[Senate Hearing 107-749]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 107-749
 
        NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, 
                     FIRST SESSION, 107TH CONGRESS 

=======================================================================

                                HEARINGS

                               before the

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                      ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                   on

                             NOMINATIONS OF

   DONALD H. RUMSFELD; PAUL D. WOLFOWITZ; DOV S. ZAKHEIM; CHARLES S. 
   ABELL; VICTORIA CLARKE; EDWARD C. ALDRIDGE; WILLIAM J. HAYNES II; 
    POWELL A. MOORE; DR. DAVID S.C. CHU; THOMAS E. WHITE; GORDON R. 
 ENGLAND; DR. JAMES G. ROCHE; ALFRED V. RASCON; DOUGLAS JAY FEITH; DR. 
   JACK DYER CROUCH II; PETER W. RODMAN; SUSAN MORRISEY LIVINGSTONE; 
  JESSIE HILL ROBERSON; THOMAS P. CHRISTIE; ALBERTO J. MORA; DIANE K. 
  MORALES; STEVEN J. MORELLO, SR.; WILLIAM A. NAVAS, JR.; MICHAEL W. 
   WYNNE; DIONEL M. AVILES; REGINALD JUDE BROWN; STEVEN A. CAMBONE; 
MICHAEL MONTELONGO; JOHN J. YOUNG, JR.; JOHN B. STENBIT; DR. RONALD M. 
 SEGA; MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ; MICHAEL PARKER; DR. MARIO P. FIORI; H.T. 
 JOHNSON; NELSON F. GIBBS; GEN. JOHN P. JUMPER, USAF; GEN. RICHARD B. 
  MYERS, USAF; GEN. PETER PACE, USMC; GEN. JOHN W. HANDY, USAF; ADM. 
 JAMES O. ELLIS, JR., USN; LINTON F. BROOKS; MARVIN R. SAMBUR; WILLIAM 
 WINKENWERDER, JR.; EVERT BECKNER; MARY L. WALKER; JOSEPH E. SCHMITZ; 
SANDRA L. PACK; R.L. BROWNLEE; DR. DALE KLEIN; PETER B. TEETS; AND GEN. 
                      CLAUDE M. BOLTON, JR., USAF

                               ----------                              

 JANUARY 11; FEBRUARY 27; APRIL 24, 26; MAY 1, 10; JUNE 5, 7, 22, 27; 
   JULY 31; AUGUST 1; SEPTEMBER 13, 25; OCTOBER 11, 23; NOVEMBER 8; 
                            DECEMBER 4, 2001

                               ----------                              

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services














NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, FIRST SESSION, 
                             107TH CONGRESS





















                                                        S. Hrg. 107-749

        NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE,
                     FIRST SESSION, 107TH CONGRESS

=======================================================================

                                HEARINGS

                               before the

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                      ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                   on

                             NOMINATIONS OF

   DONALD H. RUMSFELD; PAUL D. WOLFOWITZ; DOV S. ZAKHEIM; CHARLES S. 
   ABELL; VICTORIA CLARKE; EDWARD C. ALDRIDGE; WILLIAM J. HAYNES II; 
    POWELL A. MOORE; DR. DAVID S.C. CHU; THOMAS E. WHITE; GORDON R. 
 ENGLAND; DR. JAMES G. ROCHE; ALFRED V. RASCON; DOUGLAS JAY FEITH; DR. 
   JACK DYER CROUCH II; PETER W. RODMAN; SUSAN MORRISEY LIVINGSTONE; 
  JESSIE HILL ROBERSON; THOMAS P. CHRISTIE; ALBERTO J. MORA; DIANE K. 
  MORALES; STEVEN J. MORELLO, SR.; WILLIAM A. NAVAS, JR.; MICHAEL W. 
   WYNNE; DIONEL M. AVILES; REGINALD JUDE BROWN; STEVEN A. CAMBONE; 
MICHAEL MONTELONGO; JOHN J. YOUNG, JR.; JOHN B. STENBIT; DR. RONALD M. 
 SEGA; MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ; MICHAEL PARKER; DR. MARIO P. FIORI; H.T. 
 JOHNSON; NELSON F. GIBBS; GEN. JOHN P. JUMPER, USAF; GEN. RICHARD B. 
  MYERS, USAF; GEN. PETER PACE, USMC; GEN. JOHN W. HANDY, USAF; ADM. 
 JAMES O. ELLIS, JR., USN; LINTON F. BROOKS; MARVIN R. SAMBUR; WILLIAM 
 WINKENWERDER, JR.; EVERT BECKNER; MARY L. WALKER; JOSEPH E. SCHMITZ; 
SANDRA L. PACK; R.L. BROWNLEE; DR. DALE KLEIN; PETER B. TEETS; AND GEN. 
                      CLAUDE M. BOLTON, JR., USAF

                               __________

 JANUARY 11; FEBRUARY 27; APRIL 24, 26; MAY 1, 10; JUNE 5, 7, 22, 27; 
   JULY 31; AUGUST 1; SEPTEMBER 13, 25; OCTOBER 11, 23; NOVEMBER 8; 
                            DECEMBER 4, 2001

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

                               ----------
                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

75-903 PDF                       WASHINGTON : 2002 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; 
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, 
Washington, DC 20402-0001 



  































                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                    JOHN WARNER, Virginia, Chairman

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina       CARL LEVIN, Michigan
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona                 EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire             ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania          MAX CLELAND, Georgia
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas                  MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado               JACK REED, Rhode Island
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama               BILL NELSON, Florida
SUSAN COLLINS, Maine                 E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Maine
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky                JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri
                                     MARK DAYTON, Minnesota

                      Les Brownlee, Staff Director

            David S. Lyles, Staff Director for the Minority

                     CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts     JOHN WARNER, Virginia
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut     JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MAX CLELAND, Georgia                 BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JACK REED, Rhode Island              RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
BILL NELSON, Florida                 WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska         TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri              JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota               SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico            JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

                     David S. Lyles, Staff Director

                Les Brownlee, Republican Staff Director

                                  (ii)






















                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                    CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

                                                                   Page

                            January 11, 2001

Nomination of Donald H. Rumsfeld to be Secretary of Defense......     1

Statements of:

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Illinois.......................................................     9
Fitzgerald, Hon. Peter G., a U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Illinois.......................................................    10
Rumsfeld, Donald H., Nominee to be Secretary, Department of 
  Defense........................................................    13

                           February 27, 2001

Nomination of Dr. Paul D. Wolfowitz to be the Deputy Secretary of 
  Defense........................................................   209

Statements of:

Sarbanes, Hon. Paul R., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland   212
Wolfowitz, Dr. Paul D., Nominee to be Deputy Secretary of Defense   214

                             April 24, 2001

Nominations of Dr. Dov S. Zakheim to be Under Secretary of 
  Defense, Comptroller; Charles S. Abell to be Assistant 
  Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy; and Victoria 
  Clarke to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.   301

Statements of:

Zakheim, Dr. Dov S., Nominee to be Under Secretary of Defense, 
  Comptroller....................................................   306
Clarke, Victoria, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense 
  for Public Affairs.............................................   308
Abell, Charles S., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense 
  for Force Management Policy....................................   309

                             April 26, 2001

Nominations of Edward C. Aldridge to be Under Secretary of 
  Defense for Acquisition and Technology; William J. Haynes II to 
  be General Counsel of the Department of Defense; and Powell A. 
  Moore to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative 
  Affairs........................................................   371

Statements of:

Thompson, Hon. Fred, a U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee..   374
Aldridge, Edward C., Nominee to be Under Secretary of Defense for 
  Acquisition and Technology.....................................   376
Moore, Powell A., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense 
  for Legislative Affairs........................................   381
Haynes, William J. II, Nominee to be General Counsel of the 
  Department of Defense..........................................   382

                                 (iii)
                              May 1, 2001

Pending Military Nominations.....................................   449

                              May 10, 2001

Nomination of Dr. David S.C. Chu to be Under Secretary of Defense 
  for Personnel and Readiness; Thomas E. White to be Secretary of 
  the Army; Gordon R. England to be Secretary of the Navy; Dr. 
  James G. Roche to be Secretary of the Air Force; and Alfred V. 
  Rascon to be Director of Selective Service.....................   455

Statements of:

Sarbanes, Hon. Paul, a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland...   460
Mikulski, Hon. Barbara, a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland   461
Gramm, Hon. Phil, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas.........   462
Bartlett, Hon. Roscoe, a Representative from the State of 
  Maryland.......................................................   462
Chu, Dr. David S.C., Nominee to be Under Secretary of Defense for 
  Personnel and Readiness........................................   464
Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, a U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Texas..........................................................   464
White, Thomas E., Jr., Nominee to be Secretary of the Army.......   466
England, Gordon R., Nominee to be Secretary of the Navy..........   458
Roche, Dr. James G., Nominee to be Secretary of the Air Force....   469
Rascon, Alfred V., Nominee to be Director of Selective Service...   472

                              June 5, 2001

Nomination of Douglas Jay Feith to be Under Secretary of Defense 
  for Policy; Dr. Jack Dyer Crouch II to be Assistant Secretary 
  of Defense for International Security Policy; and Peter W. 
  Rodman to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for International 
  Security Affairs...............................................   581

Statements of:

Feith, Douglas Jay, Nominee to be Under Secretary of Defense for 
  Policy.........................................................   582
Rodman, Peter W., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense 
  for International Security Affairs.............................   582
Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Pennsylvania...................................................   584
Bond, Hon. Christopher ``Kit'', a U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Missouri.......................................................   586

                              June 7, 2001

Nominations of Susan Morrisey Livingstone to be Under Secretary 
  of the Navy; Jessie Hill Roberson to be Assistant Secretary of 
  Energy for Environmental Management; and Thomas P. Christie to 
  be Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, Department of 
  Defense........................................................   867

Statements of:

Livingstone, Susan Morrisey, Nominee to be Under Secretary of the 
  Navy...........................................................   875
Roberson, Jessie Hill, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of 
  Energy for Environmental Management............................   877
Christie, Thomas P., Nominee to be Director of Operational Test 
  and Evaluation, Department of Defense..........................   878

                             June 22, 2001

Nominations of Alberto J. Mora to be General Counsel of the Navy; 
  Diane K. Morales to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 
  Logistics and Material Readiness; Steven J. Morello, Sr., to be 
  General Counsel of the Army; William A. Navas, Jr., to be 
  Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve 
  Affairs; and Michael W. Wynne to be Deputy Under Secretary of 
  Defense for Acquisition and Technology.........................   935

Statements of:

Morello, Steven J., Sr., Nominee to be General Counsel of the 
  Army...........................................................   941
Wynne, Michael W., Nominee to be Deputy Under Secretary of 
  Defense for Acquisition and Technology.........................   942
Morales, Diane K., Nominee to be Deputy Under Secretary of 
  Defense for Logistics and Material Readiness...................   942
Navas, William A., Jr., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the 
  Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs..........................   943
Mora, Alberto J., Nominee to be General Counsel of the Navy......   944

                             June 27, 2001

Nominations of Dionel M. Aviles to be Assistant Secretary of the 
  Navy, Financial Management and Comptroller; Reginald Jude Brown 
  to be Assistant Secretary of the Army, Manpower and Reserve 
  Affairs; Dr. Steven A. Cambone to be Deputy Under Secretary of 
  Defense for Policy; Michael Montelongo to be Assistant 
  Secretary for the Air Force, Financial Management and 
  Comptroller; and John J. Young, Jr., to be Assistant Secretary 
  of the Navy, Research, Development, and Acquisition............  1031

Statements of:

Inouye, Hon. Daniel, a U.S. Senator from the State of Hawaii.....  1034
Stevens, Hon. Ted, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska.......  1035
Reyes, Hon. Silvestre, a U.S. Representative from the State of 
  Texas..........................................................  1036
Montelongo, Michael, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary for the 
  Air Force, Financial Management and Comptroller................  1040
Brown, Reginald Jude, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the 
  Army, Manpower and Reserve Affairs.............................  1041
Cambone, Dr. Steven A., Nominee to be Deputy Under Secretary of 
  Defense for Policy.............................................  1041
Aviles, Dionel M., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy, 
  Financial Management and Comptroller...........................  1042
Young, John J., Jr., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the 
  Navy, Research, Development, and Acquisition...................  1042

                             July 31, 2001

Nominations of John B. Stenbit to be Assistant Secretary of 
  Defense for Command, Control, Communication, and Intelligence; 
  Dr. Ronald M. Sega to be Director of Defense, Research and 
  Engineering; Michael L. Dominguez to be Assistant Secretary of 
  the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs; Paul Michael 
  Parker to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; 
  Dr. Mario P. Fiori to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
  Installations and Environment; H.T. Johnson to be Assistant 
  Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment; and 
  Nelson F. Gibbs to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
  Installations and Environment..................................  1139

