded to the fact that our approach here is to win their
hearts and minds, and we can't do that by having unnecessary
civilian casualties. We have had very good luck in avoiding
civilian casualties as we have done the clearing operations
thus far.
It doesn't mean that we won't have casualties as we move
forward. This is going to be a very deadly fight. But the fact
that we are able to hold has clearly made a difference in the
village elders, in the residents of those towns.
I believe personally that one of our key metrics for
success will be over the next few months to see whether or not
there is a shift in the attitude of the local residents. If
they start supporting us with intelligence, with the giving of
their own sons and daughters in the fight, and that they see
there is more value in being able to produce crops rather than
warriors and that they can be sustained in that type of a
lifestyle, then we will have an opportunity to turn the corner.
But I think those are key metrics that we have to watch as
the Marines move into Helmand and followed by the Strykers as
they move on their flank.
Senator Hagan. I think one of the key points is the use of
the civilians, too, in helping them maintain those crops.
General Cartwright. Right.
Senator Hagan. I understand that we are slow in getting the
civilian numbers up and going, and obviously, it has to be
secure in order to do that. But I believe, too, there are some
other countries in the region that could perhaps help with that
aspect of it. Once again, security would be first and foremost.
Can you give me your thoughts on civilians and utilizing
civilians in some of the other neighboring countries?
General Cartwright. In the hold, the quicker that we can
transition to some sort of a livelihood and stability that
gives the local residents the opportunity to make a living and
be advantaged by the conditions is key.
Our ability to bring civilians in and surge those civilians
from the United States, from various organizations, the
agriculture side, from the land grant colleges and things like
that, right now has not moved at a pace that probably we would
like it to. We would like to see them move faster, but we are
working as hard as we can with our partners in the Department
of State to make that happen.
But I do believe also that particularly from the
agriculture side of the house, local soil, local customs, how
you graze, how you raise crops, et cetera, how you move them to
market, the neighbors to Afghanistan have incredible expertise
in that area and apparently, in my discussions at least, are
very willing to give that expertise and to mentor and to bring
in some of that agribusiness-type expertise that is unique to
the area. I think we have to take advantage of that.
Senator Hagan. Any idea how we are going to begin that
process?
General Cartwright. We are going to reach out and start a
dialogue as quickly as we can. What we are trying to understand
from the military standpoint is how quickly we are going to be
able to get a hold phase, but we don't want a gap after that
hold phase. This has to be something that happens very quickly.
Senator Hagan. Thank you.
Admiral Willard, I have a question on China. China has
terminated the military-to-military interaction with the United
States due to the weapon sales that we have authorized to
Taiwan after the Olympics. As the commander in that region, how
do you plan on interacting with China to accomplish mutual
objectives given the communication constraints, and what types
of multilateral defense symposiums will you be able to attend
that will assist in bridging this effort?
Admiral Willard. Thank you, Senator Hagan.
The military-to-military dialogue with China has just in
recent weeks recommenced, beginning with an international fleet
review that was held in China. It is measured steps clearly,
but we are seeking to improve the military-to-military
engagement over time.
As you point out, China in the past has suspended military-
to-military discussions, and they will have a vote in the
future as well. I think it is incumbent, first, on both nations
to realize the value, the benefit of military-to-military
dialogue and to sustain it. I think that, for China, is going
to be an evolutionary process in itself.
I think everyone collectively desires to see China emerge
as a constructive partner and a constructive partner in
regional security certainly. We think that the military-to-
military dialogue to discuss the areas of common interest that
we have with China, as well as to discuss the areas in which we
disagree, is an important venue against all the diplomatic and
other efforts that our Nation currently has invested in China
as a nation.
If confirmed, I will look forward to seeking to determine
new venues in which to engage the Chinese military. To your
question regarding the conferences and so forth, there are a
myriad of conferences in which the United States and China
collectively attend.
I have had opportunities in the Western Pacific Naval
Symposium, in larger conference settings in Singapore and so
forth to engage with my Chinese counterparts on occasion. We
have pretty consistently visited one another as well. I look
forward to all the opportunities that present themselves.
Senator Hagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Hagan.
Senator Begich.
Senator Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, both of you, for your willingness to serve and
obviously to your families that will be with you and serving
with you in their own way. Thank you very much for your
willingness.
I have a couple of questions. They will be a little varied.
I am going to follow up on a little bit of Senator Hagan's
comments here in just a minute. General, you had commented in
regards to Senator Inhofe's questions regarding missile
defense, and one of the comments you had mentioned was the
ratio of 2 for every 1, 15 all at once type of shot effort.
Can you tell me is it that assuming that all 30 missiles
are in place, that all 30 are operational at all times? Because
the ratio bases that on that assumption, and I am not sure that
is the right assumption, but maybe you could add to that?
General Cartwright. Senator, what we are endeavoring to do,
again, we have 44 missiles under contract. The first priority
for the 14 above the 30 is to bring the 30 that are in the
ground to a common configuration that represents the knowledge
that we have gained from all of the testing. Then the intent
would be to keep 30 in the ground.
Now we will do maintenance on those assets. So on any given
day, likely there are not 30 in battery. But with any kind of
warning, we would bring 30 up to speed and be ready based on
the threat that we assessed had been detected.
Senator Begich. Okay. In the best condition with the
warning, there would be 30 available. In a shoot-look-shoot
scenario, that would give you the ability to counter just with
the midcourse 15 simultaneous launches. It is at that point
that we start to say now when you are dealing with 15
simultaneous launches, are you dealing with a rogue threat
anymore? There is a policy discussion that needs to occur if
the belief is that the system should be developed beyond what
we would call a rogue state capability.
Senator Begich. In your document or the work you are doing
now, I know there is the ballistic missile study that is going
on, part of that study is that question, to some extent?
General Cartwright. It is to some extent. It is also in the
sufficiency side of the equation, what is appropriate for
regional defenses, how many weapons do we need there against
what threats and in what configuration, and how much of that
feeds the defense of the Homeland?
One of the keys that we are looking at in this assessment
is we have in the technology side, on what we could call the
test and modeling side of the house, demonstrated a capability
particularly for the SM-3 missile to be able to intercept in
the ascent phase.
If we bring that to bear, then what is the right balance
across all three phases for both Homeland and for regional
defenses? That is what we will be asking in the BMD review is
do we have that equation right?
Senator Begich. You made a comment, I want you to expand on
it; and you made a comment, it also depends on what happens
with the European sites.
General Cartwright. Yes.
Senator Begich. Can you expand a little bit and what you
mean by that?
General Cartwright. There are two priorities that we have
set for the European site. One is a regional defense capability
to protect the nations, and the second is a redundant
capability that would assist in protecting the United States or
the Homeland.
We have, I think, upwards right now of 40 different
architectural laydowns that we believe in some measure would
address both the Homeland issue and the regional issue. The
question is which of those make the most sense?
You are looking at Homeland. You are looking at regional.
You are also looking at stability in the region. You run those
three metrics against these alternatives and start to narrow in
on what kind of an architecture best suits the defense of the
region, the defense of the Homeland, and the regional
stability.
Senator Begich. Very good. How do you define testing, and
let me stick to the long range if I can. How do you define what
is the proper type of testing that should occur with the long-
range system?
General Cartwright. Right. We have nominally now, if we
stay with the 44 number, 14 missiles that are available to
test, both the aerodynamic or performance margins of the
missile so we know what exactly it does. Also to test the
interceptor itself and its ability to discriminate, the sensor
grid, and then the command and control.
There are three elements. There is the weapon and the
delivery system, there is the sensor grid, and there is the
command and control. In order to start to test that against
situations in the extreme like 15 simultaneous launches, we are
going to have to go and do some testing that we haven't done,
which is multi-shot engagements against or simultaneous shot
engagements against multiple targets. That testing needs to be
done.
Senator Begich. If I can interrupt for a second? Do you
consider that live testing, not virtual?
General Cartwright. That is correct. We will do both.
Senator Begich. You will do both.
General Cartwright. But the missiles are for the live
testing.
The second is that the age life of these missiles--let us
just nominally say it is 25 years. Over that period, in order
to be confident of that number, we need to do what is called
age testing. Each year, we will sample out of a missile that is
in a silo, take it, bring it to a test facility and fire it
live, and ensure that it can, in fact, do what it is supposed
to do.
There is going to need to be a population of missiles to
support that. Part of the review that we are doing this year is
to determine what that sampling quantity needs to be, and we
will have to provide those missiles.
So you have two unknown variables. What is the
configuration of the European capability, and what is the
number of missiles associated with both the current testing and
the future aging testing that we will need in order to perform
through the entire life of the missile system?
Senator Begich. In our authorization bill that will be up
Monday, we have some language in there specifically talking
about a testing plan. I don't know if you have had a chance to
look at that language, but the idea was some of this discussion
we are having now is to formalize it so we have a better
understanding of the law, how this testing will occur, what
will be the impact, and do you feel comfortable in developing a
plan that can be shared with this committee maybe in this forum
or another forum?
General Cartwright. Yes, sir.
Senator Begich. Okay. This question you may not want to
answer, but let me now shift if I can real quick because it was
an interesting statement you made, and that is we are there to
win and be successful.
This is the question. How do you define in Afghanistan--
that is what I am focused on right now, a win in Afghanistan? I
know that is a difficult question because a lot of aspects, and
Senator Hagan, Senator Udall, and a few of us just came back
from the Afghanistan region. Just how do you define a win?
General Cartwright. The lack of presence of ungoverned and
unmanaged WMD should they exist, that they have to be
eliminated or put under control. In this case, there are no
weapons.
Senator Begich. There are none. Correct.
General Cartwright. The absence and the control of
terrorists who would export their terrorism globally. Then the
presence of a governance system that could discover and deter
the first two.
Senator Begich. Admiral, we had a great conversation
yesterday. I appreciate all your commentary yesterday with me.
My last question, if you could have a crystal ball in
Afghanistan, based on the resource allocation that you now are
seeing move in there, what you have heard a little bit today on
some of the concerns or issues we have on resource allocation,
how would you measure that in time?
General Cartwright. I think that there is a subjective side
of this. The enemy clearly has a vote in this activity. The
first two I believe that we have reasonably under control.
Governance gives us the opportunity to put in place a structure
that would control either the reemergence of terrorists or the
potential for WMD.
The question then is how much can we do to bolster this
government and give it the opportunity to provide basic
services, justice, and rule of law in a construct that would
advantage the country and at the same time protect its
neighbors and the rest of the globe from any kind of
reemergence of terrorism?
It is a subjective judgment. I believe that whatever
government comes out of Afghanistan as we move forward with
success, it will probably not look like our government. They
have thousands of years of a type of government that is
associated with the tribes and with the clans. But if they can
come to some mesh between the local governance and the central
governance in a way that allows them to move forward and
provide services, that that will be our vision of success.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Begich.
Senator Chambliss.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, I had the opportunity to visit with both of you.
Thank you for your continued service. Thank you for your
leadership.
General Cartwright, I noted that earlier today, you had
some comments relative to the F-22, which are not new. Your
opinion on this has been out there for some time. But I note
that it is not in accord with what we are hearing from a number
of other folks within the military.
Can you tell me, in your opinion, what is the military
requirement for the number of F-22s that are called for?
General Cartwright. The military requirement right now is
associated with the strategy that we are laying out in the QDR,
and it is a departure from the two major theater war (MTW)
construct that we have adhered to in the past and in which this
aircraft grew up. It grew up in that construct of two MTWs, and
both of them being of a peer competitor quality.
The strategy that we are moving towards is one that is
acknowledging of the fact that we are not in that type of
conflict, that the more likely conflicts are going to be
similar to the ones that we are in in Iraq and Afghanistan, but
that we do need to have a capability against a major peer
competitor and that we believe that the sizing construct
demands that we have fifth generation fighters across all three
Services rather than just one and that the number of those
fighters probably does not need to be sufficient to take on two
simultaneous peer competitors, that we don't see that as the
likely. We see that as the extreme.
Senator Chambliss. What is the military requirement for the
number of F-22s?
General Cartwright. The military requirement is 187.
Senator Chambliss. Now you realize that is contrary to the
opinion of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Norton
Schwartz?
General Cartwright. I do not realize that. He has sat down
in several meetings with me, certainly in the tank with the
chiefs. That has been the number that he has espoused.
Senator Chambliss. General, I just have to tell you it is
in writing. It is on the record in this committee, as well as
public statements in news conferences and speeches by General
Schwartz, that the military requirement is 243.
You realize that your statement at 187 is contrary to the
written statement and the opinion of the Chief of Air Combat
Command, General John Corley?
General Cartwright. I realize that General Corley, General
Schwartz, and I have spoken about that, was speaking in terms
of the two MTW construct.
Senator Chambliss. You realize that there is also a
difference of opinion between the head of the National Guard,
General Harry Wyatt, and you with respect to the number that
are needed?
General Cartwright. I do, after reading his comments in the
paper today.
Senator Chambliss. You also, I am sure, are aware the
General Richard Hawley, a former Commander of Air Combat
Command, says that not only are 243 needed, but 381 is the
military requirement. Is that correct? Do you understand that?
General Cartwright. I understand that, and I am providing
you with my best military advice.
Senator Chambliss. My point is that there is obviously
disagreement in the military about what this number ought to
be. Now every one of the individuals I mentioned--General
Schwartz, General Corley, General Wyatt, General Hawley--base
their opinion on studies that have been done. As you and I well
know, there are any number of studies that have been done over
the years.
They base their opinion based on studies that have been
done. Can you tell me one study that has been done that says
that the military requirement is 187?
General Cartwright. We just finished an Air Force study
that brings it in at the 187 level. But it does not look in
isolation at a single aircraft.
Senator Chambliss. Has that been published?
General Cartwright. It looks at the fleet of aircraft and
our capability in addition to aircraft, to all of the other
capabilities that the military brings forward.
Senator Chambliss. Has that study been published?
General Cartwright. Let me find out and provide it to you
if it has not been provided.
[The information referred to follows:]
This report is a joint staff report that is classified and is
retained in committee files.
There is no Air Force-only study that I'm aware of that determines
187 F-22s are sufficient to meet the national military strategy.
All the Services, including the Air Force,
participated in the Joint Staff-led Operational Availability-08
(OA-08) assessment.
OA-08 was conducted from the spring of 2007 through
May 2008.
The purpose of OA-08 was to assess the sufficiency of
the Joint Force to execute operational constructs articulated
in the national defense strategy, and to assess how best to
apply the current planned force against a range of scenarios.
OA-08 was not primarily a force sizing study intended to
determine the required force size to execute the national
military strategy.
While OA-08 did conclude that 187 F-22s were
sufficient, OA-08 also included assumptions that, if incorrect,
could change the outcome related to the number of F-22s
required.
Senator Chambliss. Okay. But that Air Force study would be
contrary to the opinion of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force
if that is the case.
In your news conference that you held back on April 7, you
talked about movement toward unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs),
which I agree with. I think the UAV, the Predator, and its
counterparts are needed. We need to provide more of those. Is
there any UAV in production today that has stealth capability?
General Cartwright. I think that we would have to take that
to a different forum, Senator.
Senator Chambliss. Okay. Is there a UAV that has the
capability of penetrating any theater where the sophisticated
surface-to-air missiles that are in the hands of any number of
countries around the world today?
General Cartwright. I think we would have to take that to a
classified forum, sir.
Senator Chambliss. Okay. Does the F-22 have that
capability?
General Cartwright. It does, sir.
Senator Chambliss. You also talk about that we need to move
more quickly to the F-35. You mentioned the fact that in that
April 7th news conference that the F-35 has had its problems
and has been expensive. My understanding is that most of those
problems are behind us at this point.
But you go on to say that with the F-35s that we are going
to buy ahead of the final tests being concluded, that we are
going to have to retrofit the F-35, and that is pretty common,
is it not, to have to retrofit a weapon system as different
capabilities are found and different problems are found?
General Cartwright. I believe over half of the F-22
aircraft will have to be retrofitted.
Senator Chambliss. That is not unusual. If we did it with
the F-15, the F-16, and we will have to do it with the F-35.
Now how expensive is that F-35 going to be per copy?
General Cartwright. I would have to go back and get you
exact numbers. I wouldn't want to give you a swag, sir. Let me
provide that to you.
[The information referred to follows:]
The average unit flyaway cost for an F-35A aircraft, based on total
procurement of 1,763 aircraft, is $85 million (TY$).
Senator Chambliss. Okay. Can you tell us also, and you may
have to look this up, but how expensive is that F-35 going to
be once it is retrofitted?
General Cartwright. That would be a harder question because
we don't know what issues we will find in fielding and test.
Senator Chambliss. Again, you make my point, General. We
have a known quantity with the F-22. If you just divide the
number of F-35s that we are going to procure by the dollars
that have been requested by the Pentagon, the cost of the
current F-35 is comparable to the cost of a current F-22.
We have a known quantity. We know that its capabilities are
greater than the F-35, and it is a little mystifying to me why
there seems to be continued opposition coming out of the
Pentagon.
But I thank you for your comments, and again thank both of
you for your service.
General Cartwright. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Chambliss.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to both of you for your service and to your
families for being here. We appreciate very much your continued
service in new positions. I look forward to your confirmations.
General Cartwright, in response to the advance policy
questions, you stated that one of the three challenges you
would face and a continued priority as the Vice Chief is the
emergence of cyber threats against private citizens, the
commercial sector, and national security. You stated that in
addressing this challenge, you would support the standup of the
recently announced Cyber Command and the development of
capabilities and protocols necessary to defend the Nation's
interests and protect the rights that define our way of life
under the Constitution.
Can you speak to the support that will be necessary for you
to provide to STRATCOM in standing up this subunified command
and how you can help and what kind of support would be
necessary to encourage STRATCOM's role in addressing and
developing the capabilities that are required in this
subcommand.
General Cartwright. Senator, as you say, in the command
relationship, STRATCOM is the combatant command responsible for
cyber. They will have a subunified command, which we are
calling right now Cyber Command, that will be responsible for
the day-to-day work associated with cyber in all the areas that
you just highlighted.
Senator Ben Nelson. Both offensive and defensive?
General Cartwright. Both offensive and defensive and will
support STRATCOM, who will then integrate that capability
across the broad range of capabilities of both the general
purpose and strategic forces.
STRATCOM's role is still very significant in this activity,
but what we have now is somebody who is dedicated with all of
the resources, the intelligence, the linguists, the technical
expertise, and intellectual capital and equipment to be able to
wage this war at the strategic level, at the operational level,
and at the tactical level.
That war is the defense of our networks both from a
standpoint of national security and from a standpoint of our
ability to do business, which is at the heart of what this
cyber capability brings to this Nation, a global reach for its
business and its engagement.
We have, through the auspices of STRATCOM, now
significantly expanded the basic training for each of the
Services so that we can get what we will call cyber warriors
into the system and start to grow them. We have expanded the
schools at the technical level, the senior levels. In other
words, we have done significant work in the structure of what
it will take to support each of the combatant commands and what
will have to be forward staged and what will have to be held
back and how those forces get presented by each of the Service
cyber commands.
All of that work is ongoing. The next due-out that we have
is really from STRATCOM, which is an integrated roadmap of how
this command will go to its initial operating capability and
then to its final operating capability, the resources necessary
and the capabilities that they must demonstrate before we are
comfortable that they are ready to reach those stages. That is
the next due-out.
Senator Ben Nelson. Those resources will be made available?
Because it is one thing to give the responsibility, another
thing to give it with the resources in order to be able to
achieve it.
General Cartwright. Senator, if confirmed, I will work my
best at that issue.
Senator Ben Nelson. In that regard, and as a former
Commander of STRATCOM, in setting up a global command or going
beyond a subunified command to a combatant command, if cyber is
pulled from STRATCOM, how will the mission be integrated so
that the two combatant commands are able to structurally work
together?
General Cartwright. Senator, and you know this from my time
at STRATCOM, but at each step of the way with this cyber
capability that we are trying to build to defend the Nation,
from its inception, we started--and there were those who wanted
a stand-alone combatant command, some that wanted a subunified.
We started with a functional component because we needed to
crawl a little bit.
We are now moving to a subunified command, and it is
because we believe we have matured in our understanding of what
it is we need to be able to do. There is still more work to be
done in that area.
My personal opinion on this is that a stand-alone,
functional command that would be cyber only has the potential
like what I believe was a challenge for Space Command, that it
would become disconnected from the warfighter and then would
not be as readily integrated into the warfight and the scheme
of maneuver and planning. My position has been that I believe,
at least until something fundamentally changes, it is most
appropriate for this command to be at the subunified level and
that STRATCOM offers us the venue to integrate it with general
purpose forces.
Senator Ben Nelson. I appreciate your thoughts in that
regard. Without your background, I still share your
conclusions.
Admiral, we spoke recently, and I appreciate very much your
having come in. The concerns that I have right now with North
Korea are obvious because of the same concerns we all share. We
have also concluded that perhaps the best pressure point on
North Korea can come from China, diplomatic and otherwise, to
deal with North Korea's interests in continuing to terrorize
the neighborhood and threaten globally.
In connection with what is going on in China today with the
Uighurs and the turmoil and unrest that even brought President
Hu Jintao back to China to try to provide leadership there, is
China distracted to the point where we can't get their
attention, in your opinion, to deal with North Korea now
because they can't handle two issues at once?
That is sometimes very distracting to anyone. But it is
particularly distracting to them right now. It is a tough
question.
Admiral Willard. Yes, it is. I can't account for President
Hu and his ability to multitask. I think that China is a very
complex country. Obviously, they have a great deal of influence
that is growing regionally and internationally, and at the same
time, they have internal pressures that are extraordinary, as
illustrated in their most recent crisis internally.
We certainly see the need to leverage China, their
leadership, their government in terms of influencing North
Korea. In the past, they have at times demonstrated that, more
or less.
We believe that right now we are in a period where North
Korea's provocations, as you suggest, are not in the region's
interest, nor are they in the People's Republic of China's
(PRC) interest. We believe that we are in a period of
opportunity now where Chinese leadership can and should exert
their influence, to the extent that they have it, over North
Korean leadership in order to bring the current situation of
provocations under control.
Senator Ben Nelson. The Dear Leader is behaving like a
young tot without the benefit of having a babysitter nearby.
One would hope that the PRC would focus on this and recognize
that it is a threat not only to the near region, but on a
broader basis in an intercontinental capacity as well.
I would hope that we could get their attention and have it
focused on that, and I hope in your new command, that will be
part of what you can express in terms with the relationship
that you will develop with the Chinese military. We can perhaps
deal with it as well at the State Department level, but I think
the military certainly needs to be brought into the picture as
well.
Admiral Willard. If confirmed, I look forward to sharing
those views. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thanks to both of you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
I just have a few additional questions.
Admiral, one of the most important missions assigned to the
Department is the responsibility to recover missing
servicemembers and to identify the remains that are recovered,
and the principal agency involved in recovering and identifying
those remains is the Joint Prisoners of War/Missing in Action
Accounting Command (JPAC), which is under the parent command of
PACOM.
You indicated, I believe, in your answers that one of the
recurring challenges for JPAC is the shortage of scientific
personnel to increase the number of identifications of remains
that have already been recovered. I am wondering if you could
just briefly comment on that and whether you would support
increasing the number of scientific personnel and whether that
can be done fairly easily? Is that just a matter of resources,
or are there other problems?
Admiral Willard. Thank you, sir.
There is a backlog, as you are aware, in terms of the
scientific effort that is ongoing to identify remains that JPAC
has, in fact, collected over time. It is currently our most
advanced scientific endeavor, I believe, in the world in regard
to identifying remains such as they are in their work.
I think resourcing is part of this answer. I think being
able to access that level of scientific expertise and the
availability of scientists of that caliber to perform this
nature of work is the other dimension. If confirmed, I will
look forward to understanding fully the resourcing requirements
for JPAC in order that they can advance this capability as far
as we possibly can as a Nation and ensure that both our
resourcing is communicated correctly, as well as the needs to
be able to access the type of expertise that is so unique to
this organization.
Chairman Levin. Okay. Thank you.
Of course, we would invite you to let the committee know of
any shortfalls that we can make up for.
Admiral Willard. Yes, sir. I would be happy to.
Chairman Levin. General, back to the F-22 for a moment. You
have given us your view in terms of the requirement. Is your
view shared by the Joint Chiefs?
General Cartwright. It is, sir.
Chairman Levin. Was that issue the subject of significant
discussion by the Joint Chiefs?
General Cartwright. It was. In the tank, we have gone
through this several times.
Chairman Levin. You are going to make available the study
that you made reference to, to the full committee. There was a
second study that I referred to, I believe?
General Cartwright. I think the one I referred to just now
is the Air Force study, and we will get that.
Chairman Levin. There was a second study that I can't
remember the exact name of, but----
General Cartwright. We will work with you to get it.
Chairman Levin. The Joint Staff study? I think it was a
Joint Staff study. If you could also make that available to us?
Do we already have that study? I don't think we have that. If
you could dig that out for us, we would appreciate that as
well.
[The information referred to follows:]
[Deleted.]
Chairman Levin. General, on Monday, the Washington Post
referred to an analysis of missile defense options for Europe,
and that analysis was written by a Stanford physicist named
Dean Wilkening. The article said that in his analysis, which
had been provided to the administration, there are a number of
options for missile defense in Europe that might provide a
better missile defense, better defensive coverage of Europe
against a potential long-range Iranian missile than the
proposed deployment of a system in Poland and the Czech
Republic.
Are you familiar with that study?
General Cartwright. I am not familiar with that study, but
I am familiar with a range of options that we believe have the
potential to be more effective. As I said earlier, the key here
is to find the best options that give us both the regional
defense and the defense of the Homeland.
Chairman Levin. In looking at that, are we keeping all of
our options open? Are we looking at all of the available
possibilities?
General Cartwright. Yes, sir. I think we are in the
neighborhood, as I said, of over 40 options right now that we
are starting to narrow down on.
Chairman Levin. General, Senator Lieberman and 14 members
of this committee, including myself, wrote the President in
May, urging him to declare higher end strength target levels
for the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police
than the current target of 134,000 soldiers and 82,000 police
personnel.
I understand that the Afghan police target has now been
raised, but that the level--I particularly focus on the army--
remains inadequate in terms of what I think most people believe
the needs are going to be in Afghanistan for Afghan troops. I
don't know why General Jones made the comment he did. That has
already been explored. But I want to focus on the size of the
Afghan army.
We had a brigadier general by the name of Larry Jacobson,
who said the other day that the fact of the matter is we don't
have enough Afghan forces and that we need more or he would
like more is his exact word in Helmand Province.
Is this a subject of major consideration and deliberation
among the chiefs?
General Cartwright. It is, Senator. I think we all believe
that there needs to be more Afghan forces, in particular Afghan
National Army capability. We also believe, based on the
assessments that we have done thus far, that there is the
capacity to recruit and train more, particularly as we add the
4th of the 82nd to help us in the training throughput.
We have combined a current assessment that is ongoing of
the Afghan national security force writ large with General
McChrystal's assessment. We expect that assessment to come in
at the same time that General McChrystal delivers his
assessment.
Chairman Levin. The McChrystal assessment is on our troop
level and the Afghan national troop level?
General Cartwright. Yes, sir. We have asked them to be
combined.
Chairman Levin. All right. We have heard different
arguments or positions about why we can't move faster. We have
heard that the problem is the shortfall of Afghan leadership in
the army. It is the training of those leaders. We have heard
there are not enough mentors there yet. We have heard there is
an equipment issue.
But I think everybody agrees that you have in the Afghan
army a motivated army. They are motivated against the enemy and
are willing to undertake their own lives and put their own
lives on the line.
This is not a question of a lack of motivation on the part
of the Afghans. We are all very anxious to do whatever we can
to prod this issue along.
General Cartwright. I think you are right, Senator. One
thing we are not going to have to teach them how to do is
fight. But we are going to have to work on command, control,
organization, and leadership. Building the noncommissioned
officer cadre, building the officer cadre is going to be part
of the work, and we believe adding the 4th of the 82nd out
there to do that work is going to help us get the throughput.
Chairman Levin. Finally, just one question about Pakistan.