Statements of:

Dominguez, Michael L., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the 
  Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.....................  1144
Stenbit, John B., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense 
  for Command, Control, Communication, and Intelligence..........  1145
Sega, Dr. Ronald M., Nominee to be Director of Defense Research 
  and Engineering................................................  1146
Lott, Hon. Trent, a U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi...  1159
Cochran, Hon. Thad, a U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi.  1161
Parker, Paul Michael, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the 
  Army for Civil Works...........................................  1165
Fiori, Dr. Mario P., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the 
  Army for Installations and Environment.........................  1166
Johnson, H.T., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 
  Installations and Environment..................................  1167
Gibbs, Nelson F., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Air 
  Force for Installations and Environment........................  1167

                             August 1, 2001

Nomination of Gen. John P. Jumper, USAF, for Reappointment to the 
  Grade of General and to be Chief of Staff United States Air 
  Force..........................................................  1309

Statement of:

Jumper, Gen. John P., USAF, Nominee to be Chief of Staff, United 
  States Air Force...............................................  1313

                           September 13, 2001

Nomination of Gen. Richard B. Myers, USAF, to be Chairman of the 
  Joint Chiefs of Staff..........................................  1377

Statement of:

Myers, Gen. Richard B., USAF, Nominee to be Chairman, Joint 
  Chiefs of Staff................................................  1383

                           September 25, 2001

Nominations of Gen. Peter Pace, USMC, for Reappointment in the 
  Grade of General and for Appointment as the Vice Chairman of 
  the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. John W. Handy, USAF, for 
  Reappointment in the Grade of General and for Appointment as 
  Commander in Chief, United States Transportation Command and 
  Commander Air Mobility Command; and Adm. James O. Ellis, Jr., 
  USN, for Reappointment in the Grade of Admiral and for 
  Appointment as Commander in Chief, United States Strategic 
  Command........................................................  1445

Statements of:

Handy, Gen. John W., USAF, for Reappointment to the Grade of 
  General and for Appointment as Commander in Chief, United 
  States Transportation Command, and Commander, Air Mobility 
  Command........................................................  1451
Pace, Gen. Peter, USMC, for Reappointment to the Grade of General 
  and for Appointment as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
  Staff..........................................................  1451
Ellis, Adm. James O., Jr., USN, for Reappointment to the Grade of 
  Admiral and for Appointment as Commander in Chief, United 
  States Strategic Command.......................................  1451

                            October 11, 2001

Nominations of Linton F. Brooks to be Deputy Administrator for 
  Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security 
  Administration; Marvin R. Sambur to be Assistant Secretary of 
  the Air Force for Acquisition; William Winkenwerder, Jr., to be 
  Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs; Everet 
  Beckner to be Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, 
  National Nuclear Security Administration; and Mary L. Walker to 
  be General Counsel of the Air Force............................  1529

Statements of:

Domenici, Hon. Pete V., a U.S. Senator from the State of New 
  Mexico.........................................................  1531
Beckner, Everet, Ph.D., Nominee to be Deputy Administrator for 
  Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration.....  1535
Brooks, Ambassador Linton F., Nominee to be Deputy Administrator 
  for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security 
  Administration.................................................  1537
Winkenwerder, William, Jr., M.D., Nominee to be Assistant 
  Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs........................  1538
Sambur, Marvin R., Ph.D., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of 
  the Air Force for Acquisition..................................  1539
Walker, Mary L., Nominee to be General Counsel of the Air Force..  1539

                            October 23, 2001

Nominations of Joseph E. Schmitz to be Inspector General, 
  Department of Defense; and Sandra L. Pack to be Assistant 
  Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller.  1623

Statements of:

Schmitz, Joseph E., Nominee to be Inspector General, Department 
  of Defense.....................................................  1627
Pack, Sandra L., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Army 
  for Financial Management and Comptroller.......................  1628

                            November 8, 2001

Nominations of R.L. Brownlee to be Under Secretary of the Army; 
  Dr. Dale Klein to be Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for 
  Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs; and Peter 
  B. Teets to be Under Secretary of the Air Force................  1693

Statements of:

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, a U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Texas..........................................................  1700
Klein, Dr. Dale, Nominee to be Assistant to the Secretary of 
  Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense 
  Programs.......................................................  1706
Brownlee, R.L., Nominee to be Under Secretary of the Army........  1707
Teets, Peter B., Nominee to be Under Secretary of the Air Force..  1709

                            December 4, 2001

Nomination of Claude M. Bolton, Jr., to be Assistant Secretary of 
  the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology............  1789

Statement of:

Bolton, Maj. Gen. Claude M., Jr., USAF, Nominee to be Assistant 
  Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and 
  Technology.....................................................  1792

APPENDIX.........................................................  1863


    NOMINATION OF HON. DONALD H. RUMSFELD TO BE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, JANUARY 11, 2001

                                       U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in 
room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin 
(chairman) presiding.
    Committee members present: Senators Levin, Kennedy, 
Bingaman, Lieberman, Cleland, Reed, Warner, Thurmond, McCain, 
Inhofe, Roberts, Allard, and Sessions.
    Other Senators present: Senators Akaka, Bill Nelson, Ben 
Nelson, Carnahan, Dayton, Collins, and Bunning.
    Committee staff member present: David S. Lyles, staff 
director.
    Majority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, 
counsel; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member; 
Creighton Greene, professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling, 
counsel; Peter K. Levine, counsel; and Michael J. McCord, 
professional staff member.
    Minority staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee, staff 
director; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff director; Charles S. 
Abell, professional staff member; Charles W. Alsup, 
professional staff member; John R. Barnes, professional staff 
member; Edward H. Edens IV, professional staff member; William 
C. Greenwalt, professional staff member; Mary Alice A. Hayward, 
professional staff member; Lawrence J. Lanzillotta, 
professional staff member; George W. Lauffer, professional 
staff member; Thomas L. MacKenzie, professional staff member; 
Ann M. Mittermeyer, assistant counsel; Joseph T. Sixeas, 
professional staff member; Cord A. Sterling, professional staff 
member; Scott W. Stucky, general counsel; and Eric H. Thoemmes, 
professional staff member.
    Staff assistants present: Beth Ann Barozie, Thomas C. 
Moore, and Michele A. Traficante.
    Committee members' assistants present: Menda S. Fife, 
assistant to Senator Kennedy; Erik Raven, assistant to Senator 
Byrd; David Klain, assistant to Senator Landrieu; Christopher 
J. Paul and Walter E. Fischer, assistants to Senator McCain; 
Gregory C. McCarthy, assistant to Senator Inhofe; George M. 
Bernier III, assistant to Senator Santorum; Thomas A. 
Vecchiolla, assistant to Senator Snowe; Robert Alan McCurry and 
James Beauchamp, assistants to Senator Roberts; Douglas 
Flanders, assistant to Senator Allard; Michael P. Ralsky, 
assistant to Senator Hutchinson; Scott Douglass, assistant to 
Senator Sessions.
    Other Senate staff present: Richard Kessler, assistant to 
Senator Akaka; Pete Contostavlos, assistant to Senator Bill 
Nelson; Sheila Murphy, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Larry 
Smar, assistant to Senator Carnahan; Christopher Ford and Sam 
Patten, assistants to Senator Collins; and Jeff Freeman, 
assistant to Senator Cochran.

                STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER

    Senator Warner. The history of this committee in the annals 
of the Senate reflect that we have achieved, through successive 
chairmen, a high degree of bipartisanship that our Nation is 
entitled from this committee. I have been privileged to serve 
23 years on this committee with my distinguished colleague. We 
came together 23 years ago. It has been my privilege to serve 
as the Chairman for the past 2 years. If the high water does 
not rise and flood us out, I will return to that position in a 
week or so.
    But in the meantime, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I am 
privileged to pass the gavel to Senator Levin. Senator Levin 
and I and Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, and other members of 
the House went down to visit with President-elect Bush on 
Monday and we had a very good, thorough, and searching 
examination of defense issues and that struck the note of 
bipartisanship that is so essential as we, the collective 
members of our committee, represent this Nation in national 
security.
    So, Mr. Chairman, it is with privilege I pass the gavel to 
you.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN

    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner. I have been 
Chairman of this Committee for all of about a week. I cannot 
tell you how many people have noted to me just how you have 
thrived under my chairmanship already. [Laughter.]
    Before I proceed, I want to thank you for the many good 
years of friendship we have enjoyed over two decades now that 
we have been in the Senate. I will have some more comments 
about your chairmanship and that of Senator Thurmond and others 
in a moment. This is just a personal thank you to you.
    The committee meets today to consider the nomination of 
Donald Rumsfeld to serve as Secretary of Defense.
    As the first order of business, I want to welcome all of 
our Members back to the committee and extend a special welcome 
to our prospective new members. On our side, we are joined by 
Senator Akaka, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator 
Carnahan, and Senator Dayton. On the Republican side, we are 
joined by Senators Collins and Bunning. This is a great 
committee to serve on. I know that Senator Warner and I and all 
the members of this committee look forward to our new members 
joining us.
    On behalf of the entire committee, I extend a warm welcome 
to Mr. Rumsfeld and his family. I understand that you are 
accompanied by your wife, Joyce Rumsfeld, your daughter Marcy 
Rumsfeld, and your granddaughter Kayley Rumsfeld. We know the 
sacrifices that your family will make while you are in this 
position and we want to thank them in advance for their support 
of you and the sacrifices which they will make.
    We also welcome Senators Durbin and Fitzgerald who have 
joined us today.
    Mr. Rumsfeld is well known to this committee from his 
recent service as Chairman of the Commission to Assess the 
Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States and his many 
other endeavors. A couple of the senior members of the 
committee may also admit to their age by remembering Mr. 
Rumsfeld's previous service as Secretary of Defense in the Ford 
administration. Don Rumsfeld was the youngest Secretary of 
Defense in our history. After a few years of service in the 
upcoming Bush administration, he will earn the distinction of 
being our oldest Secretary of Defense as well--at least until 
Senator Thurmond is sworn in as his successor sometime in the 
future. [Laughter.]
    We convene this hearing at a unique moment in the history 
of this country and in the history of the United States Senate. 
We have just concluded the closest presidential election in our 
history. For the first time ever at the beginning of Congress, 
the Senate is equally divided. A practical arrangement to 
accommodate that unusual situation was worked out by our 
leaders and approved by the Senate last week.
    Times like these call out for, and necessitate, 
bipartisanship and cooperation. Fortunately, this committee, as 
Senator Warner has said, has a long tradition of working in a 
bipartisan manner to address the national security challenges 
facing this country. Chairman Warner has consistently led the 
committee in this spirit, as have the chairmen before him. At 
times when the rest of Congress has suffered from gridlock, our 
committee's legislative achievements--like the Goldwater-
Nichols DOD Reorganization Act, and the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative 
Threat Reduction Program--have been marked by bipartisanship. 
Even our disagreements on issues have rarely been along 
partisan lines. For instance, while debates on the withdrawal 
of troops from Kosovo and on additional rounds of base closures 
have divided this committee in recent years, the division has 
not been on partisan lines.
    It is my hope that the ease with which we hand the 
chairman's gavel back and forth in the course of this month 
will symbolize the close working relationships on this 
committee over the decades and help set the tone elsewhere.
    Our new Secretary of Defense will inherit the most dominant 
military force in the history of the world. Over the last two 
decades, our military has incorporated a series of 
technological improvements that have revolutionized their 
military capability--from precision guided munitions and 
stealth technology to satellite reconnaissance and electronic 
warfare capabilities. The members of this committee, the 
Appropriations Committee, and our counterparts in the House of 
Representatives have played a key role in those changes. Today, 
each of our military services is more lethal, more 
maneuverable, more versatile and has greater situational 
awareness on the battlefield than at any time in history.
    During the 1990s, Congress and the administration worked 
together to enhance our national security by achieving a 
balance between the needs of today's troops, including their 
current readiness, with the need to develop and field weapons 
that will enable us to retain our technological advantage in 
the future. This effort led to the enactment of comprehensive 
improvements to the military's health care system, military pay 
and retirement systems, and the substantially increased 
acquisition spending to recapitalize and modernize the force.
    We have also been engaged in a constant struggle to 
maintain funding for operations and maintenance accounts that 
support current readiness, given the high rates of deployment.
    The terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole last fall 
demonstrated once again that our enemies are most likely to use 
indirect, asymmetric means to attack us. They realize it would 
be suicide to confront the United States military directly. The 
most likely threats to our national interest will come from 
regional conflicts due to ethnic, religious, or cultural 
conflicts and from terrorists and terrorist states.
    If states are involved, they will seek to hide their 
involvement, because the retaliatory power of the United States 
is so massive and survivable as to guarantee the destruction of 
the principal goal of a totalitarian regime--its own survival.
    In the area of national missile defense, the outgoing 
administration chose to aggressively pursue research and 
development, while stating a determination to consider in any 
deployment decision not only the threat, but the system's 
operational effectiveness and affordability, and the impact 
that deployment would have on our overall national security. 
This approach gives appropriate weight not only to the effect 
that large expenditures on missile defense would have on 
resources available to meet other vital defense needs, but also 
to the negative impact that the unilateral deployment of a 
national missile defense could have on our allies and on the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons, given the likelihood that the 
Russian and Chinese response to such unilateral deployment 
would be to increase (or stop reducing) the number of nuclear 
weapons and the amount of nuclear material on their soil. As 
Senator Baker and Lloyd Cutler found in their report released 
yesterday, the most urgent unmet national security threat to 
the United States is that weapons of mass destruction or 
weapons usable material located in Russia could be stolen and 
sold to terrorists or hostile nation states and used against 
American troops abroad or citizens at home.
    We need to analyze the extent to which we spend defense 
resources on threats that are the least likely to occur. A 
ballistic missile attack from a terrorist state against the 
United States is a threat, but it is one that we have 
successfully deterred and against which we have a continuing 
overwhelming deterrent. There are cheaper and easier means of 
attacking the United States than an ICBM--means such as truck 
bombs, poisoning of water systems, or infiltration of computer 
networks--which may not open the unknown attacker to massive 
destruction in return. Those are just a few of the issues that 
we will be grappling with as a committee and you will be 
grappling with as Secretary of Defense.
    We are blessed to live in a Nation whose political 
institutions and economy are respected throughout the world. 
With the end of the Cold War, our core values of freedom, 
democracy, and human rights appear to be stronger than ever 
with democratic revolutions changing the history of nation 
after nation. Our military, when used wisely, at once makes our 
Nation secure and enables us to play a unique role in 
influencing the course of events outside our borders in a 
peaceful and stable direction.
    But the ability to influence events does not necessarily 
mean, of course, the ability to control them. We live in such a 
complex world, where we must deal with many interests that are 
contrary to our own. We should be proud of all that we have 
achieved in the world, including the reversal of ethnic 
cleansing in Europe for the first time in history, which also 
enabled nearly a million refugees and displaced persons to 
return to their homes. At the same time, we must be prepared to 
deal with new threats--particularly the terrorist threat--with 
new technologies, more mobile forces, and improved intelligence 
capabilities. Chairman Warner, with my support, created a 
subcommittee that is specially aimed at addressing these new 
threats. In the most recent defense authorization bill that we 
have adopted, we have paid special attention to the need to 
address the new threats.
    The new administration will develop its own strategy for 
addressing these difficult issues and for maintaining the 
superiority of America's military force. Today's hearing 
provides an opportunity for all of us to begin the process of 
discussing that strategy. The nominee before us today has a 
strong commitment to the national defense. He is well-qualified 
to address the issues facing the Department of Defense and he 
is an extremely well-qualified nominee for this position. We 
congratulate him. We also congratulate the President-elect for 
this nomination. I now call upon Senator Warner for his opening 
statement.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER

    Senator Warner. Thank you very much, Chairman Levin. I join 
you in welcoming our new members. Our new members put this 
committee at the highest level membership in history at 24.
    In years past, we recruited members. Now we have certainly 
an indication of strength among our entire membership as 
reflected by so many wishing to join us. We welcome you.
    To you, my dear friend for over 30 years, we have had a 
friendship and a personal relationship and indeed a 
professional one, having served together in the Ford 
administration, I as Secretary of the Navy and you as one of 
our troublemakers over in the White House.
    I join in welcoming your lovely wife and family. Anyone 
taking on particularly your responsibilities as Secretary of 
Defense 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and that phone is always 
by your side. Indeed, your family fully shares the heavy 
responsibilities. You are so fortunate to have such a wonderful 
family to share that burden.
    If I may say, Mrs. Rumsfeld, you will be an integral part 
of reassuring the other families of the service persons 
throughout the world by your strong support of your husband and 
indeed them.
    So we welcome you as a team to the department. I look back 
over the hearing record of November 12, 1975. It was a very 
short hearing I note and perhaps not as well attended. But that 
reflects the importance of the Senate advice and consent today. 
This committee, as to other committees of the Senate, take that 
responsibility very seriously.
    So our hearing today will be lengthy and we will probe 
deeply into many areas of our security relationships and your 
responsibility and how you intend to fulfill it.
    First, I would like to say that based on my good fortune to 
have known you, I say without any reservation you are 
competent. You are experienced. You are trustworthy. You have 
the character, the honesty, to do this job second to none.
    I was so pleased, and indeed I think the country should be 
grateful that you are willing to come back again, sign on for a 
second hitch, as we say in the military, for this important 
post. I note behind you two old-timers who are not paying any 
attention to what we are saying, Mr. Schneider and Mr. 
Korologos. [Laughter.] I do not know why they are here, but we 
welcome them anyway. [Laughter.]
    We also commend you, Mr. Rumsfeld, for keeping active and 
informed on defense and security issues since your last 
Pentagon service. The committee is familiar with the excellent 
work you have done in both the Commission to Assess the 
Ballistic Missile Threat which issued its report in 1998 and 
the ongoing Commission to Assess United States National 
Security Space Management and Organization which coincidentally 
the report will be issued today.
    Now, Senator Levin and I and others have received a 
briefing on the work of this commission. It is a job well done. 
It is another serious wake-up call to America about the threats 
directed at us.
    Our committee played a central role in establishing both of 
these commissions and I commend its membership. We thank you 
again and the members of the committee for your work.
    We are familiar with the findings and recommendations of 
the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission and the influence that 
that report had. It came at a critical time I say to you. In 
many ways, the Ballistic Missile Threat Report changed the 
entire debate over national missile defense by convincing many 
in Congress, and, respectfully, in the Clinton administration, 
that the potential threat is more serious and more imminent 
than previously understood throughout our Nation.
    I look forward to your comments on this subject and my dear 
friend and colleague here I think quite appropriately in his 
opening statement indicated some of his strong views. We have 
not always agreed on it, but it is a subject that is the 
centerpiece of the new Bush administration. No one is better 
qualified than yourself to advise the President on the 
directions to be taken.
    We still have, as you well know, you are a former sailor, 
former naval aviator the best-trained, best-equipped military 
force in the world today. There are certainly many areas in 
which we need to continue to make improvements.
    We are not pleased at all with the retention levels, 
difficulty of recruiting. When we recruit today, we recruit 
families. We recruit unlike when you and I went in many years 
ago into the service. It is families today.
    When that critical decision is made about retention the 
wives are usually co-equal partners. It was a family decision 
to stay or to go out and seek the lucrative opportunities that 
these well-trained individuals have in the private sector.
    Readiness and modernization have been the highest priority 
of this committee. We have achieved some gains, but not enough.
    Procurement. We have almost dropped to levels which are 
just totally unacceptable. We have to modernize and restore the 
best we can within the budget a much higher level of acquiring 
new and modern weapons.
    Just look at the truck inventory in the United States Army. 
No civilian, no private sector, would operate a truck force 
like we are operating in the military. That is just one thing 
people can understand all across America.
    So therefore, Mr. Secretary, we have to increase defense 
spending. When we, Senator Levin and I, had an opportunity to 
visit with President-elect Bush, Vice President-elect Cheney, 
on Monday, we did not talk about specific levels. But there was 
the clear consensus that we have to increase substantially 
defense spending.
    Now, this morning we cannot establish those levels with any 
precision. But I was heartened to see that the President-elect 
wants to first task you to examine how the current budget, 
those of past years, being expended, to determine whether or 
not you should redirect funding, to determine whether there are 
efficiencies within which you can gain some cash needed for 
other programs.
    Then after doing that, you can establish that level of 
increase in the context of not only the other budget factors, 
but most importantly the President-elect said the defense 
budget has to have a direct relevance if not in fact be driven 
by the threats poised against this Nation, threats quite 
different than our generation of active service in the 
military. Quite different.
    Senator Levin expounded on terrorism and the work of this 
committee, and I commend this committee for its work. We have 
constantly had to push the current administration for higher 
levels of funding in a wide range of areas to combat terrorism 
and the risks here in the United States which I will address 
momentarily. We call it homeland defense.
    President-elect Bush used that very phrase in his statement 
at the Citadel which is a foundation document of his thinking.
    Now, historically, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have had, of 
course, a vital role in the planning in the Department of 
Defense. But I commend them, especially for the past 2 years, 
and indeed the years before under my distinguished predecessor, 
Senator Thurmond, for coming before this committee and 
testifying about the need for additional funds over and above 
the recommendations and the submissions by the Commander in 
Chief, the President of the United States at that very table.
    The past 2 years we have taken that testimony which has 
been essential as this committee has gone to the floor of the 
United States Senate to get higher authorization levels for 
spending. We have gotten what I regard as modest sums, but 
nevertheless very important increases in the past 2 fiscal 
years.
    You will be faced early on with first the supplemental. We 
have talked about that together. We talked with Senator Stevens 
and Senator Inouye about it. Followed by a budget amendment to 
the current Clinton administration budget which is 
traditionally submitted to Congress by the outgoing President. 
Those are some of the key things that you will have to address 
immediately. Within both, you will have additional sums needed 
desperately for our defense.
    President-elect Bush has articulated a vision for the U.S. 
military and have set three broad goals for national defense.
    First, to strengthen the bond of trust between the 
President which is so essential, from the four star officer 
down to the private or the seaman, that bond of trust between 
the commander and chief and those in uniform and indeed their 
families.
    Second, to defend the American people against missiles and 
terror. Very few in the United States recognize we are 
virtually defenseless against missile attack. That, of course, 
is the subject that my colleague discussed and we will have 
further discussions on that.
    Third, to begin creating the military of the next century. 
How well you know from your own study the old slogan they are 
always preparing to fight the last battle. Well, that worked 
maybe in World War II when we had the time to catch up because 
of the protection of the oceans. But those protections are gone 
today. Warfare is instantaneous. It is the arsenal we have of 
weapons and trained people in place that will be used.
    Cyber warfare. No one envisioned that a decade ago. But 
today it is a threat which I and others think is just as lethal 
as anything.
    I commend your predecessor, Secretary Cohen. He has 
recognized would you not say, Mr. Chairman, the oncoming and 
the changing threats in just the 4 years that he has been 
present as Secretary of Defense?
    I want to say at this time, and I think the members of this 
committee would want to reflect, our respect for the work that 
Secretary Cohen and his team have done in his administration. 
You understand these goals.
    I want to go back to the President's speech at the Citadel. 
He said, and I quote, ``Those who want to lead America accept 
two obligations. One is to use our military power wisely 
remembering the cost of the war. The other is to honor our 
commitments to veterans who have paid those costs.''
    People. Those who have served in the past, those who are 
serving today, and those we need to have come in and serve for 
tomorrow.
    I am proud of the way this committee, this last bill, began 
to reach back and take care of those veterans, particularly the 
career veterans, in terms of their medical needs. This 
committee is very conscious of the fact that they are the best 
recruiters in the world, those who have served once. We have in 
the past, I think, neglected them. That has come to an end with 
the work of this committee.
    The start point President-elect Bush has said that he will 
recommend a substantial pay raise, a billion. This committee 
has worked on two successive pay raises. We are ready to accept 
that challenge of that billion dollar mark. Perhaps it has to 
be adjusted maybe up or sideways or down a bit. But we will 
back him in working through that very important thing because 
that is key again to the retention and the care of the 
families.
    We all know that most of the retention decisions as I 
mentioned are made on a family basis. That is critical to care 
for those people.
    Homeland defense will be a high priority for President-
elect Bush and yourself, if confirmed. President-elect Bush has 
said that he will deploy both theater and national ABM systems 
to guard the United States, our allies, and troops deployed 
overseas against missile attack or the threat of attack. 
Defense against domestic terrorism, including detecting and 
responding to such threats, will also be a priority for the 
next administration. You will be at the very forefront.
    We also need an immediate and comprehensive review as 
President-elect Bush advised us when we visited with him of our 
military today, its structure, it strategy, its capabilities, 
and its modernization priorities.
    President-elect Bush has promised such a review. In my 
conversations with you, you are fully prepared to undertake 
that the first day you arrive in the department.
    We must look beyond the modest improvements we have had to 
our current systems and find ways to enhance and strengthen our 
military in many areas.
    I want to include among that base closure. It has been a 
very contentious subject. In past years, I was privileged to 
join with my friend, the Chairman, in originating those bills. 
Senator McCain has been very active on that front. I urge you 
to take a look at that at the earliest opportunity. There is 
infrastructure out there that can be withdrawn and I think 
constructively and in many instances will help local 
communities to get that infrastructure back and put it to good 
use. There will be a cost savings to the military which those 
dollars can be applied elsewhere. In most instances, it will 
eventually help the local communities. These are some of the 
initiatives that you must undertake.
    So I support this nomination very enthusiastically. It is 
my intention to cast that vote for you subject to the work of 
this committee and I wish to commend President-elect Bush for 
putting together an absolutely outstanding team on the areas of 
national defense, national security, and international affairs. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner. Two of our 
friends and dear colleagues have joined us to introduce Mr. 
Rumsfeld. Senator Durbin, we will call on you first. Then we 
will call on Senator Fitzgerald.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS

    Senator Durbin. Thank you, Chairman Levin, and the members 
of the committee. It is an honor to introduce to the committee 
today my distinguished colleague from the land of Lincoln. I 
know that presidents have often complained about the Senate 
confirmation process. Herbert Hoover, upon the birth of his 
granddaughter, said, ``Thank God she doesn't have to be 
confirmed by the Senate.''
    Donald Rumsfeld has so much experience, I am sure he will 
have less trouble winning confirmation than President Hoover's 
granddaughter would have had if she had required the Senate's 
blessing.
    Don Rumsfeld's resume is impressive. Four-term Congressman 
from Illinois, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, 
U.S. Ambassador to NATO, White House Chief of Staff, the 
youngest ever Secretary of Defense, CEO of several major 
corporations, and a special envoy for President under President 
Reagan.
    We have heard a lot about bipartisanship lately. When Don 
Rumsfeld came by my office to talk about this hearing, he told 
me that when he served in Congress before Baker versus Clark 
that Speaker Sam Rayburn had a congressional district of about 
89,000. Is that what you remember, Don? His congressional 
district was the largest in the nation at 1.1 million.
    The Illinois district that Don Rumsfeld represented in the 
House of Representatives was split in two in Congress after he 
departed. One district represented by a conservative Republican 
and one by a liberal Democrat. His ability to serve such a 
diverse district speaks well of his ability to bridge a 
Congress and a country almost equally divided.
    While all Senators may not agree with Mr. Rumsfeld on every 
issue, he has certainly earned our respect. In fact, I want to 
warn my Senate colleagues to be reluctant to go to the mat with 
Don Rumsfeld. Not only was he Captain of Princeton University's 
wrestling team, and All Navy wrestling champion, he was also 
inducted in the National Wrestling Hall of Fame and Museum. He 
joined Speaker Hastert as another famous wrestler who hails 
from Illinois.
    I for one plan to keep in mind that wrestling depends on 
strategy and making the right move at the right time as much as 
it does on strength and power.
    Some of his critics have complained Mr. Rumsfeld's 
experience with defense is from a bygone, Cold War era. Those 
critics ignore the obvious. Mr. Rumsfeld's valuable 
contributions chairing several commissions, including the 
Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, and the obvious experience 
that he has had in managing major corporations in a new 
economy. Mr. Rumsfeld has kept up and I would challenge his 
critics to try to keep up with him.
    In 1775, in our revolutionary era, Patrick Henry said, ``I 
have but one lamp by which my feet are guided and that is the 
lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but 
by the past.''
    It is only because the United States was so steadfast in 
fighting for freedom and democracy that the world enjoys an 
unprecedented era of freedom and prosperity today.
    Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rumsfeld carries the lamp of experience. 
I wish him for our country's sake every success as he travels 
by that light. It is with pride that I present to you one of 
Illinois' favorite and most distinguished sons.
    Chairman Levin. Senator Durbin, thank you.
    Senator Fitzgerald.

   STATEMENT OF HON. PETER G. FITZGERALD, U.S. SENATOR FROM 
                            ILLINOIS

    Senator Fitzgerald. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
members of this distinguished committee. It is a great honor 
and privilege for me to join with my colleague, Senator Durbin, 
to present to this committee one of Illinois' most 
distinguished residents, Donald Rumsfeld.
    The day after President-elect Bush announced his selection 
of Donald Rumsfeld, I noted that in the New York Times the 
reporter had asked Henry Kissinger his opinion of the Defense 
Secretary designate. Dr. Kissinger said, and I quote, ``I 
literally cannot think of a better person for the post.''
    That was exactly my impression. I believe it was the 
impression of many of the members of this body and certainly of 
many of the newspaper editorial boards around the country.
    It is kind of an irony, Don. You were actually my 
Congressman when I was growing up. I was one of those 1.1 
million constituents Senator Durbin referred to.
    Now, lest this committee conclude that either I am too 
young to be in the United States Senate or that he is too old 
to serve as Defense Secretary, I would point out that he was a 
very young Member of Congress, one of the youngest Members of 
Congress at the time, in his early 30s. I would note that in 
one of life's unfair ironies, he has more hair than I do today. 
As Senator Durbin said, I would not recommend that anybody try 
to wrestle with Don Rumsfeld.
    Shortly after I got sworn in, I was very familiar with 
Donald Rumsfeld's record in business and in government. I knew 
of his impressive resume. But what I would urge you to reflect 
upon is, this man is not simply a resume who has held all these 
impressive posts. He is someone who has collected a lot of 
wisdom from his years of experience.
    Shortly after I was sworn in, he shared with me a little 
pamphlet that he put together and compiled over the years known 
as ``Rumsfeld's Rules''. If any of you have not seen that, I 
would recommend that you get a copy of it. It has many of his 
words of wisdom and advice to Members of Congress or those in 
the administration. I read that carefully after I got sworn in. 
I remember certain pearls and chestnuts that you had, such as, 
``no Member of Congress is here by accident, if you get to know 
your fellow colleagues in this body, you will see that there is 
some special reason each one of them is here. In getting to 
know that special reason, you will come to respect that member 
and you will also learn a lot about America.'' So I recommend 
``Rumsfeld's Rules'' to all of you. It has a great deal of 
wisdom in it.
    As Senator Durbin said, Mr. Rumsfeld is a graduate of 
Princeton University, and captain of the wrestling team, and I 
believe, captain of the football team. He went on to be a naval 
aviator, was the Navy wrestling champion, served four terms in 
Congress, became the White House Chief of Staff, then was named 
Defense Secretary. He was regarded as having a wonderful record 
and having been an outstanding Secretary of Defense the first 
time around. I can only imagine him being better this time 
around.
    Now, there is a lot of talk about investment opportunities 
these days with the market having gone up so much the last few 
years and then coming down. A good investment strategy over the 
last 20 years would have been to invest in companies that were 
chaired or the CEO was Donald Rumsfeld.
    G.D. Searle Company, a major Illinois pharmaceutical 
company, was in dire straits back in 1977 when Don Rumsfeld 
took over. By the time he left in 1985 and the company was 
sold, the stock had quadrupled.
    There was a similar success story with General Instrument 
Corporation. Many of you are familiar and are friends with Ted 
Forstman who runs a fund that invests in corporations. Ted 
Forstman, of course, is known for his philanthropy and his 
generosity in creating scholarships for young children all over 
the country. That philanthropy might not have been possible had 
his fund not bought General Instruments, put Donald Rumsfeld in 
charge who within 3 years had tripled the stock of that 
corporation. They took it public.
    He has continued on in advisory roles to this body and to 
the executive branch. He has stayed engaged in defense issues. 
This is a rare individual who has literally succeeded at almost 
everything he has done in life. I think I can only say, I can 
only conclude, as some of you have already concluded, that we 
are simply fortunate to have a person of this caliber who is 
willing to re-enter public service and to assist our country.
    Mr. Chairman, I would ask leave to introduce into the 
record prepared remarks that I have. I want to thank you all 
for your consideration. I recommend Donald Rumsfeld with whole 
hearted enthusiasm and confidence. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Fitzgerald follows:]
           Prepared Statement by Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.
    I am honored to be here today to introduce to you a man whom I have 
admired and respected throughout his distinguished career of public 
service. Introducing Don Rumsfeld to the Armed Services Committee is a 
little like introducing Sammy Sosa to the Chicago Cubs. Secretary 
Rumsfeld has hit home runs in literally everything he has done in his 
long and influential career.
    Don Rumsfeld was my congressman when I was growing up. I first met 
Don in 1988, when he ran for President, and my family has known him for 
nearly 40 years. I am proud to be before this committee today in 
support of this extraordinary individual.
    Don Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on a scholarship, and 
then was a Navy pilot and All Navy Wrestling Champion, before being 
elected four times to Congress from my home state of Illinois.
    Don was an energetic and effective congressman, a rising star, who 
quickly caught the eye of Gerald Ford, then a Representative from 
Michigan. In 1969, President Nixon appointed Don as Director of the 
Office of Economic Opportunity, and later as U.S. Ambassador to NATO.
    In 1974, President Ford selected Don to be his chief of staff, and 
Don's sound management and political instincts helped President Ford 
heal the wounds of Watergate and the Vietnam War. In 1975, President 
Ford appointed Don as Secretary of Defense, the youngest ever to serve 
in the position. Once again, Don displayed his extraordinary talents as 
a tough, skillful manager, strategist, and advocate. Don helped restore 
the confidence and credibility of our Armed Forces, warned of the 
growing Soviet threat, and built bipartisan support in Congress for 
strengthening and modernizing our military.
    Don then applied his extraordinary energy and talent to the private 
sector, restoring profitability to two large, Illinois-based blue chip 
corporations. G.D. Searle, a major worldwide pharmaceutical company, 
was foundering when Don took over, but made a dramatic recovery under 
his leadership. Don then returned GI Corporation, a pioneer in 
telecommunications, to profitability--GI's market value tripled under 
Don's leadership.
    Throughout Don's years in business, he continued to serve Illinois 
and the Nation, on numerous non-profit philanthropic boards, as an 
adviser to the State and Defense Departments, as President Reagan's 
Special Envoy to the Middle East, and as Chairman of the U.S. Ballistic 
Missile Threat Commission, among other things.
    The President's most important job is Commander in Chief. 
President-elect Bush has demonstrated in selecting Don Rumsfeld as his 
Secretary of Defense that he will ensure that our Nation can face the 
security challenges of the 21st century. These challenges require that 
we create and maintain a flexible military force that is able to adapt 
quickly to changing threats. I know Don is committed to ensuring that 
America's Armed Forces are modernized to meet the challenges of the new 
century. He understands that today's procurement is tomorrow's 
readiness. He knows that the men and women of the Armed Forces must 
remain the best trained and best equipped in the world.
    President-elect Bush has committed himself to building an effective 
missile defense system to protect our country from ballistic missile 
attack and nuclear intimidation. Don, as Chairman of the bipartisan 
Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, warned the Nation that the missile 
threat to the U.S. is real and growing, and that the United States will 
have little or no warning before a rogue state deploys ballistic 
missiles with the capability to inflict major destruction on the United 
States. As Don put it so well, the surprise is not that there are 
surprises, but that we are surprised that there are surprises.
    We in Congress, by passing the National Missile Defense Act of 
1999, made it the policy of the United States to deploy, as soon as is 
technologically possible, an effective National Missile Defense system. 
Don Rumsfeld is the right individual to make the hard choices and the 
tough calls that must be made to select and deploy an effective and 
affordable system that meets the threat.
    Finally, providing the resources for the defense of this country is 
one of the greatest responsibilities we have as U.S. Senators. While we 
often get deeply involved in the pros and cons of this or that fighter 
plane or battleship, we can never forget what the defense of this 
country really rests on: our men and women in uniform. Don Rumsfeld 
knows this to his very core.
    Don's 3 years of service in the U.S. Navy as a jet pilot and flight 
instructor, and his work as Secretary of Defense in the post-Vietnam 
years rebuilding the morale and pride of our military, are legendary. 
Don clearly understands the sacrifice that has been made by our service 
members. I am confident Don will help provide our military with the 
best equipment and training America has to offer and will ensure that 
every service member and his or her family has the quality of life they 
were promised. The recently released report on the U.S.S. Cole tragedy 
underscores the need to beef up security for our troops stationed 
abroad against the threat of terrorism.
    In short, I cannot imagine anyone more capable of serving as 
Secretary of Defense than Don Rumsfeld, and I commend President-elect 
Bush for his bold choice. I am grateful that Don has agreed to return 
to what is, without doubt, one of the toughest jobs in the world. We 
are fortunate to have someone of Don's caliber willing to take on this 
difficult responsibility once again. It is therefore a great privilege 
to join my colleague, Senator Durbin, in introducing Don Rumsfeld, and 
urge the committee to give prompt and favorable consideration to his 
nomination.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman Levin. It will be made part of the record. We 
thank both of you for coming. It makes a real difference to the 
nominee I am sure and to this committee. Mr. Rumsfeld, now you 
have to live up to all of that and investment advice while you 
are at it.

STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE NOMINEE

    Mr. Rumsfeld. Wow. Well, I must say I thank Senator 
Fitzgerald and Senator Durbin for those very generous words. I 
will try to live up to them.
    Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, members of the committee: It 
is a privilege and an honor to appear before you today as the 
nominee for the post of Secretary of Defense. I am certainly 
grateful to President-elect George W. Bush for his confidence 
that he's placed in me. I thank the committee and you, Mr. 
Chairman, for your courtesy in arranging this hearing so 
promptly.
    I would like, with your permission, to make some remarks 
off my prepared statement and have the statement made a part of 
the record.
    Chairman Levin. It will be made part of the record in full.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. As has been said, it was 25 years ago that I 
had the privilege of appearing for the first time before this 
committee as President Ford's nominee for Secretary of Defense. 
Certainly, we lived in a very different world then. In the 
intervening quarter of a century, the world has changed in ways 
that we could really only have dreamed of.
    America was locked in a nuclear and ideological standoff 
with the Soviet Union. Today, the Soviet Union is no more. The 
world of superpower standoff has given way to a world of 
expanding freedom and, I would add, expanding opportunity.
    The last time I appeared here for a confirmation hearing, 
the Armed Forces and those of our NATO allies stood toe-to-toe 
facing the militaries of the Warsaw Pact--ready to clash at a 
moment's notice on a battlefield with Poland, Hungary, 
Czechoslovakia, and East Germany.
    Today, the Warsaw Pact is no more; Berlin is again the 
capital of a unified Germany; and Warsaw, Prague, and Budapest 
are the capitals of our new NATO allies. As one who served as 
U.S. Ambassador to NATO, I must say I find these changes 
breathtaking and fundamental.
    When I appeared previously, American industry was facing an 
industrial challenge from Japan. You will recall the 
productivity and competitiveness made American industry look 
fat in overhead, excessively layered in management, sluggish in 
confronting change and innovation.
    Today, U.S. industry has shaken off those handicaps and--in 
a process that I have had the privilege to witness first hand--
become a leader and a model for the rest of the world. The end 
of the Cold War and the collapse of Soviet military power have 
brought the twentieth century--possibly the most violent and 
destructive century in human history--to a remarkably peaceful 
close.
    U.S. and allied military power was the indispensable 
instrument that contained the Soviet Union, confronted Soviet 
power and its surrogates at the geographic extremities of its 
advance, and provided the shield within which democratic order 
and economic prosperity could evolve and develop.
    When the great struggle that was World War II had passed, 
this country found itself facing new challenges with the advent 
of the Cold War and the development of nuclear weapons. Today, 
with the Cold War Era history, we find ourselves facing a new 
era, often called the Post Cold War period or possibly more 
properly the Era of Globalization.
    It is an extraordinarily hopeful time, one that is full of 
promise, but also full of challenges. One of those challenges, 
one that, if confirmed, I look forward to working with 
President-elect Bush and this committee and Congress to meet, 
is the challenge of bringing the American military successfully 
into the 21st century, so that it can continue to play its 
truly vital role in preserving and extending peace as far into 
the future as possible.
    As President-elect Bush has said, ``After the hard but 
clear struggle against an evil empire,'' the challenge that we 
face today ``is not as obvious, but just as noble: To turn 
these years of influence into decades of peace.'' The 
``foundation of our peace'' is a ``strong, capable and modern 
military.'' Let there be no doubt.
    The end of the Cold War did not bring about an end to armed 
conflict, or the end to challenges and threats to U.S. 
interests. We know that. Indeed, the centrifugal forces in 
world politics have created a more diverse and less predictable 
set of potential adversaries whose aspirations for regional 
influence and whose willingness to use military force will 
produce challenges to important U.S. interests and to those of 
our friends and allies as Chairman Levin mentioned.
    President-elect Bush has outlined three overarching goals 
for bringing U.S. Armed Forces into the 21st century: First, we 
must strengthen the bond of trust with the American military. 
The brave and dedicated men and women who serve our country in 
uniform active, guard, and reserve--must get the best support 
their country can possibly provide them so that we can continue 
to call on the best people in the decades to come.
    Second, we must develop the capabilities to defend against 
missiles, terrorism, the newer threats against our space assets 
and information systems as members of the committee have 
mentioned. The American people, our forces abroad, and our 
friends and allies must be protected against the threats with 
modern technology and its proliferation confront us.
    Third, we must take advantage of the new possibilities that 
the ongoing technological revolution offers to create the 
military of the next century.
    Meeting these challenges will require a cooperative effort 
between Congress and the Executive Branch, and with industry 
and with our allies as well. If confirmed, I look forward to 
developing a close working relationship with this committee and 
with the counterpart committees in the House of Representatives 
to achieve these goals, and to fashion steps to help to 
transform our defense posture to address those new challenges.
    We must work together if we are to be able to address the 
problems of inadequate funding, which has been the case, 
unreliable funding, pertebations in funding and resistance to 
change. Change is hard and institutions are difficult to move. 
With cooperation and collaboration, we can make real progress. 
Without cooperation, we will surely fail.
    President-elect Bush is committed to a strong national 
defense. If confirmed, one of our first tasks will be to 
undertake a comprehensive review of U.S. defense policy that 
Senator Warner mentioned. This review will be aimed at making 
certain that we have a sound understanding of the state of U.S. 
forces and their readiness to meet the 21st century security 
environment.
    We need to ensure that we will be able to develop, deploy, 
operate, and support a highly effective force capable of 
deterring and defending against new threats. This will require 
a refashioning of deterrence and defense capabilities. The old 
deterrence of the Cold War era is imperfect for dissuading the 
threats of the new century and for maintaining stability in our 
new national security environment.
    If confirmed as Secretary, I plan to pursue five key 
objectives needed to support and make progress on the 
President's goal.
    First, we need to fashion and sustain deterrence 
appropriate to the new national security environment. The 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of 
delivery are a fact of life that first must be acknowledged and 
recognized for what it is. They must be managed. While striving 
to slow proliferation remains essential, a determined state 
may, nonetheless, succeed in acquiring weapons of mass 
destruction and increasingly capable missiles.
    As a consequence, a decisive change in policy should be 
aimed at devaluing investment in weapons of mass destruction 
and their delivery systems by potential adversaries. Credible 
deterrence no longer can be based solely on the prospect of 
punishment through retaliation. It must be based on a 
combination of offensive nuclear and non-nuclear defensive 
capabilities, working together to deny potential adversaries 
the opportunity and the benefits that come from the threat and 
the use of weapons of mass destruction against our forces, our 
homeland, as well as those of our allies.
    Second, the readiness and sustainability of deployed forces 
must be deferred. The price of inadequate readiness is paid in 
necessary risks to American interests and in unnecessary risks 
to the lives of American service men and women.
    But inadequate readiness exacts a further price in the 
future quality of the force. Our Armed Forces today are all 
volunteers. Whether Active Duty, Reserve or National Guard, 
they are men and women who have willingly answered the call to 
serve our country and accepted the burdens and dangers that go 
with that service.
    As President-elect Bush has said, ``even the highest morale 
is eventually undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, 
shortages of spare parts and equipment, and declining 
readiness. . . . A volunteer military really has only two paths 
it can travel. One is to lower standards to fill the ranks. Or 
it can inspire the best and brightest to join and stay.'' If 
confirmed, I look forward to working with the President and 
this committee that has been so interested in this subject to 
make sure that our country's service is able to attract and 
retain the best of our country.
    Third, U.S. command-control-communication, intelligence and 
space capabilities must be modernized to support our 21st 
century needs. A modern command, control, communications, and 
intelligence infrastructure is the foundation upon which U.S. 
military power is employed. The development and deployment of a 
truly modern effective command, control, communication, and 
intelligence system is fundamental to the transformation of 
U.S. military forces, and it is indispensable to our ability to 
conduct effective diplomacy.
    I am committed to strengthening our intelligence to serve 
both our short-term and our long-term national security needs. 
I will personally make establishing a strong spirit of 
cooperation between the Department of Defense and the rest of 
the intelligence community, under the leadership of the DCI, 
one of my top priorities. We simply must strengthen our 
intelligence capabilities and our space capabilities, along 
with the ability to protect those assets against various forms 
of attack.
    Fourth, the U.S. defense establishment must be transformed 
to address our new circumstances. The need to swiftly introduce 
new weapons systems is clear. The transformation of U.S. 
military power to take full advantage of commercially created 
information-technology may require undertaking a near-term 
investment to acquire modern capabilities derived from U.S. 
scientific and industrial pre-eminence, rather than simply 
upgrading some existing systems.
    The present weapons system acquisition process was designed 
in an environment different from the one that exists today. In 
my view, it is not well-suited to meet the demands posed by an 
expansion of unconventional and asymmetrical threats in an era 
of rapid technological advances and a period of pervasive 
proliferation.
    The cycle time from program start to initial operational 
capability for major acquisition programs conducted over the 
past several decades has, I am told, generally been between 8 
and 9 years. Some efforts obviously have taken far longer.
    But such processes are not capable of harnessing the 
remarkable genius and productivity of the modern, information-
based commercial and industrial sectors that have done so much 
to revolutionize our civilian economy.
    Fifth, reform of DOD structures, processes, and 
organization. The legacy of obsolescent institutional 
structures, processes, and organizations does not merely create 
unnecessary costs--which, of course, it does--it also imposes 
an unacceptable burden on the national defense. In certain 
respects, it could be said that we are in a sense disarming or 
under arming by our failure to reform the acquisition process 
and to shed unneeded organizations and facilities.
    If confirmed, we will examine, in consultation with 
Congress, omnibus approaches to changing the statutory and 
regulatory basis for the most significant obstacles to reform.
    This agenda for the new security environment is admittedly 
ambitious. It is an achievable one if the legislative and the 
executive branches work together.
    If confirmed, I will work closely with the committee and 
with the other appropriate committees of Congress to develop, 
fund, and implement an overall defense program that can achieve 
our goals for the future and for the future of our children.
    I again want to express my appreciation to the President-
elect for his confidence and to you, Mr. Chairman, and the 
members of the committee for inviting me here today. Thank you, 
sir.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rumsfeld follows:]
             Prepared Statement by Hon. Donald H. Rumsfeld
    Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, members of the committee: It is a 
privilege and an honor to appear before you today as the nominee to be 
the next U.S. Secretary of Defense. I am grateful to President-elect 
George W. Bush for nominating me to this important post and for the 
confidence he has placed in me. I thank you and this Committee for your 
courtesy in scheduling this confirmation hearing.
    With your permission, I will make a few opening remarks and request 
that my prepared statement be included in the record.
    Some 25 years ago, I had the privilege of appearing for the first 
time before this Committee as President Gerald R. Ford's nominee for 
Secretary of Defense. We lived in a very different world then. In the 
intervening quarter century the world has changed in ways that we could 
once only dream of.
    The last time I appeared before you in this capacity, America was 
locked in a nuclear and ideological standoff with the Soviet Union. 
Today, the Soviet Union is no more, and the world of superpower 
standoff has given way to a world of expanding freedom and, I would 
add, expanding opportunity.
    The last time I appeared here for a confirmation hearing, U.S. 
Armed Forces and those of our NATO allies stood toe to toe facing the 
militaries of the Warsaw Pact--ready at a moment's notice to clash on 
the battlefield with Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and East Germany. 
Today, the Warsaw Pact is no more; Berlin is again the capital of a 
unified Germany; and Warsaw, Prague, and Budapest are the capitals of 
our new NATO allies. As one who once served as U.S. Ambassador to NATO, 
I find these changes both breathtaking and fundamental.