I think that in terms of recent events that the Pakistan army
is showing a much greater willingness to take on the enemy for
their own sake, not because we are asking them or we are paying
them, but because from their national security perspective, it
is in their interest.
I don't know how much that has been transmitted to the
Pakistan people. I know it is transmitted through interviews in
the London papers, but that is not the same as the president
and the head of the army in Pakistan transmitting that to the
Pakistani people themselves. I am trying to find out the degree
to which the statements that they have made recently reflect
that or are made publicly in Pakistan.
But another thing which has troubled me is that we are
constantly criticized for the attacks by our UAVs inside
Pakistan. Yesterday or the day before, we got a number of very
high-level targets. There were civilian casualties, which
obviously are to be minimized and regretted.
But when we knock out high-level targets, terrorist
targets, Taliban targets that are out to destroy the Government
of Pakistan, the least we can expect, I believe, from the
Pakistan Government is silence. They politically don't have it
inside themselves to tell the Pakistan people why we are doing
it and that they are aware of it. They don't have that kind of
political steel in their backbone. I have been in politics long
enough to understand that. I don't condone it. I don't like it.
But I at least can understand.
What I can't understand and do not accept is the attacks on
us, the criticism of us, because what that does is undermine
the effort. They are creating, not us, every time they attack
us as being foreign occupiers--or not occupiers, but foreigners
attacking their sovereign soil, they are creating another
generation that are after us instead of after the terrorists.
I just want to let you know I would welcome any comment
that you might have. I want to let you know because you will
have contacts with the Pakistani leadership. I have expressed
this directly to their President, to the Chief of Staff of the
Army. It affects my own view as to whether we should be
providing support to Pakistan.
I am willing to support the Pakistan Government and to try
to get them some economic wherewithal to address all the issues
they have so that they are the ones that are supporting their
people's needs. I am for providing that.
I believe that they have the same goal we do, at least
their recent actions suggest they do, which is that it is in
their security interest to go after the fanatics and the
terrorists. I got that, and if that is real and is sustained,
that is somewhat reassuring.
But what I don't have yet is assurance that their
statements publicly, their rhetoric about the need for them to
go after the terrorists serves their national interest. I am
not sure that is done internally yet in terms of their
rhetoric, and I sure as heck deeply object to their criticism
of us for using attacks by UAVs, which they obviously
acquiesce, condone, and accept or else we wouldn't be doing
them.
I know we also have a vote on, and I don't want to cut
short an answer if you are just dying to give us an answer on
this. [Laughter.]
But I don't need an answer. I would welcome it if you feel
that you want to. But I just want to express that to you.
General Cartwright. I think just one short comment,
Senator, because I think you have captured the issue.
Inside the military, our ability to work with our
counterparts, at my level, I know my counterparts from school.
But our lieutenant colonels, majors, and captains don't because
we had that hiatus. So, bringing them back into our schools and
building trust, which is what we are trying to do, will help
us, I think, in the perception management here of what our role
could be to assist them.
Every nation is proud, and I understand that, but every
nation also can use friends. We have to work on this some way,
but we also have to have the help of their central government
to do that. They can undermine this in a way that is very
damaging to both sides if we are not careful.
Chairman Levin. General, Admiral, thank you for your
service. Thank you for being here today. Thank your families
for us, those who are here within earshot and those who aren't.
Good luck to your son-in-law getting home.
General Cartwright. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. When is he due?
General Cartwright. Hopefully in the next 2 weeks.
Chairman Levin. Two weeks. We know how much you are looking
forward to it. You can embrace him for all of us.
General Cartwright. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Levin. Thank you both.
Admiral Willard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Gen. James E. Cartwright,
USMC, by Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers
supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. On two previous occasions you have answered the
committee's policy questions on the reforms brought about by the
Goldwater-Nichols action, the last time being in connection with your
first nomination to be Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Has your view of the importance, implementation, and practice of
these reforms changed since you testified before the committee at your
most recent confirmation hearing?
Answer. No. The Goldwater-Nichols reforms have clearly strengthened
the warfighting and operational capabilities of our combatant commands
(COCOMs) and our Nation.
Question. In your previous response to a question concerning
whether you saw a need for modifications of Goldwater-Nichols in light
of the changing environment, you indicated that there are a series of
ongoing reviews of Goldwater-Nichols and that you would study these
reviews, if confirmed.
In light of your experience as Vice Chairman and your study of the
reviews do you see any need for modifications to Goldwater-Nichols? If
so, what areas do you believe it might be appropriate to address in
these modifications?
Answer. The reviews of Goldwater-Nichols have been completed and
the required modifications incorporated into how the Department manages
joint officers.
During the past 2 years, the joint officer management process has
built on the strong foundation established by the Goldwater-Nichols Act
with a flexible structure to meet the ever-changing landscape
characterized by today's military environment. The new Joint
Qualification System is more responsive to the warfighters in multi-
Service, multi-national, and interagency operations and produces fully
qualified and inherently joint officers to meet the needs of our great
Nation. Our emphasis will continue to focus on assigning high quality
officers to joint assignments and ensuring they receive a joint
experience that produces experts in joint matters. As we continue to
advance jointness, joint officer management will continue to evolve. As
we evolve, we may find some areas of the law that may require some
future modification. However, at this time, I believe we have the
necessary tools.
duties
Question. What recommendations, if any, do you have for changes in
the duties and functions of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff as set forth in section 154 of title 10, U.S.C., and in
regulations of the Department of Defense (DOD) pertaining to functions
of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. None at this time.
Question. Based on your previous experience as Commander, U.S.
Strategic Command, and your current experience as the Vice Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs, what recommendations, if any, do you have for changes
in chapter 6 of title 10, U.S.C., as it pertains to the powers and
duties of combatant commanders?
Answer. None at this time.
relationships
Question. Please describe your understanding of the relationship of
the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the following
officials:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. As a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Vice Chairman
performs the duties prescribed for him as a member of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and such other duties as may be prescribed by the Chairman
with the approval of the Secretary of Defense.
Additionally, in the absence or disability of the Chairman, the
Vice Chairman acts as the Chairman and performs the duties of the
Chairman until a successor is appointed or until the absence or
disability ceases. These duties include serving as the principal
military advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and
the Secretary of Defense.
As a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Vice Chairman may
submit advice or opinions to the Chairman in disagreement with, or in
addition to, the advice presented by the Chairman to the President, the
National Security Council, or the Secretary of Defense. The Chairman
submits such opinion or advice at the same time he delivers his own.
The Vice Chairman, as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, may
also individually or collectively, in his capacity as a military
advisor, provide the Secretary of Defense advice upon the Secretary's
request.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. Under existing directives, the Deputy Secretary of Defense
has been delegated full power and authority to act for the Secretary of
Defense on any matters upon which the Secretary is authorized to act.
As such, the relationship of the Vice Chairman with the Deputy
Secretary is similar to that with the Secretary. In addition, the Vice
Chairman co-chairs the Deputies Advisory Working Group with the Deputy
Secretary of Defense to work key resources and management issues for
DOD.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. The Vice Chairman performs the duties prescribed for him as
a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and such other duties as
prescribed by the Chairman with the approval of the Secretary of
Defense. When there is a vacancy in the office of the Chairman, or
during the absence or disability of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman
acts as Chairman and performs the duties of the Chairman until a
successor is appointed or the absence or disability ceases. If
confirmed, I look forward to sustaining a close and effective working
relationship with the Chairman.
Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. Title 10, U.S.C., and current DOD directives establish the
Under Secretaries of Defense as the principal staff assistants and
advisors to the Secretary regarding matters related to their functional
areas. Within their areas, Under Secretaries exercise policy and
oversight functions. They may issue instructions and directive type
memoranda that implement policy approved by the Secretary. These
instructions and directives are applicable to all DOD components. In
carrying out their responsibilities, and when directed by the President
and Secretary of Defense, communications from the Under Secretaries to
commanders of the unified and specified commands are transmitted
through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If confirmed, I will
work closely with the Under Secretaries.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. With the exception of the Assistant Secretaries of Defense
for Public Affairs, Legislative Affairs, and for Networks and
Information Integration, all Assistant Secretaries of Defense are
subordinate to one of the Under Secretaries of Defense. In carrying out
their responsibilities, and when directed by the President and
Secretary of Defense, communications from the Under Secretaries to
commanders of the unified and specified commands are transmitted
through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If confirmed, I will
work closely with the Assistant Secretaries in a manner similar to that
described above for the Under Secretaries.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. Title 10, U.S.C., section 165 provides that, subject to the
authority, direction and control of the Secretary of Defense, and
subject to the authority of the combatant commanders, the secretaries
of military departments are responsible for administration and support
of forces that are assigned to unified and specified commands.
The Chairman, or Vice Chairman when directed or when acting as the
Chairman, advises the Secretary of Defense on the extent to which
program recommendations and budget proposals of the military department
conform with priorities in strategic plans and with the priorities
established for requirements of the COCOMs.
Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.
Answer. As a result of the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the Service
Chiefs are no longer involved in the operational chain of command. With
respect to title 10 responsibilities, they serve two significant roles.
First and foremost, they are responsible for the organization,
training, and equipping of their respective Services. Without the full
support and cooperation of the Service Chiefs, no combatant commander
can be ensured of the preparedness of their assigned forces for
missions directed by the Secretary of Defense and the President.
Second, as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chiefs are
advisors to the Chairman and the Secretary of Defense as the senior
uniformed leaders of their respective Services. If confirmed, I will
work closely with the Service Chiefs and their Vice Chiefs to fulfill
warfighting and operational requirements.
Question. The Combatant Commanders.
Answer. The combatant commanders fight our wars and conduct
military operations around the world. The Chairman provides a vital
link between the combatant commanders and other elements of DOD, and as
directed by the President, serves as the means of communication between
the combatant commanders and the President or Secretary of Defense.
When the Vice Chairman is performing the Chairman's duties in the
latter's absence, he relates to the combatant commanders as if he were
the Chairman.
Question. The Special Assistant to the President/Deputy National
Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Answer. Because the Special Assistant to the President/Deputy
National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan is an officer
serving in an agency outside DOD, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff communicates to that official through the Secretary of
Defense.
Question. The Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security.
Answer. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a member
of the Nuclear Weapons Council along with the Under Secretary of Energy
for Nuclear Security. In this capacity, we will work together to
oversee and coordinate the Nation's nuclear weapons policies to include
the safety, security, and control issues for existing weapons and
proposed new weapons programs.
major challenges and problems
Question. What are the major challenges that you have faced in your
first term as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. First, supporting the ongoing war against violent
extremism. Second, ensuring COCOMs are better represented in the
requirements, acquisition, and resourcing processes. Third, ensuring
needs of the COCOMs are realized in a timely affordable fashion.
Question. What new challenges do you expect to face if you are
confirmed for a second term?
Answer. First, the transition of our warfighting forces in support
of the Nation's priority effort in Afganistan. Second, we face the
threat of a diminishing deterrence capability able to address the nexus
of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and violent extremism. Third, the
emergence of cyber threats against private citizens, the commercial
sector, and national security.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will first work to ensure our forces have
the resources and capabilities to enable them to prevail in Afganistan.
Second, I will work with the COCOMs, OSD, and our interagency partners
to develop the capabilities necessary to deter both the extremists that
seek WMD and those who would either proliferate these weapons or who
are ineffective in safeguarding these weapons. Third, I will support
the stand-up of the recently announced Cyber Command and the
development of capabilities and protocols necessary to defend the
Nation's interests and protect the rights that define our way of life
under the Constitution.
joint requirements oversight council
Question. As the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, you
are now, and if confirmed, you would continue to be, the chairman of
the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC). The JROC has the
responsibility to review and validate Service requirements.
What is your view of the modifications to the JROC process made by
the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009?
Answer. My basic goal, if confirmed, would be to enhance the voice
of the customer [COCOM] in the requirements process. We are supportive
of the overall goal of the changes mandated by the Reform Act. Many of
the JROC process changes codified improvements we incorporated into our
procedures over the last few years.
Question. What additional steps do you believe that Congress or the
Department should take to ensure that trade-offs between cost,
schedule, and performance objectives for major weapon systems are made
at an appropriately early point in the acquisition process?
Answer. I do not believe any additional congressional action is
necessary at this point. The Joint Capabilities Integration and
Development System process, working in concert with the acquisition and
programming processes, ensures there is an assessment of tradeoffs
between cost, schedule, and performance throughout the lifecycle of a
program. Recent changes to these processes, some codified in the 2009
Acquisition Reform Act, should be allowed to mature for a period of
time before we make any additional modifications.
Question. Are there any other recommendations that you would make
to modify JROC or its authority or the requirements process?
Answer. In today's environment, JROC needs to be as responsive as
possible to warfighter needs. JROC should represent the combatant
commanders' interests, Service interests, as well as the Office of the
Secretary of Defense. I would recommend changes to the extent possible
be codified in Department level directives. Currently, the VCJCS sits
as the Chairman of JROC as a delegated authority from the CJCS. Among
the changes I would advocate are, the VCJCS should be designated as
Chairman of JROC. He should have the authority to delegate, when
appropriate, requirements decisionmaking authority to the commander of
a functional COCOM for specific capabilities or a portfolio of
capabilities. I would also invest the Chairman of JROC with the
authority to make the final decision on requirements after having heard
and reviewed the membership positions of the members of the council.
Question. How would you assess the effectiveness of JROC in the DOD
acquisition process?
Answer. I believe JROC is an effective partner with OSD in the
acquisition process. We have tracked closely with OSD as the DOD
acquisition process has been recently modified and have made changes to
the requirements process to ensure we maintain our alignment. Through
participation in many common forums, such as the Defense Acquisition
Board and the Deputy's Advisory Working Group, we are able to identify
any disconnects early and make the necessary course corrections. We
also closely track program performance through development.
Question. What is your vision for the role and priorities of JROC
in the future?
Answer. The priority for JROC now and in the future will be to
understand and be responsive to the needs of the combatant commanders.
To that end, JROC will continue to focus on meeting the urgent
capability needs of today's warfighter while also working with the
combatant commanders to define the capabilities required for the future
force.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend in the
membership of the JROC?