    When I appeared previously, American industry was facing an 
industrial challenge from Japan, whose productivity and competitiveness 
made American industry look fat in overhead, excessively layered in 
management and sluggish in confronting change and innovation. Today, 
U.S. industry has shaken off those handicaps and--in a process that I 
have witnessed personally--has become a leader and a model for the rest 
of the world.
    The end of the Cold War and the collapse of Soviet military power 
have brought the 20th century--possibly the most violent and 
destructive century in human history--to a remarkably peaceful close. 
U.S. military power was the indispensable instrument that contained the 
Soviet Union, confronted Soviet power and its surrogates at the 
geographic extremities of its advance, and provided the shield within 
which democratic order and economic prosperity were able to develop. As 
part of this process, the peoples of Russia and other states of the 
former Soviet Union have, or are in the process of, throwing off 
communism and reaching for democratic order and market economy. The 
United States has emerged from the 20th century in a strong position in 
every measure of national strength--military, economic, scientific, 
industrial, diplomatic, political and, I believe, even spiritual. Even 
more important, the U.S. and our democratic allies in Europe, Asia and 
elsewhere enjoy a special position in the world that, if we can work 
together, offers the possibility to make the new century one of the 
most peaceful in history.
    When the great struggle that was World War II had passed, this 
country found itself facing new challenges with the advent of the Cold 
War and the development of nuclear weapons. Today, with the Cold War 
Era history, we find ourselves facing a new era, one that is often 
called the Post Cold War Era or the Era of Globalization. It is an 
extraordinarily hopeful time, one that is full of promise, but also 
full of challenges. One of those challenges, one that, if confirmed, I 
look forward to working with President-elect Bush and Congress to meet, 
is the challenge of bringing the American military successfully into 
the 21st century, so that it can continue to play its vital role in 
preserving and extending the peace as far into the future as possible.
    As President-elect Bush has said, ``After the hard but clear 
struggle against an evil empire,'' the challenge that we face today 
``is not as obvious, but just as noble: To turn these years of 
influence into decades of peace.'' The ``foundation of our peace'' is a 
``strong, capable and modern military.''
    The end of the Cold War did not bring about an end to armed 
conflict, or an end of challenges and threats to U.S. interests. 
Indeed, centrifugal forces in world politics have created a more 
diverse and less predictable set of potential adversaries whose 
aspirations for regional influence and whose willingness to use 
military force may well produce challenges to important U.S. interests 
and those of our friends and allies.
    President-elect Bush has outlined three overarching goals for 
bringing U.S. Armed Forces into the 21st century:
    First, we must strengthen the bond of trust with the American 
military. The brave and dedicated men and women who serve our country 
in uniform-active, guard and Reserve--must get the best support their 
country can possibly provide them, so that our country can continue to 
call on our best people to serve in the decades to come;
    Second, we must develop the capabilities to defend against 
missiles, terrorism, and newer threats against our space assets and 
information systems. The American people, our forces abroad, and our 
friends and allies must be protected against the threats with which 
modern technology and its proliferation confront us; and
    Third, we must take advantage of the new possibilities that the 
ongoing technological revolution offers to create the military of the 
next century.
    Meeting these challenges will require a cooperative effort between 
Congress and the Executive Branch, and with industry and with our 
allies as well. If confirmed, I look forward to developing a close 
working relationship with this Committee and your counter-parts in the 
House to achieve these goals, and to fashion steps to transform our 
national defense posture from its current form to one that will address 
the challenges of 21st century security. Bonds of trust need to exist 
not only between the President and the Armed Forces, but between the 
Department of Defense and Congress as well. We must work together if we 
are going to be able to address the real problems of inadequate 
funding, unreliable funding and resistance to change. Without 
cooperation and collaboration we will fail.
    President-elect Bush is committed to a strong national defense. 
Therefore, if confirmed, one of our first tasks will be to undertake a 
comprehensive review of U.S. defense policy. This review will be aimed 
at making certain that we have a sound understanding of the state of 
U.S. forces and their readiness to meet the requirements of the 21st 
century security environment.
    We must ensure that we will be able to develop, deploy, operate and 
support a highly effective force capable of deterring and defending 
against new threats, so that our country can contribute to peace and 
stability in the world. This will require a refashioning of deterrence 
and defense capabilities. The old deterrence of the Cold War era is 
imperfect for dissuading the threats of the 21st century and for 
maintaining stability our new security environment.
                           primary objectives
    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the explosive advance of 
modern technology, and the forces of globalization that are making the 
technology available to ally and adversary alike, make the 
transformation of U.S. military power essential. While much of the 
existing defense establishment can be adapted to 21st century needs, a 
good deal cannot. We must move forcefully to rationalize the costly 
burden of force structures and practices that do not contribute to 
current and future U.S. security needs.
    If confirmed as Secretary, I plan to pursue five key objectives and 
implement policies and allocate resources needed to achieve those 
objectives.
    First, we need to fashion and sustain deterrence appropriate to the 
contemporary security environment--a new national security environment.
    The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of 
delivery are increasingly a fact of life that first must be 
acknowledged and then managed. While striving to prevent further 
proliferation remains essential, a determined state may, nonetheless, 
succeed in acquiring weapons of mass destruction and increasingly 
capable missiles. As a consequence, a decisive change in policy should 
be aimed at devaluing investment in weapons of mass destruction and 
their delivery systems by potential adversaries.
    In a world of smaller, but in some respects more deadly threats, 
the ability to defend ourselves and our friends against attacks by 
missiles and other terror weapons can strengthen deterrence and provide 
an important compliment purely to retaliatory capabilities. Moreover, 
the ability to protect our forces is essential to preserving our 
freedom to act in a crisis. To this end, effective missile defense--not 
only homeland defense, but also the ability to defend U.S. forces 
abroad and our allies and friends, must be achieved in the most cost-
effective manner that modern technology offers.
    Nuclear deterrence remains an essential element of our defense 
policy. The credibility, safety, reliability, and effectiveness of the 
Nation's nuclear deterrent must remain unquestioned. But it must be 
adapted to 21st century deterrence needs. Credible deterrence no longer 
can be based solely on the prospect of punishment through massive 
retaliation. Instead, it must be based on a combination of offensive 
nuclear and non-nuclear defensive capabilities working together to deny 
potential adversaries the opportunity and benefits from the threat or 
use of weapons of mass destruction against our forces and homeland, as 
well as those of our allies.
    Second, the readiness and sustainability of deployed forces must be 
assured.
    When U.S. forces are called upon, they must be ready to cope with 
any contingency they may face, and be able to sustain military 
operations over an extended period of time if necessary. The pace of 
modern military operations in the Kosovo campaign revealed the kinds of 
demands placed on the readiness and sustainability of U.S. forces.
    The price of inadequate readiness is paid in unnecessary risk to 
American interests and lives of American service men and women. But 
inadequate readiness exacts a further price in the future quality of 
the force. Our armed forces today are all volunteers. Whether Active 
Duty, Reserve, or National Guard, they are men and women who have 
willingly answered the call to serve our country and accepted the 
burdens and dangers that go with that service. But, as President-elect 
Bush has said, ``even the highest morale is eventually undermined by 
back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and 
equipment, and declining readiness. . . . A volunteer military has only 
two paths. It can lower its standards to fill its ranks. Or it can 
inspire the best and brightest to join and stay.'' If confirmed, I look 
forward to working with the President and Congress to make sure that 
our country's service continues to attract and keep our very best.
    Third, U.S. command, control, communication, intelligence, and 
space capabilities must be modernized to support 21st century needs.
    In his speech at the Citadel, President-elect Bush talked about how 
the threats to our security are changing: ``We see the contagious 
spread of missile technology and weapons of mass destruction. All the 
unconventional and invisible threats of new technologies and old 
hatreds.''
    As the threats we face change, our defense capabilities must adapt 
and change with them. A modern command-control-communication and 
intelligence infrastructure is the foundation upon which U.S. military 
power is employed. The development and deployment of a truly modern and 
effective command-control-communication and intelligence system is 
fundamental to the transformation of U.S. military forces, and 
indispensable to our ability to conduct effective diplomacy.
    I am committed to strengthening our intelligence to serve both our 
short-term and long-term national security needs. I will make 
establishing a strong spirit of cooperation between the Department of 
Defense and the rest of the intelligence community, under the 
leadership of the Director of Central Intelligence, one of my top 
priorities. We must strengthen our intelligence capabilities and our 
space capabilities, along with the ability to protect those 
capabilities against various forms of attack.
    Fourth, the U.S. defense establishment must be transformed to 
address 21st century circumstances.
    The DOD has been unable to procure advanced weapon systems that can 
lower the cost and increase the performance of the Armed Forces. The 
need to swiftly introduce new weapons systems is paramount. The 
transformation of U.S. military power to take full advantage of 
commercially created information-technology may require undertaking a 
near-term investment to acquire modern capabilities derived from U.S. 
scientific and industrial pre-eminence, rather than simply upgrading 
existing systems.
    The present weapons system acquisition process was designed for a 
different environment than the one that exists today. It is ill suited 
to meet the demands posed by an expansion of unconventional and 
asymmetrical threats in an era of rapid technological advances and 
pervasive proliferation. The cycle time (from program start to initial 
operational capability) for major acquisition programs conducted over 
the past several decades has averaged between 8 and 9 years. Some 
efforts take far longer. Such processes are not responsive to urgent 
new challenges that involve considerable uncertainties. They are not 
capable of harnessing the remarkable genius and productivity of the 
modern, information-based commercial and industrial sectors that have 
done so much to revolutionize the U.S. civilian economy.
    In the 1960s and 1970s, the time from initial concept to actual 
deployment was significantly shorter than it is today. In short, the 
pace of development has become slower while the pace of technological 
change has become far more rapid. These two opposite trends conspire to 
create a situation where it is difficult for the acquisition process to 
produce anything other than capabilities that are already a generation 
behind when deployed. This problem must be addressed.
    Simply tinkering with the present acquisition system will not 
provide the innovation and speed necessary to satisfy future military 
needs and take advantage of powerful new technologies. If confirmed, I 
will work with this committee to develop a new acquisition strategy--
one designed to take advantage of modern U.S. industrial practices--
that will enable us to develop and field weapon systems at a speed that 
reflects the needs and possibilities of the new century.
    Fifth, reform of DOD structures, processes and organization.
    The legacy of obsolescent institutional structures, processes and 
organizations does not merely create unnecessary costs, it imposes an 
unacceptable burden on the National defense. In certain respects, it 
could be said that we, in a sense, are disarming ourselves by our 
failure to reform the acquisition processes and to shed unneeded 
organizations and facilities. If confirmed I will examine, in 
consultation with Congress, omnibus approaches to changing the 
statutory and regulatory basis for the most significant obstacles to 
reform.
    This agenda for the new security environment is admittedly an 
extraordinarily ambitious one. It is an achievable one if the 
Legislative and Executive branches of our government strengthen the 
bond of trust, and work together in a determined and collaborative 
fashion. If confirmed, I will work closely with this committee and the 
other appropriate Committees of Congress to develop, fund, and 
implement an overall defense program that can achieve our goals for the 
future and for the future of our children and grandchildren.
    Again, I want to express my appreciation to the President-elect for 
his confidence and trust. I thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the 
committee.