Answer. Currently the COCOMs are invited to participate as advisors
to JROC at their discretion. I would like to see COCOM, OSD(P),
OSD(AT&L), and OSD(C) participation formalized by including them as
members of JROC to ensure JROC clearly understands the warfighter's
concerns and issues before decisions are made. In order to ensure
warfighter requirements are understood and consistent in translations
to solutions, I also recommend OSD(P), OSD(AT&L), and OSD(C) be
permanent members.
Question. Do you believe the JROC process is sufficient to
understand and identify where there are opportunities for multi-Service
collaboration or where programs could or should be modified to take
advantage of related acquisition programs?
Answer. We can always improve but generally JROC is effective in
ensuring collaboration among the Services. The Services participate
throughout the requirements vetting process. One new initiative is to
use COCOM defined and prioritized attributes through the Senior
Warfighter Forums (SWarF) process to balance cross Service programs.
Question. What principles guide your approach to inviting and
helping ensure the sufficient participation of other such stakeholders
in JROC?
Answer. I view JROC as an open, collaborative forum where we
solicit input and advice from any organization with a stake in the
requirements being validated.
acquisition reform and acquisition management
Question. What is your view of the changes made by the Weapon
Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2010?
Answer. I fully support the changes made in the Acquisition Reform
Act and am working to implement any necessary changes to the
requirements process.
Question. What role have you played, and do you expect to play, if
confirmed, in the implementation of that Act?
Answer. As the Chairman of JROC, I am working to implement any
changes to the requirements process necessary to support implementation
of the act.
Question. What role, if any, do you believe JROC should play in the
oversight and management of acquisition programs after requirements
have been established?
Answer. I believe JROC should continue to monitor the execution of
acquisition programs to identify potential areas where requirements may
be driving cost growth and schedule delays. To that end, we have
established a trip-wire process to bring programs experiencing cost
growth or excessive delays back to JROC for review. During these
reviews, we consider performance trades to mitigate further growth in
cost and delays in schedule.
Question. Do you see a need for any change in the role of the
Chairman or the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the
requirements determination, resource allocation, or acquisition
management processes?
Answer. No. I believe these roles are well-defined and effective in
providing coherent integration between the three processes.
Question. What is your view of the role played by configuration
steering boards in preventing cost growth due to requirements creep?
Answer. I think that the configuration steering boards are still
maturing, but can provide meaningful advice to the milestone decision
authority on areas where requirements imposed by acquisition officials
could be adjusted to prevent cost growth and schedule slips.
Question. What do you see as the proper relationship between
configuration steering boards and JROC in managing requirements for
acquisition programs?
Answer. When a configuration steering board recommends adjusting
requirements to prevent or mitigate cost growth or schedule delays, the
requirements community should weigh the recommendations and provide
clear guidance in support of the recommendations as appropriate. If
there are concerns, the concerns should be presented to the board in a
timely fashion.
Question. What is your view of the Nunn-McCurdy requirements for
major defense acquisition programs that fail to meet cost, schedule,
and performance objectives?
Answer. The Nunn-McCurdy certification requirements force the
Department to perform a fundamental reassessment of a program and to
decide to either restructure it or terminate it. From a JROC
perspective, it is appropriate to ask the warfighter to revalidate the
program's essentiality and requirements. In 2007, JROC established a
trip-wire process to bring troubled programs back to JROC for a review
and to consider performance trade-offs to mitigate further cost growth
and/or schedule delays before the program faced a Nunn-McCurdy review.
Question. What do you see as the proper relationship between JROC
and those charged with implementing the Nunn-McCurdy requirements?
Answer. The role of JROC as the military advisor to the milestone
decision authority is appropriate when assessing Nunn-McCurdy breaches.
Question. There have been a number of studies in the past several
years that have recommended a variety of changes in the way that the
acquisition programs are managed.
What is your view of these studies and which recommendations, if
any, has JROC implemented?
Answer. JROC views the studies as providing valuable insight and
recommendations to improve the requirements process and improve its
linkage to the acquisition and programming processes. We have
implemented many recommendations to streamline the requirements
process, enhance the engagement of the combatant commanders in
validating joint warfighter needs, and to critically assess cost,
schedule, and performance.
Question. Do you see any need to make any changes to the Joint
Capabilities Integration and Development (JCIDS) process?
Answer. We've just completed a major update to the JCIDS process
and will continue to evaluate the need for further changes. This
included changes to align the JCIDS process with the recent changes to
the DOD acquisition process. But more importantly we streamlined the
process to reduce non-value added administration and improve visibility
and access for all stakeholders.
nuclear weapons council
Question. If confirmed for a second term as Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, you would continue to serve as a member of the
Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC).
What would your priorities be for the NWC?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing my membership on
the NWC as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
My priorities will continue to focus on ensuring a safe, secure,
and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile that can meet the current and
future national security interests of the United States; and developing
stockpile options, including warhead and infrastructure modernization,
that support the President's objectives and future arms control
commitments.
I look forward to working with Congress to address these challenges
to ensure we meet our national security requirements while assuring our
allies with a secure, credible, and modern nuclear arsenal.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the
organization, structure, or function of the NWC?
Answer. I support the current initiative to include the Chief of
Naval Operations and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force as members of
the NWC.
Question. What role is the NWC playing or should it play in the
ongoing negotiations for a follow-on to the Strategic Arms Control
Treaty?
Answer. As a body, the NWC does not play an active role in the
follow-on Strategic Arms Control Treaty negotiations. However, the NWC
itself is aware of ongoing negotiations efforts and is working closely
with key leaders in both the negotiating and NPR teams.
Question. What role is the NWC playing or should it play in the
ongoing deliberations on the NPR?
Answer. The NWC is aware and providing input to the NPR
deliberations and will play an important role in implementing the
policy recommendations that result from the NPR's effort.
distribution of general and flag officers
Question. At the request of the Secretary of Defense, Congress
included a provision in the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 that designated up to 324
general and flag officer positions as joint duty assignments that are
excluded from the limitation on the number of general and flag officers
in each Service, and specified the minimum number of officers required
to serve in these positions for each Service. The provision also
reduced the number of general and flag officers authorized to serve on
Active Duty in each Service. Implementation of this provision was
delayed until 1 year after the Secretary of Defense submits a report on
the proposed implementation of the provision, which took place in June
2009.
What is your view of the merits of this provision?
Answer. The provision does not reduce the number of general and
flag officers authorized to serve on Active Duty. Implementation of
this provision will support the objectives of the Goldwater-Nichols Act
by creating a duty assignment statutory framework that allows the
Secretary of Defense to reimburse the Services for participation in
joint with general and flag officer authorizations. Importantly, the
joint pool recognizes in-Service general and flag officer requirements
to accomplish the mission organize, train, and equip are separate from
joint general/flag officer requirements.
Question. In your view, what impact will implementation of this
provision have on joint officer assignments?
Answer. The joint pool will increase competition for these senior
joint duty assignments. The legislation provides incentives for the
Military Services to nominate their best officers, from both their
Active Duty and Reserve components, thereby accelerating the
competencies required for our Nation to continue to address the
challenges that confront our forces. As proposed, the distribution of
senior joint authorizations among the Military Services with a
specified minimum distribution for each Service expands the number of
positions open to nomination by all four Services.
Question. In your opinion, should implementation of this provision
be delayed until June 2010, 1 year from the date the Secretary
submitted the required report?
Answer. The Department is requesting enactment of conforming
legislation in the Department's 2010 legislative package. This provides
the Department the flexibility to rapidly meet emerging joint
requirements.
rebalancing forces
Question. In a memorandum of July 9, 2003, the Secretary of Defense
directed action by the Services, the Joint Staff, and the Office of the
Secretary of Defense aimed at achieving better balance in the
capabilities of the Active and Reserve components. The Secretary noted
that the Department ``needs to promote judicious and prudent use of the
Reserve components with force rebalancing initiatives that reduce
strain through the efficient application of manpower and technological
solution based on a disciplined force requirements process.''
What progress has been made in achieving the Secretary's vision?
Answer. Much progress has been made but much work still lies ahead
of us. As examples of progress made I would highlight:
1. Access to our National Guard and Reserve Forces has
allowed the level of engagement we have been able to support in
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)/Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).
2. The integration of National Guard, Reserve, and Active
Forces in our first Chemical, Biological, Radiological,
Nuclear, and Explosive Consequence Management Response Force
has given our Nation a much needed capability to assist our
civil authorities as we respond to homeland situations.
Question. What do you consider to be the biggest continuing
obstacles to achieving the goals that the Secretary of Defense has set
forth in his memorandum?
Answer. Our biggest challenge in achieving the Secretary of
Defense's goals is to determine the optimal balance of capabilities in
Active component and Reserve component based on a complex and changing
operational environment. As an example in the QDR, we are working to
determine how to get the most capacity out of our rotary wing forces. A
key aspect of this work is the balance between Active and Guard/Reserve
Forces including expectations of our Guard/Reserve personnel regarding
access.
mental health issues
Question. The final report of the DOD Task Force on Mental Health
issued in June 2007 found evidence that the stigma associated with
mental illness represents a ``critical failure'' in the military,
preventing individuals from seeking needed care. The report states,
``Every military leader bears responsibility for addressing stigma;
leaders who fail to do so reduce the effectiveness of the
servicemembers they lead.'' In light of increasing suicide rates in
each of the Services and servicemembers diagnosed with post-traumatic
stress, it is more important than ever to ensure that servicemembers
and their families have access to mental health care and that the
stigma associated with seeking such care is eliminated.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to address the stigma
associated with mental illness in the military?
Answer. The stigma associated with mental health illness is an
issue in both the civilian community and the military. I consider the
elimination of mental health stigma to be a leadership issue, not a
health issue. I support the Chairman's determination to change our
culture and I assure you this is a top priority for me as well. If
confirmed, I intend to provide strong leadership to ensure that we
overcome this impediment and expect leaders at every level to follow
suit.
The Chairman chartered a task force of subject matter experts from
across the Joint Staff to develop a Campaign Plan for Warrior and
Survivor Care. The Campaign Plan specifically addresses these issues.
The Task Force, in partnership with the National Defense University and
the Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and
Traumatic Brain Injury, is facilitating the development of a
psychological health leader education program for all National Defense
University schools. We continue to actively seek out senior military
leaders who have received psychological health care and gone on to
excel in their careers, and use these leaders to mentor our leaders of
the future. I will continue to include this topic as a priority in each
of my interactions with servicemembers and families, and actively
encourage other leaders to address the issue across our spectrum of
senior leader engagement opportunities.
We have started to address this issue within other areas of DOD as
well. The Services have implemented multiple initiatives to build
resilience, prevent adverse effects of combat stress, and provide
increased access to mental health services, including initiatives such
as embedding mental health personnel in our deploying units and
performing post-deployment health assessments and reassessments.
In response to the 2007 Mental Health Task Force report, DOD
developed an action plan to address over 365 recommendations from the
Mental Health Task Force report as well as several other reports. We
continue implementation of the action plan, and updates are provided to
Congress each fall. I will continue to work closely with Congress, our
military leaders, Veterans Affairs, and other Federal and civilian
organizations to see that our servicemembers' and families'
psychological health and mental health issues are addressed.
Question. What is your view of the need for revision to military
policies on command notification when servicemembers seek mental health
care?
Answer. Because of the known connection between these policies and
the issue of stigma that we currently face, I believe that all policies
for command notification should be closely examined for their true
association with military readiness and safety. Without question, when
military readiness and safety are not adversely impacted, policies
which mandate command notification should be changed.
Secretary Gates' recent announcement that the military security
clearance process will no longer include questions about mental health
care history is a significant step in attempting to remove the stigma
of receiving mental health care among military members, particularly in
a time of war when combat stress is impacting many of our
servicemembers.
sexual assault prevention and response
Question. Numerous cases of sexual misconduct involving military
personnel in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan have been reported 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 assert that the
command failed to respond appropriately by providing basic services,
including medical attention and criminal investigation of their
charges.
What role, if any, should the Joint Staff have in monitoring
progress within the Military Services and the COCOMs' areas of
responsibility (AOR) in order to ensure enforcement of a ``zero
tolerance'' policy relating to sexual assaults?
Answer. As a member of the DOD Sexual Assault Advisory Council, it
is important that the Joint Staff continues to partner with OSD, the
Military Services, and the COCOMs to assess the requirements and
effectiveness of policies and procedures in place to enforce the ``zero
tolerance'' policy. This is the appropriate forum to monitor progress
and provide senior leader oversight.
The Joint Staff works closely with the COCOMs during the
development of operational plans and personnel policy guidance to
ensure the prevention and response to incidents of sexual assault is
addressed.
Question. What reporting requirements or other forms of oversight
by Service leaders do you think are necessary to ensure that the goals
of sexual assault prevention and response policies are achieved?
Answer. Currently reports are submitted through Service channels.
The fielding of the new DOD sexual assault information database will
improve communication protocols to better track victims services, case
management and disposition, and identify trends and areas requiring
additional emphasis.
The new database will also provide combatant commanders oversight
of sexual assaults that occur in their AOR.
Question. What is your understanding of the resources and programs
in place in deployed locations to offer victims of sexual assault the
medical, psychological, and legal help that they need?
Answer. There is a 24/7 response capability in deployed areas. The
Services have primary responsibility to ensure sexual assault response
personnel in deployed locations (Sexual Assault Response Coordinators
(SARCs), Victim Advocates, medical and mental health providers,
criminal investigation and legal personnel) are well-trained to support
victims and investigate and respond to allegations of sexual assault.
If resources are not readily available where the alleged incident
occurred, victims are transported to a facility were there is
appropriate victim advocate support, medical and psychological care
(regardless of Service), and investigative/legal support.
I am aware that a number of recommendations were made to CENTCOM in
the DOD Fiscal Year 2008 Report on Sexual Assault in the Military,
released in March. These included deploying SARCs and Victim Advocates
and outfitting larger field hospitals with sexual assault forensic
examination kits for evidence collection. Initial, independent Service
responses to these recommendations may have created areas where
duplicative support structures exist. In these instances, opportunities
may exist to better pool and employ resources to optimize coverage and
improve response.
Also, the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military
Services is currently evaluating how effectively the Services are
implementing DOD sexual assault policy and procedures. They interviewed
key sexual assault responders currently deployed in Afghanistan,
including chaplains, counselors, medical and legal personnel, and
Criminal Investigations Division agents regarding how they handle cases
of sexual assault. In addition, the Task Force has surveyed SARCs and
Victim Advocates in Afghanistan regarding the level of resources and
support they have, and regarding the effectiveness of restricted
reporting in the deployed environment. Their findings and
recommendations will be reported to the Secretary of Defense later this
year.
Commanders at all levels must remain committed to eliminating
sexual assault within our forces by sustaining robust prevention and
response policies; by providing thorough and effective training to all
assigned servicemembers, by identifying and eliminating barriers to
reporting; and by ensuring care is available and accessible.
Question. What is your view of steps the Services have taken to
prevent sexual assaults in deployed locations?
Answer. The Services are implementing procedures and processes to
meet the challenges of preventing and responding to incidents of sexual
assault in the deployed areas. All servicemembers and first responders
receive sexual assault and sexual harassment prevention training prior
to deployment. The use of the internet and media are effective tools in
keeping deployed personnel informed and trained in prevention
techniques. Coordination among Service sexual assault response
personnel has improved support to victims in the operational
environment and provides additional resources to conduct additional
training, if needed.
Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the training and
resources the Services have in place to investigate and respond to
allegations of sexual assault?
Answer. The Services are responsible for training sexual assault
response personnel to ensure they are well-trained to investigate and
respond to allegations of sexual assault. This includes the
investigative resources in deployed areas. However, as you may imagine,
the combat environment and deployed operations are very dynamic. The
investigative resources are often strained by other mission
requirements. Access to resources may be complicated by remoteness of
locations, availability of transportation to and from those areas, or
the level of ongoing operations. I believe the DOD training network in
place now prepares them and investigators to handle sexual assault
cases in a caring, responsive, and professional manner. Our ability to
respond and support victims is paramount.
Question. Allocating more funding and resources to the program to
adequately implement all the program requirements will improve response
capability.
Do you consider the current sexual assault policies and procedures,
particularly those on confidential or restricted reporting, to be
effective?
Answer. I believe current policies and procedures have improved
care to victims of sexual assault; however, restricted reporting limits
a commander's ability to support the victim, investigate, and/or hold
alleged offenders accountable.
Restricted reporting has been effective (original intent--to allow
a sexual assault victim to confidentially receive medical treatment and
counseling without triggering the official investigation process).
Although the use of restricted or confidential reporting doesn't allow
a commander to investigate alleged assaults, it does allow a sexual
assault victim to confidentially receive medical treatment and
counseling without triggering the official investigation process. Since
restricted reporting was implemented in fiscal year 2005, 406
restricted reports converted to unrestricted reports which allowed
commanders to conduct appropriate investigations.
Unrestricted reporting supports a sexual assault victim who desires
medical treatment counseling but also provides for official
investigation of his or her allegations within existing administrative
reporting channels (such as their chain of command, law enforcement, or
through the SARC).
As our military members' confidence in the reporting and
investigative policies and procedures improve, I believe more alleged
offenders can be held accountable. The greatest effect still lies in
preventive measures and eliminating sexual assaults.
Question. What problems, if any, are you aware of regarding the
manner in which the confidential reporting procedures have been put
into effect?
Answer. Privacy for restricted and unrestricted reporting becomes a
challenge in a deployed environment and remote locations were units are
small communities where accountability of personnel is a critical task
for units. In deployed areas confidential reporting becomes more
difficult for the victim to reach out to the SARC or a victim advocate
because of the need to keep track of all personnel movements within the
theater and that support resources may not be colocated with the
victim. The joint deployed environment could present additional
difficulties in case management, delivering care, and tracking services
due to differences among Service programs. It is my understanding that
the DOD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office is working to
field a Joint Sexual Assault Database to improve our ability to
communicate between the Services. The database is currently projected
for fielding in 2010.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure
senior level direction and oversight of efforts to prevent and respond
to sexual assault?
Answer. I am currently the only military representative on the DOD
Sexual Assault Advisory Council. I think the addition of the Service
Vice Chiefs will add to the effectiveness of this senior body and help
to ensure the policies and procedures are executable in the operational
environment. This is an area of interest for the Joint Chiefs and
combatant commanders.
commission on national guard and reserves
Question. In a March 1, 2007, report to Congress, the Commission on
the National Guard and Reserves recommended, among other things, that
the Chief of the National Guard Bureau should not be a member of the
Joint Chiefs. The grade of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau has
since been increased to general, as recommended by this Commission.
What is your view about making the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? What is your rationale
for this opinion?
Answer. The idea of making the Chief of the National Guard Bureau
(CNGB) a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been debated for quite
some time. The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves (CNGR), in
fact, took a very detailed look at the concept and recommended that the
CNGB not be a member of JCS. DOD concurred with the CNGR recommendation
in 2006. I also believe that CNGB should not be a member of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. The Joint Chiefs of Staff consists of the Chairman,
Vice Chairman, and the Chiefs of Staff for the armed services. The
National Guard is a component of the armed services and is represented
on the Joint Chiefs of Staff by the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and the
Air Force. A separate representation of a portion of the Reserve
components from a portion of the Services would be inappropriate,
confusing, and in my view divisive of a total force. As a four star
general officer, the CNGB is already participating in all appropriate
Joint Chiefs of Staff tank sessions and discussions concerning issues
which fall under the purview of our National Guard. This is similar to
the methodology used to include the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard
when specific Coast Guard equities are involved.
Question. In its final report, issued January 31, 2008, the
Commission made a number of findings and recommendations on increasing
the capabilities and responsibilities of the National Guard and
Reserves in the Homeland. The Commission concluded ``DOD must improve
its capabilities and readiness to play a primary role in the response
to major catastrophes that incapacitate civilian government over a wide
geographic area. This is a responsibility that is equal in priority to
its combat responsibilities.'' In response to a request for his
assessment of the final report of the Commission, Admiral Mullen
responded on April 21, 2008: ``I have some concern with the
Commission's ideas on enhancing the Defense Department's role in the
Homeland. While the Reserve component civil support requirements are
important, they should not be of equal importance to DOD combat
responsibilities.''
What is your view of the Commission's assertion that the
Department's role in response to major catastrophes should be equal in
priority to its combat responsibilities?
Answer. I agree with the Chairman's position that DOD should not
have statutory or policy directives that elevate civil support to the
same level as combat responsibilities. The Department has taken--and
continues to take--seriously its responsibility to provide support for
civil authorities. Codification of civil support for domestic events as
a core competency could unintentionally impede other Federal
departments and agencies in the fulfillment of their own unique
statutory responsibilities. Such codification would also erode DOD's
ability to perform its statutory responsibility.
Question. In its March report to Congress, the Commission also
recommended that DOD ``develop protocols that allow Governors to direct
the efforts of Federal military assets responding to an emergency such
as a natural disaster.'' In its final report (January 31, 2008), the
Commission reemphasized the importance of this recommendation.
In the statement of managers accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, the conferees urged the
Secretary of Defense ``to address the nature of command relationships
under which troops will operate during particular contingencies and
ensure, as recommended by the Commission on the National Guard and
Reserves, that necessary agreements are entered into as soon as
practicable.'' In the statement of managers accompanying the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, the
conferees stated: ``DOD should engage with the community of Governors
to work out an understanding of unity of effort during domestic
terrorist events and public emergencies.''
In your view, should Governors have tactical control over military
forces, including those in a title 10, U.S.C., Active status, operating
in their State? What is your rational for this opinion?
Answer. I do not believe Governors require the ability to exert
tactical control over all military forces operating within their State
when they are providing military support to civil authorities.
Governors already have the authority to exert tactical control over
National Guard forces in a State Active Duty or title 32 status.
Furthermore, Governors have the ability to request the assistance of
Federal forces in response to terrorist acts and/or public domestic
emergencies when the Governor believes such assistance is necessary.
Available forces for such events will be placed under tactical control
of the designated Joint Task Force Commander or under operational
control of the Commander, NORTHCOM. The designated Commander working
with the Governor and the State's Adjutant General will be able to
provide the necessary support to restore order, save lives, and secure
property as the situation dictates.
This operational construct was developed in accordance with title
10, U.S.C., and I believe that the procedures and relationships that
have been put in place since Hurricane Katrina will enhance the unity
of effort between Governors and the Federal forces that provide support
when requested to assist in responding to acts of terrorism or natural
catastrophes.
dwell time
Question. Dwell time goals still are not being met for either the
Active or Reserve components, and recent testimony suggests that dwell
time will not improve appreciably over the next 12 to 18 months.
In your view, what can be done to increase dwell time for both
Active and Reserve component members, and when will these improvements
be seen?
Answer. The current programmed growth in capabilities needed to
support ongoing operations, as well as the planned reduction in force
levels in the OIF campaign, will lead to improved dwell ratios in both
Active and Reserve components. As operational demand changes, we will
continue to assess the impact to dwell time and make appropriate
adjustments.
Question. Would additional Army end strength in 2010 or 2011
improve dwell time ratios and reduce stress on the force?
Answer. Realizing any increase in end strength requires time before
operational capability is realized, additional Army end strength in
2010 or 2011 would not provide immediate relief from the current stress
on the force. The Department will continue to assess each Service's end
strength in light of operational demand and the National Military
Strategy.
end strength of active-duty forces
Question. In light of the manpower demands of OEF and OIF, what
level of Active-Duty personnel (by Service) do you believe is required
for current and anticipated missions?
Answer. Both the Army and Marine Corps are growing to 547,000 in
fiscal year 2012 and 202,000 in fiscal year 2011, respectively. We
continue to assess requirements of the Active-Duty Force as we draw
down in OIF and increase our operational presence in OEF. This area is
undergoing rigorous review as part of the QDR where we plan to include
these recommendations in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget.
military women in combat
Question. The issue of the appropriate role of women in the Armed
Forces is a matter of continuing interest to Congress and the American
public.
What is your assessment of the performance of women in the Armed
Forces, particularly given the combat experiences of our military,
since the last major review of the assignment policy for women in 1994?
Answer. Women in our Armed Forces continue to make tremendous
contributions to our national defense. They are an integral part of the
force and are proven performers in the operational environment and
under fire. It is important to understand that DOD policies do not
contemplate women being assigned exclusively to positions immune from
threats endemic to a combat theater. In fact, women are assigned to
units and positions that may necessitate combat actions--actions for
which they are fully prepared to respond and to succeed.
Question. Does DOD have sufficient flexibility under current law to
make changes to assignment policy for women when needed?
Answer. The current law provides the Department sufficient
flexibility to make changes to the assignment policy.
Question. Do you believe any changes in the current policy are
needed?
Answer. Not at this time. DOD policy and practices are reviewed on
an ongoing basis to ensure compliance and effective use of manpower.
defense integrated military human resources system
Question. The Department and the Services have expended great time,
effort, and resources towards the development of the Defense Integrated
Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS) as a cross-Service, fully
integrated personnel and pay system. Achieving a joint, interoperable
system was, and continues to be viewed, as a priority; however, the
goals of the DIMHRS program have not been achieved. Recent reports
indicate technical difficulties will postpone the Army's implementation
date and that the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps all question the
requirement that they adopt the current version of DIMHRS.
What is the status of DOD, and Service by Service, implementation
of DIMHRS?
Answer. DIMHRS entered acquisition breach in January 2009. DIMHRS
was certified by the Department for continued development of core
requirements for each Service to develop as a separate system with a
common data warehouse to capture information. The Department, the
Services, and the Joint Staff are developing a business case and
costing data for several courses of action on how to proceed with
DIMHRS development.
Question. What is your current assessment of the need for, and
feasibility of, an integrated, cross-Service personnel and pay system?
Answer. I believe the requirement to develop an integrated pay and
personnel system is still valid. The need for cross-Service support has
not diminished. I will continue to monitor the development efforts and
provide advice as needed.
Question. If confirmed, what changes, if any, would you recommend
to the implementation schedule and process currently in place?
Answer. Implementation schedules sometimes put unrealistic
expectations for process completion ahead of providing a usable
product. I would want to ensure the governance bodies of the DIMHRS
implementation understand the value of balancing schedules with
developing requirements of a viable DIMHRS product.
wounded warriors
Question. In congressional testimony on the fiscal year 2010 budget
request, Admiral Mullen has stated that there is, ``no higher duty for
this Nation, or for those of us in leadership positions, than to care
for those who sacrificed so much and who must now face lives forever
changed by wounds both seen and unseen.'' The Chairman has taken an
active role in advocating for services and support to the wounded and
their families, including those suffering from post-traumatic stress
disorder and other mental health conditions.
What is your assessment of the progress made to date by the
Department and the Services to improve the care, management, and
transition of seriously ill and injured servicemembers and their
families?
Answer. We have made great strides since 2004 with respect to
treating the seriously wounded. We have gone from having a situation
where families had a hard time finding anyone to help manage their
problems to a point where families complain that there are too many
people and too many voices. We are in the midst of consolidating our
many processes through coordinated efforts with our VA partners and the
Senior Oversight Committee.
Question. What are the strengths upon which continued progress
should be made?
Answer. I believe the greatest strength of the responses thus far
has come from the involvement of senior leaders taking full ownership
of the problem. At first look, people assumed this was a ``medical''
problem. Being wounded certainly requires medical care but it also
requires personnel actions and transportation of families and pay
actions and lots of other things that do not involve the skilled hands
of doctors or nurses. The Chairman and I recognize the critical role of
line leadership on this issue and every Service program we have today
places line leaders in the center of the response.
defense readiness reporting system
Question. In June 2002, the Department issued a directive to
replace the current readiness reporting system, yet that replacement is
yet to be fully operational.
What challenges still remain in the transition from the Global
Status of Resources and Training System (GSORTS) to the Defense
Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) and what is the plan to fully
implement DRRS? Have any delays or obstacles been attributed to
technological maturity or changing requirements?
Answer. To date, DRRS has developed a capability that enables
reporting units to assess their designed and assigned mission
readiness, articulated in terms of mission essential tasks. However,
additional DRRS development and fielding challenges remain.