    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Mr. Rumsfeld. In accordance with 
the practice of the committee, without objection, your 
responses to our pre-hearing policy questions and your response 
to the committee questionnaire will be made part of the record 
of this hearing.
    We have not yet received all of the paperwork on Mr. 
Rumsfeld's nomination. That paperwork, which may be lengthy, 
will be reviewed by the committee and it could require 
additional discussion between the committee and the nominee.
    Before we begin our first round of questions, there are 
several standard questions which we ask every nominee who comes 
before the committee. In your response to advance policy 
questions, you agreed, Mr. Rumsfeld, to appear as a witness 
before congressional committees when called and to ensure that 
briefings, testimony and other communications are provided to 
Congress.
    Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations 
governing conflict of interest?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I do not know. First of all, the laws and 
regulations and rules are different for the various entities to 
which I have submitted this massive amount of information: the 
Pentagon, the Office of Government Ethics, the committee. I do 
not know that they all agree among themselves, but they are 
reviewing it. I think probably one of the reasons for the delay 
in getting the stack of hundreds of pages of materials to you 
is because it is still down in the Office of Government Ethics.
    I have a large number of investments and activities that 
would have to be characterized as conflicts were they to be 
maintained during my service as Secretary of Defense. I have, 
however, indicated in my response to you, Mr. Chairman, and to 
the other organizations, that I am ready and able--I believe 
able, but certainly ready--to take whatever steps are 
appropriate to eliminate anything that anyone of the various 
entities might feel would be inappropriate, both with respect 
to investments and with respect to relationships and boards and 
associations and that type of thing.
    Chairman Levin. Then to rephrase the tense of the verb, 
will you adhere to applicable laws and regulations governing 
conflict of interest?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, sir. Of that you can be certain.
    Chairman Levin. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken 
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the 
confirmation process?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. No, I have not. I have talked to two people 
about--on a contingency basis that in the event that I am 
confirmed, they are individuals I would like to have join me in 
the department. But it has been purely on a contingency basis. 
I might just say that because the outcome of the election was 
delayed so long, the process is delayed. I hope that when we do 
get to the point of my recommending to the President-elect 
names to join me in the Pentagon, that the committee will move 
as promptly as possible with consideration of those people. 
Because when I think of the massive review you have 
characterized in your opening remarks that is facing me at the 
Pentagon, it is not something I would look forward to doing 
alone. I will need all the help I can get.
    Chairman Levin. I am sure that our next Chairman will have 
the support of this full committee in trying to expedite the 
nominees for those positions.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Levin. Will you ensure that the Department 
complies with deadlines established for requested 
communications, including prepared testimony and questions for 
the record and hearings?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I will certainly try to. I have been told 
that the number of requests for studies and responses to 
questions from various elements of the committees of interest 
to the Executive Branch to the Department of Defense is 
enormous. I would have to look at it and see how we can manage 
that process in a way that is satisfactory to both Congress and 
to the Executive Branch. But I certainly would make every 
effort in the world to do so.
    Chairman Levin. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses 
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Levin. Will those witnesses be protected from 
reprisal for their testimony?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, if it is honest, certainly. If some 
witness came before a committee and said something that was 
inaccurate, I certainly would want to visit with them.
    Chairman Levin. I think we would, too.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I do too.
    Chairman Levin. I think we would too. But other than that 
qualification, you will take steps to make sure that there is 
no reprisal against witnesses who intend to honestly present 
testimony and their opinions.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, sir. I would certainly want to see that 
witnesses were honest and forthright with the committees of 
Congress.
    Chairman Levin. Now, we are going to proceed to a first 
round of questions which, because of the number of Members who 
are here, we are going to limit to 8 minutes for each Senator. 
First, we will do that on an alternating basis between the two 
sides. Then following the early bird rule, we will recognize 
current Members of the committee first, followed by our newly 
designated Members. That's a bit of an awkward way to go at 
this, but I hope that our designated Members who are not yet 
formally Members of the committee will understand that. If 
there is a difficulty with that, we can try to adjust among us 
to accommodate schedules. But I did not know any other way to 
proceed until our new Members are actually Members of the 
committee which will not occur apparently until next week. The 
second round and any subsequent rounds will be limited to 6 
minutes for each Senator. It is my intent to recess the 
committee for lunch at about 1 o'clock and to resume the 
hearing at 2 o'clock. If necessary, we will schedule additional 
hearings.
    First, relative to missile defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, press 
reports have occasionally suggested that the Ballistic Threat 
Commission, which you chaired, advocated the deployment of a 
national missile defense system.
    Am I correct in stating that the mandate of the Commission 
was limited to examining the ballistic missile threat to the 
United States and that you and your commission did not take any 
position whether we should deploy a national missile defense 
system?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. That is correct.
    Chairman Levin. It has also been suggested that the 
incoming administration has already made decisions about the 
architecture of a national missile defense system should it 
seek to deploy such a system. It has been stated by, I believe, 
one of our colleagues that a decision presumably has been made 
already, a phased layered plan and a reconfigured plan for the 
ground-based program including land, sea, and space components.
    Do you know whether or not the incoming administration has 
made any decisions relative to the architecture of a national 
missile defense system, if in fact a decision is made to 
recommend such a system?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, we know that the President-elect--and I 
suppose in terms of trying to characterize an administration 
that does not exist yet and where there are prospective 
participants who have really not had opportunities to meet and 
discuss these things, the President-elect has indicated that it 
is his intention to deploy a missile defense system. I know of 
no decisions that have been made by him or by me with respect 
to exactly what form that might take.
    Chairman Levin. The National Missile Defense Act, which was 
adopted by Congress and signed by the President, contains two 
equal statements of U.S. policy. The first statement is that it 
is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as 
technologically possible an effective national missile defense 
system to defend against limited ballistic missile attacks. The 
second statement is that it is the policy of the United States 
to seek continued negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear 
weapons.
    Do you believe that we should consider the possible 
negative impact that the deployment of a national missile 
defense system could have on our policy to seek continued 
negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear weapons as indicated 
by that statute?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, you were kind enough to give me a copy 
of that statute. I have read it. It seems perfectly reasonable 
to me. The only thing I might have added to it, had I been a 
Member of Congress, I might not have included the word 
negotiated in the second phrase where it says seek continued 
negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces.
    It seems to me you may or may not do it on a negotiated 
basis. There had been instances in relationships with countries 
where they had each taken actions that were not a result of a 
final negotiated agreement but rather were understood and were 
agreed to be in both parties' interests. But I find nothing in 
here that is surprising or unusual or with which I would 
disagree.
    Chairman Levin. You believe that both of those goals are 
legitimate goals with that qualification?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. There is no question but that I think that we 
should deploy a missile defense system when it is 
technologically possible and effective. I think that you 
obviously would want to be in discussions with Russia about the 
sizes and shapes of their capabilities and ours.
    Chairman Levin. Do you believe that it is a legitimate 
policy and an important policy to seek reductions in those 
nuclear weapons on Russian soil, as indicated by that statute? 
Do you agree with that as a goal?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I do. I think that to the extent we can 
manage those capabilities down--I must say I think that the 
Russian stockpile or capabilities are going to go down anyway. 
Simply because of the circumstance of their economy. But I have 
no problem in talking with them about that. Although it is 
principally the responsibility of the Department of State.
    Chairman Levin. Is it in our interest that there be fewer 
nuclear weapons on Russian soil rather than more nuclear 
weapons on Russian soil?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Sure.
    Chairman Levin. Is that something which would be in 
America's interest and the world's interest?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, indeed.
    Chairman Levin. On the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, we 
have recently received a letter from former Secretary of 
Defense Laird, who now joins General Shalikashvili, in 
believing that there should be reconsideration of the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty with certain safeguards relative 
to verification. Given your previous position as having doubts 
about the question of verification, I am wondering whether you 
would be willing to take a look at the position of our Joint 
Chiefs which favors the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and 
believes that it is verifiable? Would you be willing to take a 
look at the recommendations of General Shalikashvili, and 
Secretary Laird, relative to that treaty?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Former Secretary of Defense Mel Laird was 
kind enough to send me the material that he communicated with 
General Shalikashvili about. I have not had a chance to study 
it. But my concern on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty--and I 
forget when it was before the Senate, but as I recall, I 
testified on the subject.
    My concerns were two-fold really. One was the number of 
issues that were raised by people whose judgment I respect in 
the scientific community about the risks to the reliability and 
safety of the stockpile. I think that is something that is 
terribly important. We simply must have confidence in the 
safety and reliability of our weapons.
    The second was the difficulty of verification. I am aware 
in the press of what General Shalikashvili has come forward 
with. Certainly, I would want to look at it and think about it 
as any reasonable person would.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you. Earlier this month, the Chicago 
Tribune reported on a taped conversation that you apparently 
had with President Nixon when you were serving as counselor to 
the President in 1971. On the tape, there are a number of 
statements which I would appreciate your commenting on. I think 
it is important that you do comment on them.
    First, there were some offensive racist comments by the 
President. I would like you to explain your recollection of 
that conversation and your response to his comments.
    Second, the Chicago Tribune reports that in the 
conversation you make the statement that the Republicans got us 
out of Democratic wars four times in this century, referring to 
the first World War, the second World War, the Korean War, and 
the Vietnam War. I am wondering whether you believed it at the 
time that those wars were Democratic wars? If not, why would 
you have made that statement? What are your thoughts about 
that?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I was--the Bush transition office was 
contacted by the reporter who had been listening to the tape. 
He provided the office with some notes. I would not call them a 
transcript. Because in many cases they did not even purport to 
be a transcript of the tape. There was lots of places where it 
was dot, dot, dot. They then somehow--the transition office got 
ahold of the tape. I was able to listen to a few seconds of it. 
I do not know how long, but not much. I could not understand 
much of it. It is very difficult to understand.
    The truth is I did not remember the meeting or the 
conversation at all when it was raised. It was 30 years ago, 29 
years ago.
    Apparently, from what can be reconstructed, I was in an 
office somewhere in the White House complex with President 
Nixon as a--I guess I was an aide or a counselor or an 
assistant to him at the time. Apparently--and again, I am not 
certain of all of this--it appears that he was characterizing 
some remarks that were made by Vice President Agnew. He was 
characterizing--he was quoting them in a critical manner saying 
that Agnew should not have said that. He should not have been 
drinking with people who he did not know or whatever it was.
    Then later he quoted some other people and how they talked 
and he adopted a dialect according to this tape. The tape seems 
to indicate that I may have agreed with one or more things on 
that tape. To the extent I did agree with anything, I am 
certain I agreed only with the fact that some people talk like 
that and that Vice President Agnew should not have used or 
thought such derogatory and offensive and unfair and 
insensitive things about minorities.
    I did not then and I do not now agree with the offensive 
and wrong characterizations. I think it is unfortunate that it 
comes up because it is not fair and it can cause pain to people 
to read that type of thing.
    It is ironic that that newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, 
opposed the civil rights legislation during the 1960s when I 
was supporting it. That was the most powerful paper in my 
congressional district and I supported every single piece of 
civil rights legislation. I was Chairman of Tuskeegee 
Institute's 100th anniversary fundraising when Chappy James 
died and have an honorary degree from Tuskeegee Institute.
    On the Democratic war quote, I would say this. That was a 
time when the Vietnam War was raging. President Nixon was 
embattled and he was trying to end it. There were buses around 
the White House if you think back to that period. It is not--
when you think of the Hoover Depression or the Clinton economy 
today, there are shorthand ways of talking in private. It is 
a--a war is our country's war. It is not a Democratic war. It 
is not a Republican war. It is not a president's war. It is our 
Nation's war. I understand that. To the extent shorthand was 
used, it should not have been.
    Chairman Levin. Senator Warner.
    Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is an 
important inquiry that the Chairman has brought up and I feel I 
should add some personal recollections. I was Secretary of the 
Navy at that very time under Nixon. I recall being in a similar 
position from time-to-time in his presence when--although I 
regard him as a great President on national security and 
foreign affairs, he did have his shortcomings. I have looked 
into that transcript very carefully with our nominee here this 
morning and I am personally satisfied that he conducted himself 
in a manner that reflects no discredit on him today.
    Second, I must say, Mr. Chairman, the morning after that 
article appeared, Senator Moynihan called me. Senator Moynihan 
also was a member of our team in those days and very much 
involved. He said that if this is a matter that requires 
explanation, he would be happy to appear before this committee 
as a witness and testify to the unqualified credentials of this 
distinguished nominee, particularly in the area of civil 
rights. So I thank you for your forthright responses on that 
issue.
    Let us turn to the critical question of defense spending. I 
am going to ask you three or four questions on it. We are not 
here today to establish a number, even a benchmark.
    I think the important thing is to receive from you your 
unqualified support to increase defense spending. The 
procedures by which you will in the first 90 days undertake to 
ascertain first the efficiencies that can be generated within 
the existing budgets and second the procedures by which the 
President, yourself, and other advisors will determine how to 
increase it and by what amount.
    Second, reiterate what the President has already said, to 
me and others, that, yes, other budget considerations, very 
important, will take into consideration, but threat, the 
threats facing the United States and the need for this 
modernization will be the controlling factor in reaching the 