Specifically, DRRS continues development efforts to replicate those
readiness indicators that are migrating from legacy systems to DRRS.
Additionally, current efforts are underway to ensure adequate tools are
available for each of the Services to report GSORTS data directly into
DRRS. Once developed, rigorous functional, interoperability, and
operational testing will be necessary to ensure a seamless transition
and integration with the Department's command and control systems.
According to the DRRS Implementation Office's latest schedule, this
testing will be complete in fiscal year 2011. When both capabilities-
based MET assessments and resource-based GSORTS data are available in
the DRRS we can move toward full implementation. I don't believe any
delays or obstacles can be attributed to technological maturity of
changing requirements.
Question. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported
that significant shortfalls remain in the implementation of DRRS,
stability of requirements, adequacy of testing, and overall management
and oversight of the program. What is your view on their findings?
Answer. Over the past 2 years, the Joint Staff has provided
periodic updates on DRRS development. Those staff updates touched on
some of the points you raise in your question. Though I have not read
the draft GAO report firsthand, it is my sense that GAO's findings on
DRRS are likely consistent with my staff updates. That said, we've
added rigor to the DRRS governance process to improve the DRRS
deliverables and timeliness, and will explore the report for additional
program improvement recommendations.
Question. With respect to DRRS development and implementation, to
what extent has the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness worked or coordinated with the Director of
Defense Research and Engineering and the Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Networks and Information Integration)?
Answer. The DRRS Directive (7730.65) assigned USD(P&R)
responsibilities for developing, fielding, and funding of the program.
I don't have specific insight into the extent of which they have worked
or coordinated outside of ASD(NII) participation as a member of the
governance process established in fiscal year 2008.
air force tactical aviation
Question. General John Corley, USAF, Commander of the Air Force's
Air Combat Command, has been quoted as saying, ``In my opinion, a fleet
of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current national military strategy
at high risk in the near- to mid-term.''
In your personal and professional opinion, does having a fleet of
only 187 F-22s put execution of our current national military strategy
at high risk in the near- to mid-term?
Answer. No. Overall, the operational risk of having the planned
fleet of combat coded F-22s is acceptable. Strategically, it is
important to develop proper capability and risk balance while
continuing to maintain our technological edge. The Department is
striving to have the right capability and risk balance established with
our legacy aircraft, fifth generation capability, and unmanned aerial
systems.
Question. Do you personally support the Secretary's decision to end
production at 187 planned aircraft?
Answer. Yes.
Question. General Corley is also quoted as saying, ``To my
knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate 187 F-22s are adequate
to support our national military strategy.''
Are there any studies or analyses supporting the decision by the
Secretary of Defense to halt F-22 production at 187 aircraft?
Answer. Yes. OSD conducted a Joint Air Dominance Study that found
the F-22 programmed buy of 187 aircraft was adequate to confront future
opponents with robust air-to-air capabilities. The key insight from the
analysis was the importance of providing the Air Force, Navy, and
Marine Corps with fifth generation capabilities rather than
concentrating fifth generation capabilities in one military Service.
Additionally, the Joint Staff OA-08 study assessed the sufficiency/
proficiency of the F-22 programmed buy. In OA-08, F-22 peak MCO and
Steady State demands were found to be sufficiently covered with a total
buy of 187.
Question. If there are no studies or analyses, what was the basis
of the Secretary's decision?
Answer. Not applicable.
Question. If there are no studies or analyses, what is the basis of
your personal and professional position on the appropriate size of the
F-22 fleet?
Answer. Not applicable.
iraq
Question. What is your assessment of the current situation facing
the United States in Iraq, particularly as the withdrawal from urban
areas is completed?
Answer. We are on track as we execute a responsible drawdown from
Iraq. U.S. and Iraqi officials continue to conduct joint engagements
which enhance stability, promote reconstruction, improve transparency,
advance regional engagements, and lay the foundation for a diversified,
growing economy. We are gradually building the capability and capacity
of the Iraqi security forces, and they are stepping into the lead. Our
withdrawal from urban areas in Iraq, while continuing to provide
training and advice to the Iraqi security forces, demonstrates our
commitment to the Security Agreement, and promotes a sovereign, stable,
and increasingly self-reliant Iraq. The security situation remains
fragile, but Iraqi leaders across all political sects have shown their
determination to avoid reverting back to ethno-sectarian violence to
resolve disputes.
Question. What do you consider to be the most significant mistakes
the United States made in Iraq? Which of these do you believe are still
having an impact? Is there anything to be done now to mitigate such
impact?
Answer. While I wouldn't refer to this as a mistake, I believe the
United States was overly optimistic in gauging how quickly various
Iraqi political sects would choose to seek political solutions to
problems, rather than choosing violence. We did not anticipate that the
collapse of the Saddam regime would lead to an insurgency, and we were
slow to recognize the insurgency when it came. I also believe that no
one in the U.S. Government could have envisioned just how badly Iraq's
infrastructure and its economy had deteriorated. The lack of essential
services, health care, viable employment, and internationally compliant
law enforcement mechanisms all helped to fuel the insurgency in Iraq.
Our role is to increase the capacity of the Iraqi Government to
deal with these issues effectively. Working with the Iraqis, we are
effectively defeating insurgent elements attempting to destabilize
Iraq. Both General Odierno and Ambassador Hill are heavily engaged in
continuing the slow but steady progress. I feel our continued support
to Iraq based on the security agreement and President's strategy is the
right policy.
Question. What do you believe are the most important steps that the
United States needs to take in Iraq to prepare for the end of the
combat mission by the end of August 2010 and the withdrawal of all U.S.
forces by the end of 2011?
Answer. Per the President's plan, we seek an Iraq that is
sovereign, stable, and self-reliant; an Iraqi Government that is just,
representative, and accountable; neither a safe haven for, nor sponsor
of terrorism; integrated into the global economy; and a long-term
partner contributing to regional peace and security. The United States
must continue to focus efforts on those sectors most critical to
achieving these objectives to solidify the hard-fought gains we have
achieved thus far.
On the security front, we must continue to develop the capability
and capacity of the Iraqi Ministries of Defense and Interior and assist
the Iraqis in developing and fielding the logistics, fire support,
intelligence, and other key enablers they will need to be successful in
2012 and beyond. We also need to continue the political reconciliation
and economic progress that will be the true foundation of stability.
Question. What do you believe are the prospects for Iraqi political
leaders to manage the changes associated with the U.S. withdrawal from
urban areas?
Answer. I believe the prospects are good. The Iraqi security forces
have continued to improve in their capabilities, and concurrently, the
people of Iraq are more confident in the security conditions in their
neighborhoods. If you had asked me just 1 year ago if we would see a
provincial election cycle which was relatively violence free, which was
judged to be credible and fair by the United Nations, and which all
political parties in Iraq recognized as fair, I would have expressed
serious doubts. While not without incident, all 14 provinces which held
elections successfully seated their new provincial councils and
governors. We will continue to assist the political leadership to
continue their efforts toward reconciliation, and develop provincial
governments which are efficient and representative of all the people.
Question. What do you believe are the most important steps that the
United States needs to take in Iraq?
Answer. In the near-term, while we recognize that security has
improved greatly in Iraq, there are significant milestones on the
horizon that are critical steps in our drawdown. Most notably,
successful and legitimate national elections early next year and the
subsequent seating of the new government is a critical step in our
drawdown plan. Other critical steps to maintaining stability include
the central government's capacity to govern effectively and provide
essential services, continued GOI commitment to national reconciliation
and accommodation (e.g., the Sons of Iraq program), and establishing a
solid foundation for the rule of law.
Question. What is your assessment of the capability of Iraqi
security forces today? What support in your view will the United States
need to provide in the future and over what period of time?
Answer. I concur with General Odierno's assessment that based on
current conditions, the ISF are ready to handle responsibilities for
security in the cities and urban areas.
Operational readiness continues to improve for both the Ministry of
Defense forces as well as the Ministry of Interior. With U.S.
assistance in the development and fielding of key enablers, I believe
the ISF will be capable of handling internal security, to include
counter-insurgency operations, by the time U.S. forces depart in 2012.
Question. What considerations will be factored into a decision
regarding whether (and if so, what kind and how much) U.S. military
equipment currently in Iraq should be left behind for use by the Iraqi
Army?
Answer. Any decision to leave U.S. military equipment currently in
Iraq behind for use by the Iraqi security forces will be based a number
of factors, including (but not limited to):
Whether or not the particular item is essential to
establishing the Iraqis' ability to defend against internal
threats by December 2011.
The ability to meet the particular requirement through
more traditional military assistance mechanisms.
Whether or not the equipment is deemed excess by the
Service that owns it.
The desire of the Iraqis to have the equipment.
The ability of the Iraqis to maintain the equipment if
it is provided to them.
The replacement cost to the Services.
The impact on Services' ability to reset and reposture
the forces for current and future global commitments.
The cost to return particular equipment to the United
States and refurbish it compared to its fair market value and
remaining useful life.
Production lead times for new equipment.
If no other options are feasible, whether or not
specific items are so critical to Iraqi security forces'
success that it is in the national interest of the United
States to provided it to the Iraqis, even if the Services do
not declare it as excess (I recognize that the authority for
Secretary Gates to do this does not yet exist).
Question. As conventional forces are drawn down in Iraq, the
requirement for Special Operations Forces is likely to remain the same
or even increase, for the foreseeable future. Special Operations
Forces, however, rely heavily on their conventional counterparts for
many support and enabling functions including airlift, medical
evacuation, resupply, and intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance.
What is being done to make sure Special Operations Forces in Iraq
are being adequately supported as the drawdown progresses?
Answer. Special Operations Forces continue to play an important
role in Iraq. The Joint Staff, Commander of CENTCOM, Commander of
Special Operations Command, and Commanders in Iraq will ensure that
Special Operations Forces are properly supported as conventional forces
are drawn down in accordance with the security agreement and the
President's direction. We have coordinated closely with the Iraqi
Security Special Forces following the Security Agreement, and we
anticipate this close working relationship will continue, to the mutual
benefit of both our forces as well as the Government of Iraq. As we do
so, we will carefully balance scarce enablers between Iraq and
Afghanistan.
afghanistan
Question. In your view, what are the greatest challenges that U.S.
forces face in implementing the administration's strategy for
Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Answer. U.S. forces face numerous, complex, challenges in
implementing the administration's strategy for Afghanistan and
Pakistan: a resilient Taliban insurgency, increasing levels of
violence, lack of governance capability, persistent corruption, lack of
development in key areas, a porous border between Afghanistan and
Pakistan, illicit narcotics, and malign influences from other
countries. Taken together, these threats to regional stability increase
the level of difficulty in implementing the administration's strategy.
However, the potential reemergence of al Qaeda or other extremist safe
havens in Afghanistan and Pakistan are critical threats to our national
security and to our allies, which make it all the more important that
the administration's strategy is supported and implemented.
Question. What is your assessment of the long-term prospects for
Afghan military forces to effectively provide security throughout
Afghanistan?
Answer. The Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) today
(approximately 90,000 Afghan National Army (ANA) and 82,000 Afghan
National Police (ANP)) is not of sufficient size to provide long-term
security and stability for the people of Afghanistan. I believe the
current authorized ANSF force levels (134,000 ANA and 96,800 ANP)
should be reviewed on a periodic basis to ensure they are sufficient to
support the country-wide security needs.
Question. Do you believe that the current end strength targets of
134,000 for the ANA and 96,800 for the ANP are sufficient or should
those end strength targets be increased?
Answer. I believe the current authorized ANSF force levels (134,000
ANA and 96,800 ANP) should be reviewed on a periodic basis to ensure
they are sufficient to support the country-wide security needs.
There are two ongoing studies that will help inform our
recommendations and decisions regarding the future size and
capabilities of the ANSF. The European Community (EC) has commissioned
a study, expected to be complete in mid-summer 2009, to assess the
required capabilities of the Afghan National Police. The Secretary of
Defense also directed a detailed analysis, led by CENTCOM and the Joint
Staff, be conducted in order to help us make informed recommendations
on options for future end-strength and capabilities for both the ANA
and the ANP. This study with assessed courses-of-action is due back to
the Secretary on July 29, 2009. If confirmed, I will use the results of
both of these studies to make recommendations on the future size and
capabilities of the ANSF.
Question. What in your view are the major challenges for
accelerating the growth of the ANSF, and how would you recommend
addressing these challenges, if confirmed?
Answer. The greatest international community challenge to
accelerating the growth of the ANSF is the requirement for mentors for
these forces. The greatest Afghan challenge is the development of
leadership for the expanded force.
The President's decision in March to deploy the 4/82 Brigade Combat
Team (BCT) to provide additional mentors for the ANSF will allow us to
meet our ANA embedded training team requirements for the 134,000 Army
and will significantly increase the number of ANP police mentor teams.
U.S. Counterinsurgency BCTs are also assuming responsibility for police
mentors in districts within their battlespace. We must continue to
encourage our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) partners to
provide these district mentors in order to build synergy for security
within the battlespace and increase the number of districts with police
mentor coverage. I also recommend encouraging NATO to use the proposed
NTM-A as an opportunity to enhance its training and mentoring of the
ANP.
Expanding the leadership capacity of the ANSF requires training and
experience and both the ANA and ANP have leadership development
programs in place. However, we must also recognize that leader
development requires time and we must balance the pressing need for
additional growth and progress in leadership with this reality in order
to build forces that are self-sustaining over the long-term.
Question. What should be the role of the ANA in preventing cross-
border attacks by extremist militants from Pakistan into Afghanistan?
Answer. The Afghan Border Police (ABP) have primary responsibility
for border security. The ANA provides direct support and support in
depth to the ABP. Operational Coordination Centers (OCCs) are currently
being established at the regional and provincial levels to improve
information sharing and synchronization of efforts.
Preventing all incursions is difficult due to the length and porous
nature of the border. However, practical cooperation between Afghan,
Pakistani, and international forces improves border security. Effective
military operations along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas are key
to disrupt and eventually deny safe havens to al Qaeda and the Taliban
from which to launch these incursions.
ISAF and USFOR-A must continue to enhance the practical cooperation
between ANSF, Pakistani military, and international forces and increase
the effectiveness of our counterinsurgency operations. Border and Joint
Coordination Centers, regular tripartite engagements at all levels, and
counterinsurgency training of Afghan and Pakistani forces are key to
these efforts.
Question. NATO has agreed to the establishment of a three-star
command within the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)
command structure to oversee the day-to-day execution of the conflict.
What is your assessment of the current U.S. and ISAF command
structures in Afghanistan and what changes, if any, do you support to
those command structures?
Answer. General McChrystal has proposed a new combined and joint
command that would direct the operations of the five regional commands.
We are currently in the process of developing the proposed structure
for this command with our NATO allies.
General McChrystal and his staff are conducting an initial
assessment and his recommendations will more specifically address the
proposed operational command and any other structural changes.
Question. Given the challenges that the topography of Afghanistan
presents to operations, what are the unique challenges for which the
United States needs new or modified equipment?
Answer. The varying topography in Afghanistan limits freedom of
movement for U.S. and coalition forces throughout the country which in
turn affects movement of personnel and logistical resupply. The current
influx of Strykers and additional fixed and rotary-wing assets into
Regional Command (RC) South will improve freedom of movement within RC
South and southern portions of RCs East and West but will have a
limited impact on logistical support.
The U.S. and coalition partners need a more robust capability to
counter improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The employment of Mine
Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, uparmored Highly Mobile
Multi Wheeled Vehicle (HWWMV), equivalent uparmored vehicles, and Route
Clearance companies will improve survivability against IED attacks but
the limited terrain clearance and power on these vehicles also limits
their capability to traverse rugged terrain. Additional armored
vehicles and Route Clearance companies will improve the number of IED
finds and personnel survivability during IED attacks.
The U.S. military is investing in improvements to air-delivery
capabilities. Austere operating locations throughout Afghanistan do not
support normal logistical resupply via surface or air movement. The
United States needs an improved air-delivery capability and is
accomplishing this by leveraging new technology on existing equipment
in order to improve reliability and accuracy of fielded systems.
Because of the topography, these improved systems are a critical
requirement needed to meet the increasing logistical demands in
Afghanistan.
Question. In your view are there adequate intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets available to support
requirements in Afghanistan?
Answer. It is our assessment that there are not enough ISR assets
to support requirements in Afghanistan and those requirements are
growing.
There is a growing requirement for manned and unmanned aerial
assets in Afghanistan used to support the NSC strategy and COMISAF's
priority intelligence requirements. When employed effectively, these
ISR assets are a combat-multiplier for U.S. and allied forces and are
able to cue additional platforms for precise intelligence collection.
Additionally, the data collected by these systems requires a large
amount of processing which must be shared among ISAF, NATO, and other
partners including Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Question. What steps do you believe coalition forces and the
international community need to take in the near-term to improve the
lives of the Afghan people?
Answer. We need to reassure the people of Afghanistan that
coalition forces and the international community are committed to
helping them develop their country on a long-term basis. In the near-
term, we are focused on providing security to the population which will
allow us to progress in implementing development projects and building
greater governance capacity in the long term.
Question. News reports indicate that Afghan resentment over
civilian deaths resulting from U.S. counterterrorism operations and
U.S. or NATO airstrikes continues to grow.
What steps, if any, do you believe ought to be undertaken to
address the issue of civilian deaths in Afghanistan?
Answer. In addition to the tragic loss of life, I and all the
leadership are acutely aware of the negative repercussions resulting
from civilian casualties. Any time an innocent person is killed our
mission becomes harder and our men and women in Afghanistan fully
understand this. We have procedures in place which seek to make every
effort possible to avoid civilian casualties because our purpose is to
protect the population. However, we are fighting an enemy who conducts
operations specifically designed to produce casualties that can be
attributed to coalition forces. As such, General McChrystal, as part of
his initial assessment, is reviewing all tactical directives as they
relate to avoiding civilian casualties.
Question. From your perspective, what are the top lessons learned
from our experience in Iraq and how would you apply these lessons in
Afghanistan and future conflicts?
Answer. It is important to realize that each conflict is different
and you must apply strategies based on the current fight as it relates
to the situation on the ground. Having said that I believe one of the
greatest lessons learned from Iraq that can be applied to all conflicts
is the multi-faceted approach to problem solving and issue resolution.
Bringing together the best and brightest from across the spectrum of
military, U.S. Government agencies and departments, as well as the
leaders of industry, provides for the whole-of-government approach that
when applied in concert with each other is very effective and dynamic.
pakistan
Question. Administration officials have said that ``no
improvement'' is possible in Afghanistan without progress in Pakistan,
or that you can't succeed in Afghanistan without ``solving'' Pakistan.
What in your view is the linkage between progress in Afghanistan
and developments in Pakistan? Do you agree that the United States
should be cautious about tying Afghanistan's future too closely to
developments in Pakistan?
Answer. Afghanistan and Pakistan stability are inextricably linked
as extremist threats transcend regional boundaries. The strategy we
have for Afghanistan and Pakistan is regionally focused in recognition
of the fact that what happens in one country affects the other.
Clearly, addressing extremist safe havens and cross border activities
into Afghanistan from Pakistan is essential to success in Afghanistan.
While we continue to enhance our bilateral relationship with each
country based on its own merits we cannot ignore the historical,
geographic, and economic ties between the two countries or the current
security situation by de-linking Afghanistan's future from developments
in Pakistan.
Question. What is your assessment of Pakistan's commitment to
confront the threat posed by al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other militant
extremists in its western territory?
Answer. Pakistan's leaders recognize that extremist groups pose a
great threat to Pakistan's national security. However, Pakistan must
take sustained action, including engaging extremist groups within its
borders and following operations with humanitarian assistance, in order
to mitigate this threat. Recent operations in the North West Frontier
Province are a promising start, and we are watching closely to see
whether these operations are sustained and continued effectively into
other extremist areas in western Pakistan. U.S. leaders engage
regularly with the Government of Pakistan to convey both our concern
about these threats and our political support and we are augmenting
their efforts through military and economic assistance.
Question. Do you agree that in order for U.S. military assistance
to Pakistan to be effective, Pakistan's leadership must make it clear
to the Pakistani people that confronting the threat poised by al Qaeda,
the Taliban, and other militant extremists is essential for the sake of
Pakistan's own security interests?
Answer. Indications from Pakistan senior leadership and outside
observers are that Pakistan's military operations along the border
currently have support of the Pakistani population as the Pakistani
people are becoming increasingly aware of the threat poised by militant
extremists. Clearly, it is important for the Government of Pakistan and
the Pakistan military to have support of the population for these
operations, and without it U.S. military assistance could not be as
effectively employed. We also understand that the population needs to
see a whole-of-government approach to the problems Pakistan faces or
support for the government and military operations could erode. Our
broad assistance efforts support this by not only improving Pakistan's
military/security capabilities, but also assisting the Government of
Pakistan to improve education, agriculture, job creation and long-term
economic development, as well as governance, in order to improve the
lives of the Pakistani people.
Question. The Intelligence Community assesses that Pakistan's
Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the border with Afghanistan
provide a safe haven for al Qaeda and other extremists supporting the
Taliban led insurgency in Afghanistan.
In your view, should the Pakistan Government be doing more to
prevent these cross border incursions, particularly across the border
between Baluchistan, Pakistan, and Kandahar Afghanistan?
Answer. The Pakistan Government and security forces face many
challenges along the border including rugged terrain and isolated
regions, lack of capacity and capability for conducting
counterinsurgency and border operations, as well as a population in
this region that has historically been autonomous and independent from
central rule. U.S. senior military and government leadership
continually engage with Pakistani counterparts on the importance of
preventing cross-border activities and on ways that U.S./coalition,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan can work together to improve border security.
We have seen improvements in this cooperation though we have not yet
achieved the level of effectiveness we need to reduce extremists'
abilities to cross into Afghanistan and conduct operations.
Question. What is your assessment of the current level of
cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan in confronting the threat
of militant extremists in the border region?
Answer. The relationship between the Governments of Afghanistan and
Pakistan has improved significantly from just a few years ago and the
leadership of both countries continues to engage in discussion and
broadening the relationship and cooperation. This cooperation also
occurs at the lower levels through border coordination and other
activities to meet the extremist threats in the border region. There is
more that can be done and the United States continually works to
facilitate and improve the cooperation between these two countries and
with the coalition on the Afghanistan side of the border.
joint improvised explosive device defeat organization
Question. The Department has taken inconsistent positions on the
disposition of ad hoc, but critical, entities created to respond to the
urgent needs of combat forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Secretary of
Defense has recently stated in testimony before the Senate
Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, that the ISR task
force should be phased out, while at the same time, the Department has
decided to institutionalize Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Organization (JIEDDO). Some have expressed concern about the possible
hasty demise of the ISR task force, and others have expressed concern
about the premature decision to make JIEDDO permanent. While the JIEDDO
reports to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Office of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff plays an active role in reviewing and validating urgent
operational needs emerging from Iraq and Afghanistan.
What are your views of JIEDDO and its role within the Department
and within the Department's process for responding to urgent
operational needs?
Answer. The JIEDDO is effective in its mission to lead, advocate,
and coordinate the Department's C-IED efforts in support of combatant
commanders. They are a highly valued capability that continues to
demonstrate the agility to respond quickly to urgent operational needs
by providing essential material and nonmaterial solutions to counter
known, newly deployed, and emerging IED threats.
Question. What are your views of the criteria the Department is
using to determine which institutions should become permanent and which
should not, and to demonstrate how these criteria arc being
consistently applied across organizations?
Answer. Organizations are often created in response to shortfalls
identified by combatant commanders. There are several venues, including
Senior Warfighter Forums and Deputies Advisory Working Groups (DAWG),
to review and make recommendations to the Department leadership as to
whether an organization should become permanent. In the case of JIEDDO,
the C-IED SWarF and the DAWG concluded that the nature of the IED
threat and continued combatant commanders' need for rapid solutions
necessitated an enduring organization with the agility to rapidly
respond to changing urgent operational needs. I will recommend the ISR
Task Force be included until such time as warfighter needs can be met
by such programs.
counternarcotics
Question. Recently, senior U.S. Government officials have indicated
that the United States will begin to increase alternative crop
development, public information, and interdiction programs, rather than
continuing or expanding ongoing eradication efforts. This has been
viewed as a u-turn of the U.S. counternarcotics strategy in Afghanistan
and has been greeted with skepticism from some senior Afghan officials.
What is your view of this ongoing change in strategy?
Answer. I understand the U.S. Government's intent to rebalance its
counternarcotics strategy and I support this effort because I don't
think that crop eradication alone is the right approach. I believe we
need a multi-pronged approach that targets laboratories, traffickers
and movement of drugs, and facilitators at the same time we work to
provide alternative income opportunities for farmers.
Question. What is your assessment of the eradication policy the
United States has pursued in recent years?
Answer. The efforts of the U.S. Government to support and fund the
Afghan Government's eradication efforts have shown little success. The
funding and energy for eradication programs should be redistributed to
other counternarcotics activities that have proven far more successful
such as interdiction, public information, and alternative development.
Question. Do you believe that this shift in policy is adequately
resourced?
Answer. If the resources dedicated to the elimination pillar of the
U.S. counternarcotics strategy were redistributed to interdiction, rule
of law, public information, and alternative development this would be a
step in the right direction. However, General McChrystal is currently
conducting an initial assessment for the Secretary of Defense, and I
would defer to the outcome of his assessment to determine if the shift
in counternarcotics policy is adequately resourced.
Question. What role do you believe DOD will play in each component
of the new strategy?
Answer. The same roles will be played by DOD in the four pillars
that do not involve poppy elimination: public information,
interdiction, alternative development, and rule of law. DOD currently
supports the poppy elimination pillar through the development,
training, and deployment of the Counternarcotics Infantry Kandak
(CNIK), and provides in-extremis support to poppy eradication
activities when insurgents use violence to react to eradication
missions. If U.S. Government support to Afghan Government eradication
activities ends, the CNIK will be reintegrated into the ANA and in-
extremis support to Afghan Government eradication efforts will have to
be reviewed on its contribution to the counterinsurgency mission.
A nexus exists between narcotics and the insurgency as well as
corruption and criminality. Recent decisions by the NATO Defense
Ministers and the Secretary of Defense, at the request of the Afghan
Government, provided the guidance and authorities for both ISAF forces
and the U.S. military to target the trafficking and production of
narcotics where the nexus exists. Additionally, the recent change to
DOD's international counternarcotics policy enabled more robust support
and integration of capabilities with civilian law enforcement agencies
operating in Afghanistan.
counterdrug operations
Question. DOD expends more than $1 billion per year in the fight
against illegal narcotics trafficking. For much of the last 2 decades,
the fight against illegal narcotics has taken place within the Western
Hemisphere, but in recent years, counternarcotics operations have
expanded to Afghanistan, West Africa, and Asia. U.S. commanders in
Afghanistan have identified success against narcotics traffickers as
fundamental to the success of their mission to root out the Taliban and
al Qaeda. Despite this expanding focus to other parts of the globe and
the focus of U.S. commanders in Afghanistan, the Department often views
counternarcotics operations as the job of Federal law enforcement
agencies.
Please discuss your views of the DOD's counternarcotics mission and
the tension that exists within the Department about the proper role of
the military.
Answer. DOD is the lead Federal agency for the detection and
monitoring of aerial and maritime transit of illegal drugs into the
United States (title 10, U.S.C. 124). We play a valuable role in
support of the counterdrug activities of Federal, State, local, and
international partner law enforcement agencies through entities such as
Joint Task Force-North, a component of U.S. Northern Command located in
El Paso, TX; Joint Interagency Task Force-South located in Key West,
FL; Joint Interagency Task Force-West located in Hawaii. DOD is a full
partner in numerous interagency counterdrug and intelligence and
operational ``fusion centers'' located throughout the country including
the El Paso Intelligence Center and the Office of National Drug Control
Policy's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. In addition, DOD
supports 54 State and territorial counterdrug task forces through the
National Guard's Counterdrug Governors State Plans (32 U.S.C. 112). The
focus of these 2,600 National Guard soldiers and airmen is to leverage
DOD resources and unique capabilities and to act as catalysts to better
coordinate State and local law enforcement efforts with those of the
Federal Government in attacking both the supply and demand for illicit
drugs in our Homeland.
I do not believe there is tension within the Department about the
proper role of the military. DOD has a responsibility to ensure our
military members support interagency activities that adhere to
constitutional and legal restrictions, add measurable value to our
whole-of-government counterdrug efforts, and enhance the readiness of
our military and civilian members.
colombia
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend for the role of
the U.S. military in Colombia?
Our relationship is maturing from patron to partner, and Colombian
gains against illegally armed groups approach ``irreversibility'' (the
point at which illegally armed groups are controllable by the police
rather than the Armed Forces). Nonetheless, I would not, at this time,
recommend a role change for the U.S. military in Colombia. Rather, we
must continue to vigorously apply U.S. resources, to include high
demand/low density assets that fill critical capability gaps, while
further enabling the development of military institutions that will
strengthen a nascent strategic partner. DOD's security assistance
effort will remain completely synchronized with the U.S. Ambassador's
Colombia Strategic Development Initiative.
What is your assessment of the progress achieved by the Colombian
armed forces in confronting the threat of narcoterrorism?
Answer. The Colombian armed forces successes against narco-
terrorists under the Uribe Administration are unquestionably
significant, with tens of thousands of paramilitaries demobilized, the
National Liberation Army no longer a relevant threat, and the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia reduced by nearly 50 percent.
However, although approaching the tipping point of ``irreversibility,''
more progress is required. Our security assistance must not stop at the
10-yard line, but rather ensure the Colombians cross the proverbial
goal line.
iran
Question. What options do you believe are available to the United
States to counter Iran's growing influence in the Middle East region?
Answer. Clearly, Iran an important, yet troubling, regional actors
with regard to Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza, and the remainder of
the broader Middle East region. We fully support the administration's
current approach of attempting to initiate engagement with Iran,
essentially offering an unclenched fist. Should Iran choose to not
accept these overtures, I believe it will be necessary to deliberately
increase pressure in a carefully executed progression that includes a
broad spectrum of partners. I also believe that our efforts at
engagement only increase the likelihood that our partners will increase
their pressure in concert. This increased pressure must begin with
diplomatic and economic initiatives with regard to Iran, to include
U.N. actions (both sanctions and financial measures), regional
initiatives, and other forms of international pressure.
We also fully support the Department of State's Gulf Security
Dialogue (GSD) initiative to reassure our regional partners, including
military aspects such as capacity building, border security, missile
defense, and proliferation security initiatives. The GSD seeks to
reassure our regional partners of U.S. commitment, change Iran's
strategic calculus, and stop Iranian nuclear proliferation and
sponsorship of terrorist organizations. The GSD seeks to bolster the
capabilities of our regional partners (with the United States and
others) to deter and defend against conventional and unconventional
threats. It includes arms sales and other forms of assistance to
include improving port security and protecting the key energy
infrastructure of our regional partners and allies.
Question. Do you believe that a protracted deployment of U.S.
troops in Iraq or Afghanistan could strengthen Iran's influence in the
region?
Answer. The size and duration of U.S. and coalition force
deployments are dependent on a number of factors, principally focused
on the progress of security, development, and governance within those
two countries. Moreover, we have clear guidance on conducting a
responsible drawdown from Iraq, which is executing on time. While our
presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is not oriented towards Iran, the
surest way to ensure Iran's influence in the region is measured and
positive is to enable capable and confident states within the entire
region, including Iraq and Afghanistan.
Question. In your view, does Iran pose a near-term threat to the
United States by way of either its missile program or its nuclear
program?
Answer. Open source reporting indicates that the U.S. Government
does not expect Iran to have a nuclear weapons capability until mid to
next decade (2010 to 2015). Open source reporting indicates that Israel
assesses that Iran could have a weapon by late 2009. Iran does have the
capability with their arsenal of short-, medium-, and intermediate-
range ballistic missiles to threaten U.S. friends and allies in the
region. Their multiple recent weapons tests and successful launch of a
satellite earlier this year are indications of their advances in
missile technology.
While these programs will not threaten the Homeland in the near-
term, acquisition of nuclear weapons and missile delivery capabilities
will embolden Iran to further threaten U.S. and partner interests in
the region. These threats include Iranian use of proxies in
Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestinian territories, on the African
continent, and even in the tri-border region of South America for
example. Ultimately, these capabilities could directly threaten the
United States.
Question. If you believe either of these programs pose a near-term
threat, what in your view are the best ways to address such a threat?
Answer. As I stated earlier, we want to continue to support the
current diplomatic initiatives with regard to Iran, to include U.N.
actions, regional initiatives, financial measures, and other
international pressure. We encourage Iran to fulfill its responsibility
with regard to international agreements to the Nonproliferation Treaty
and the additional protocol. (Background: The Nonproliferation Treaty
is an international treaty signed in 1968 to limit the spread of
nuclear weapons. Iran is a signatory.)
Question. Other than nuclear or missile programs, what are your
concerns, if any, about Iran?
Answer. Malicious Iranian activities throughout the region include
the use of proxies to extend Iranian influence into sovereign nations
by providing weapons, technology, training, and finance. We are
concerned Iran's activities will negatively impact stability and
potentially impact the regional economy. It is important to maintain
and strengthen our relationships with our regional partners and allies
by continuing to build their security capacity. We will continue to
work in close coordination with all applicable U.S. Government
departments to ensure our policies toward Iran assume a regional
approach.
Question. What concerns, if any, does the election related unrest
in Iran raise from a military perspective?
Answer. We are concerned that the growing strength of Iran's
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps over Iranian politics will result in
the militarization of Iranian foreign policy. Nonetheless, we do not
project any significant changes to Iran's overall foreign policy
objectives. However, should the political unrest continue, it is
possible that Iran could attempt to create an incident or other crisis
that would draw its population's attention away from internal strife
and towards a perceived common threat. Our forces are acutely sensitive
to the need to avoid such an incident or crisis.
strategic communications
Question. Over the past few years, DOD has funded a growing number
of counterterrorism and counterradicalization strategic communications
programs. DOD does not have a separate budget outlining its strategic
communication activities, but the GAO reports that DOD ``spent hundreds
of millions of dollars each year'' to support its information
operations outreach activities, including recent initiatives funded by
the JIEDDO and geographic COCOMs. Many of these ongoing programs are in
support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Military Information
Support Teams from United States Special Operations Command are also
deploying to United States embassies in countries of particular
interest around the globe to bolster the efforts of the Department of
State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
What are your views on DOD's strategic communications role and its
integration into overall U.S. foreign policy objectives?
Answer. Strategic communication--the process of orchestrating our
actions, images, and words to achieve U.S. objectives--is a critical
component of DOD's activities in support of national security. However,
the Department of State is the designated lead for U.S. Government
strategic communication efforts, and in conjunction with the National
Security Council, identifies the key national objectives for strategic
communication engagement. DOD strategic communications efforts support
these national priorities. We believe they have been particularly
effective in Iraq, and we are determined to improve our efforts in
Afghanistan. It's my view that U.S. foreign policy goals are best
accomplished through whole-of-government efforts focused on engaging
and listening to target audiences, then acting and communicating those
actions in a manner that promotes our shared interests with the world.
Strategic communication is vital in ensuring that our Department's
activities support these higher-level policy objectives.
Question. What is your view of the apparently expanded role of the
U.S. military in supporting U.S. strategic communications programs led
by the State Department and the USAID in countries other than Iraq and
Afghanistan?
Answer. I believe this is a good news story that highlights our
emphasis on security, diplomacy, and development. DOD has a long
history of providing support to the Department of State and USAID
programs worldwide and will continue to support country teams and the
interagency wherever and whenever appropriate. I'm satisfied with the
expanded role but need to emphasize that a whole-of-government approach
is required for the programs that we support and DOD's resources are
not limitless. Nevertheless, we do have significant resources and
capabilities which reinforce and enhance State's and USAID's efforts.
These resources and capabilities, together with the personnel who have
the skill sets, are critical to our programs led by the State
Department and USAID as part of the national strategic objectives for
any particular country or region.
u.s. relations with russia
Question. U.S. relations with Russia, although strained over a
variety of issues, have recently improved in some areas. If confirmed,
do you believe that there are any opportunities to improve relations
through military-to-military programs, or other actions that you would
recommend be taken?
Answer. President Obama is establishing a positive working
relationship with Russian President Medvedev, which contributes
immensely toward resetting our relations with Russia. This will afford
us excellent opportunities to make headway in the realm of military
cooperation. Both sides realize that the military-to-military
relationship is a pivotal and stabilizing element to the broader
bilateral security relationship. CJCS and the Russian Chief of Defense
signed a Military Work Plan during the 6-7 July Presidential Summit in
Moscow which contains events that will allow us to construct a more
robust working relationship. We have agreed with our Russian
counterparts to focus our exercise and training Work Plan on areas of
cooperation to include counterpiracy operations, combating terrorism,
missile defense, search and rescue, and maintaining peace in unstable
regions. In addition, we seek to establish direct counterpart
relationships between the Joint Staff and Russian General Staff that
can facilitate issue mitigation.
Question. You have testified before this committee and spoken on
the potential for missile defense cooperation with Russia. What are the
first steps that could be take in this area?
Answer. I believe there is great potential to cooperate with Russia
on missile defense. I would not want to speculate at this time on what
specific cooperative programs our countries could develop, as we
currently have an internal governmental review on missile defense
underway and our consultations with the Russians are in the
developmental stage. I can envision that opportunities to cooperate on
missile defense could begin with more detailed transparency,
information exchanges, and exercises.
Over the past 3 months, the United States and Russia have discussed
opportunities to increase transparency through the exchange of
ballistic missile warning information. The Joint Data Exchange Center
(JDEC) was conceived as a way for both countries to work together to
reduce risk of a false attack warning. A JDEC Memorandum of Agreement,
originally signed in June 2000 by former Presidents Clinton and Putin,
pledged to establish a joint operations center to be manned by both
Russian and U.S. officers.
In May of this year, Ambassador Steve Mull led a U.S. delegation to
Moscow and expressed our desire to implement the JDEC agreement as an
important step towards greater cooperation. We are hopeful the final
details will be addressed between our two nations within the coming
months so we can move forward.
Continuation of exercises such as the U.S.-Russian Missile Defense
Cooperation Program would be a reasonable expectation, though I do not
expect that it would resume this year. This program began in 1996 and
has resulted in six major U.S.-Russian Federation exercises being
conducted during the last 12 years in both the United States and in
Russia. Since U.S. and Russian Federation experts last met in July
2007, the U.S. delegation has also continued to work on developing a
U.S.-Russian Federation wargame to be hosted in the United States. This
wargame was developed with the concept of working issues related to a
simulated U.N. agreement to support a friendly nation under missile
threat from a neighboring possible hostile country. The wargame was for
U.S. and Russian Federation forces to work the deployment, employment,
and sustainment of their missile defense forces in this simulated
theater. Such cooperative projects have proven to be very constructive
to our mutual security objectives and could represent the initial
stages of what could be done.
Question. In your view, what are the specific actions that could be
taken in other areas such as space and where would additional
cooperation be beneficial?
Answer. DOD has worked closely with the State Department to engage
the Russian Federation in the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful
Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). Efforts focus on initiatives we term
``Transparency and Confidence Building Measures'' or TCBMs. TCBMs
attempt to preserve the space environment and ensure safe and
responsible operations for the benefit of all space-faring nations.
With Russian support, an agreement was reached within the past few
years in the COPUOS on ``Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines''. These
voluntary measures will reduce the amount of debris created by newly
launched satellites and boosters, significantly increasing space flight
safety.
The United States and Russia have also been engaged in cooperative
civil space applications in human and robotic space flight, space
science, space applications and technologies, and the monitoring of the
global environment. Cooperation between the Russian Federal Space
Agency and NASA is especially close with regard to the resupply,
operations, and maintenance of the International Space Station. This
cooperation will become even more critical in the coming years with the
stand-down of the shuttle fleet.
As we move forward, the Department continues to explore
opportunities for cooperation in space. This issue is a specific focus
area to be addressed as part of the congressionally-directed Space
Posture Review.
Question. Recent NATO exercises in Georgia and upcoming Russian
regional exercises have continued the high level of tension. In your
view, what steps should the U.S. military take to train and supply
Georgia, without further escalating tensions between Georgia and
Russia?
Answer. Like Russia, the United States engages in military
exercises and security cooperation with a broad range of allies and
partners in order to enhance our abilities to cooperate in operational
missions and to support their aspirations to become contributing
members to Euro-Atlantic security. These are also necessary and prudent
courses of action to address the myriad security challenges we and our
allies face in the foreseeable future. That said, we are committed to
regional peace and stability and will continue to emphasize
transparency and enhanced communication in our military cooperation
efforts with both Russia and Georgia. We are also grateful that Georgia
has offered to participate in the International Assistance Force in
Afghanistan.
building partner capacity
Question. In the past few years, Congress has provided DOD a number
of temporary authorities to provide security assistance to partner
nations. These include the global train and equip authority (section
1206) and the security and stabilization assistance authority (section
1207).
What should be our strategic objectives in building the capacities
of partner nations?
Answer. Building foreign partner capacity is fundamental to our
security strategy and will remain so for decades. Its most immediate
impact is to enable many of our partners to counter extremist groups
that threaten their stability and that may present a direct threat to
the United States. It is critical to support and enable our
partnerships with other U.S. Government agencies and key allies and
friends abroad in order to improve policy, planning, and execution of
national and homeland security missions. It also reinforces with our
partners the notion of civilian control of the military.
Question. What is your assessment of these temporary capacity-
building authorities, in particular section 1206 and section 1207?
Answer. We are grateful for these authorities, and there are
countless examples of their effectiveness. Although created in response
to particular contingencies, these programs have proven useful in
putting the U.S. Government on a stronger, more flexible security
footing. They remain an absolutely vital tool cited by combatant
commanders, and I hear repeatedly from them how important dependable
authority and funding is for them to be able to adequately plan their
theater security cooperation activities. Specifically these
authorities:
Save lives and reduce stress on our forces by helping
partners solve problems before they become crises requiring
U.S. military interventions.