determinations on increased funding. Can you elaborate on that, 
sir?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, sir. I was asked by the President to 
consider becoming his nominee for this post I guess 8 or 10 
days ago. I have spent most of my time visiting with members of 
this committee and preparing for this hearing. I have not taken 
the series of briefings at the Pentagon. Nor have I had an 
opportunity to wrap my head around the budget numbers. I have 
read a great deal about it. I mean, the CBO was using one 
number. I think it was something like $40 or $50 billion add 
on. I read an article by Jim Schlesinger and Harold Brown who 
came up with a number that was somewhat higher than that, $60 
or $75 billion as I recall. I read a report from the CSIS, 
Georgetown Center, that was something in the neighborhood of 
$100 billion or $100 billion plus.
    Senator Warner. I heard you include the very conscientious 
evaluations of the Joint Chiefs.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, yes. What the number is, I don't know. 
Is it clear that there needs to be an increase in the budget? 
There is no doubt in my mind. But I am not well enough along in 
my thinking on it. Nor have I had an opportunity to even begin 
to be briefed by Bill Cohen. Although he has told me they are--
he feels the same way. I have not had a chance to talk to the 
transition people who are thinking through the budget numbers 
and how whatever it is----
    Senator Warner. But your commitment today is to work toward 
a significant increase.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, sir.
    Senator Warner. That is what I wanted to know.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Absolutely.
    Senator Warner. That threat will be a consideration.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Absolutely.
    Senator Warner. Second, that in your capacity as Secretary 
of Defense, the Chiefs can continue under your administration 
to come before Congress and give us their views.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, indeed.
    Senator Warner. That is fine.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I would prefer they give them to me first.
    Senator Warner. Well, that is all right. We will get them. 
Let us turn to another threat. It is interesting. I have done a 
lot of study on this. We know about the military threat, but 
there is another threat. That is the industrial base that 
America has been put to a tremendous task of trying to survive 
in the face of 12 to--a dozen years of decline in defense 
spending. They find very tempting avenues to go out into the 
private sector and do business and forget about all the 
regulations in the Department of Defense and the uncertainty of 
defense spending and take that on and simply worry about their 
bottom line.
    But fortunately, we have a lot of courageous people who are 
willing to continue to provide our industrial base. So you 
bring that business experience which is very valuable, not 
unlike Dave Packard with whom I served with. He really 
understood the need to strengthen the industrial base.
    Together with the competition from firms in Europe 
primarily where those firms have government support in some 
instances. So give us your thoughts on that. Then I address a 
quote by the President-elect here. They will want to get some 
clarifications.
    ``We will modernize some existing weapons and equipment 
necessary for current tasks. But our relative peace today 
allows us to do this selectively. The real goal is to move 
beyond marginal improvements, to replace existing programs with 
new technologies and strategies to use this window of 
opportunity to skip a generation of technology.''
    That is a bold challenge. I bring back your recollection--I 
left the Department in roughly 1974. You came in shortly 
thereafter. You remember the bones of TFX were all over the 
Department, billions of dollars lost in trying to manufacture 
an airplane to hang every trinket known to mankind on it until 
it sunk of its own weight. We then experienced the A-12 which I 
can show you that. Billions of dollars lost.
    Well, today we are working on, I think, some essential 
programs. I will not mention them here. One indeed needs to be 
scrutinized and that is the VSTOL and you know that craft, the 
Marines. It is important to the Marine mission. We have to give 
very serious consideration to that program.
    But I am not getting into programs. I want you to explain 
to me against that background your definition of skipping a 
generation of technology and the impact that could have on this 
industrial base.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, sir. First, with respect to the study on 
the defense industrial base, let me say that I agree with you. 
I had the privilege of being briefed by General Tom Morman who 
served, I believe it was on the Defense Science Board that did 
the study. It is a very serious problem. I mean, the return on 
investment in the defense industry today is not sufficient to 
attract investment. The government does not make things. We 
purchase things. We acquire things. That industry has to be 
there. To be there, it has to be viable from an economic 
standpoint or people are not going to invest in it. It is a 
very serious problem.
    Second, with respect to the President-elect's remarks about 
skipping generations and that, clearly the review is going to 
have to address this. But it seems to me there is at least two 
ways that one can achieve advances in technology.
    I do not want to bring up ancient history, but as fate 
would have it, I was in the Secretary of Defense's office when 
the subject of the M1 tank came along. The argument was that it 
should continue to be another upgrade of a new diesel. Let us 
do another diesel and a couple more diesels. I decided no. I 
said let us go to a turbine engine.
    Now, that takes a major weapon system and moved it into an 
entirely new generation of technologies at that time.
    Senator Warner. I think that is helpful. Let me get in one 
last question here. You will have an opportunity to amplify 
that for the record. That is the doctrine of the use of force. 
General Powell, the Secretary of State designee, once stated 
that we should always execute the decisive results and be 
prepared to commit ``the force needed to achieve the political 
objective''.
    I was quite interested the other night in looking at the 
Lehrer news hour. Our Secretary of State, Mrs. Albright, I urge 
you to go back and look at that transcript. I will just pick 
out one of her quotes. I do that respectfully, but it says as 
follows. In answering that question about where she was with 
regard to the Powell doctrine, ``It does not have to be all or 
nothing. If you think about the fact that you have to employ 
every piece of force that you have and you have months to plan 
it and the earth is flat, you are never going to do anything.'' 
In other words, you need the full--I have time limit. Give us 
your parameters of thinking of how you are going to advise the 
President of the United States as to when to send into harm's 
way the men and women of the Armed Forces, and, frankly, when 
not to send them.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, that is an enormous question and an 
exceedingly important one and I would be happy to talk about it 
for a few seconds here. Could I go back to the tank first? I 
would not want to leave you with the idea that the only way to 
transform is to go from one generation of technology and 
leapfrog into a new one. There is another way. I am not as 
familiar with it. But with respect to the same tank, it is my 
understanding that it has gone from I think the M1 to the M1--
what is the second?
    Senator Warner. M1A2.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. A2, right.
    Senator Warner. This is the tank expert right here.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. But it has gone from analog to digital. Now, 
there you have taken a platform that exists and you have not 
done a leapfrog with the whole platform, but you have taken 
some electronics and leapfrogged. There are plenty of 
opportunities to do things where we can significantly improve 
capabilities, both with respect to the system itself, but also 
with respect to the pieces of the system or elements of the 
platform if you will.
    Now, with respect to your question. This is a subject that 
is important. It is sensitive. It is in my view a presidential 
issue and not a Secretary of Defense issue alone. It is a 
national security council term issue. We have not met. We have 
not deposited ourselves and worried this through.
    All of us in that team have opinions and all of us have 
opined on this subject, publicly and privately, from time-to-
time, including the President-elect.
    The elements that come back from time-to-time are is what 
you think you want to do actually achievable? It may be 
meritorious. It may need to be done. But if you can't really do 
it, oughten you maybe not to try? That's a tough one to 
evaluate. In no case is it a cookie mold you can press down and 
say there is the answer. Each of these are subjective and 
difficult.
    The second that comes to mind is resources. Do you have the 
resources? You might be able to do it. But if you are spread 
all over the world, you simply do not have the capabilities at 
that given moment, then you have to face up to the truth. That 
is that you cannot do everything.
    A second thing that comes back from time-to-time is to what 
degree is this particular activity or recommendation truly a 
part of our national interest? That is something that is a 
consideration. It is one of the dimensions of the debate and 
discussion.
    Another I would say is are there artificial constraints as 
to how you can do this? I personally believe it is terribly 
important that we have a very clear understanding of what the 
command structure is and who is deciding what. That to the 
extent humanly possible you avoid a committee that has not pre-
decided these things and ends up interminably debating as to 
what should be done with various aspects of an engagement.
    I think last, and there may be others I have forgotten, but 
I thought about this last night. How would you characterize 
what success is? When you have done something, how do you know 
when you have done it that you have done what you went in to 
do? What is success? What is your exit strategy? When does it 
end? Is there some point where it is over? Or is it 
interminable?
    Now, I do not know where that positions me across that 
spectrum because I tried to avoid characterizing where I happen 
to think in any given case because I do not know. It really is 
something I wanted to talk to the President-elect about and 
Secretary designate Powell and Condy Rice and the folks that 
are interested in this. It is an enormously important subject.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Mr. Rumsfeld. Senator Kennedy.
    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, very much, and congratulations. 
Mr. Rumsfeld, during the campaign President-elect Bush made 
some interesting arms control proposals, including the 
reduction of nuclear weapons well below the START II levels and 
removing them from hair trigger status. I have long been an 
advocate of arms control and was pleased to see the President-
elect's interest in this area.
    I understand that when you were with President Ford as 
Secretary of Defense, you did not support the SALT II Treaty 
and are now opposed to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Will 
you support the President-elect's arms control agenda?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. You can be sure I will support the President-
elect's agenda. He is the President. I will, however, offer my 
views. I hope persuasively and thoughtfully in deliberation of 
the National Security Council as I did during that time. I 
mean, people, honorable people, can come to different views. I 
did with respect to SALT II.
    Senator Kennedy. You just had an exchange with Senator 
Levin on missile defense. As you know, the failure of the two 
most recent NMD flight tests has cast significant doubts on the 
viability of the current system. When the President-elect 
announced you as the nominee, you spoke of a need for the 
United States to develop a missile defense system that will 
work. I am interested in what your definition is of a system 
that will work.
    You have spoken recently about the successes you've had in 
your discussions with our allies. When will we know that it 
will work? Will you establish as a baseline which requires that 
it has to pass a field test?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Senator, I would really like to avoid setting 
up hurdles on this subject. I was reading the book ``Eye In The 
Sky'' about the Corona Program and the first overhead satellite 
and recalling that it failed something like 11, 12, or 13 times 
during the Eisenhower administration or the Kennedy 
administration. They stuck with it and it worked and it ended 
up saving billions of dollars because of the better knowledge 
we achieved.
    In this case, if I could just elaborate for a moment, the 
principle of deterrence, it seems to me, goes to what is in the 
minds of people who might do you harm. How can you effect their 
behavior?
    The problem with ballistic missiles with weapons of mass 
destruction, even though there may be a low probability, as the 
chart that Senator Levin I believe mentioned suggests, the 
reality is they work without being fired. They alter behavior.
    If you think back to the Gulf War, if Saddam Hussein, a 
week before he invaded Kuwait, had demonstrated that he had a 
ballistic missile and a nuclear weapon, the task of trying to 
put together that coalition would have been impossible. There 
is no way you could have persuaded the European countries that 
they should put themselves at-risk to a nuclear weapon.
    People's behavior changes if they see those capabilities 
out there. I think we need missile defense because I think it 
devalues having that capability. It enables us to do a much 
better job with respect to our allies.
    Now, finally, I do not think many weapons systems arrive 
full blown. Senator Levin or somebody mentioned phased and 
layered. Those are phrases that I think people not improperly 
use to suggest that things do not start and then suddenly they 
are perfect. What they do is they get them out there and they 
evolve over time and they improve.
    So success, this is not the old Star Wars idea of a shield 
that will keep everything off of everyone in the world. It is 
something that in the beginning stages is designed to deal with 
handfuls of these things and persuade people that they are not 
going to be able to blackmail and intimidate the United States 
and its friends and allies.
    Senator Kennedy. Well, I think you've made a good response 
to that question. I hope this means that we have assurances 
that there will be a very careful review.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Absolutely.
    Senator Kennedy. In terms of the effectiveness of this 
missile defense system; it is going to have to meet a criteria. 
I understand that you are not prepared to establish that 
criteria today, but I assume that it is going to be meaningful 
criteria in terms of actually being able to function and be 
able to work in the different phases.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, sir.
    Senator Kennedy. Let me move to the question of Colombia. 
What is your sense of the capacity of the military in these 
countries to address the challenge? How are we going to respond 
to reports about the conflict spilling over in the area and in 
the region? How are we really going to be able to determine the 
difference between the counter insurgency and the counter 
narcotics? Can you tell us what you are thinking?
    This is complicated. It is specialized. It is enormously 
important. We are going to have to address this, and I would be 
interested in knowing your thinking at this time. We will have 
more time later on to discuss this, but can you tell us now 
what your thoughts are?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Senator, it is not something that I have been 
able to get briefed into. It is my understanding that the 
Department of State has the lead on this. I understand that 
there is a cap that has been put on by Congress on the numbers 
of people, military people, that are engaged.
    It is complicated. I am one who believes that the drug 
problem is probably overwhelmingly a demand problem and that it 
is going to find--if the demand persists, it is going to find 
ways to get what it wants. If it is not from Colombia, it will 
be from somebody else. If I were the neighboring countries, I 
would be concerned about spillover as well.
    I think it is a very important problem and it is not 
something I have had a chance to screw my head into or talk to 
the National Security Council team about.
    Senator Kennedy. For the next 8 days, I am the Chairman of 
the Seapower Subcommittee of this committee. Under Senator 
Snowe, we had extensive hearings about the decline of the 
shipbuilding budget and about what actions are going to be 
necessary in order to meet responsibility in terms of the 
Navy's budget. Have you had a chance to review that and can you 
give us any ideas of how you think that that issue is going to 
be addressed in the future?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I have not been briefed on it at all. I 
am by background and interest very interested in the Navy. I 
recognize the importance--Senator Snowe indicated to me that we 
are currently building ships at a level that if it continues 
will permit the U.S. Navy to decline down into very low 
numbers. That the only thing that can be done if we are to 
maintain the kind of capabilities in the world where we can 
project power and presence through the United States Navy, we 
are going to have to increase the shipbuilding budget. I will 
stop there.
    Senator Kennedy. Senator Roberts, who is Chairman of the 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, has been a real 
leader in the whole area of bio-terrorism and cyber-terrorism. 
Chairman Levin also referenced these issues in his opening 
comments. Could you give us some assessment of what your 
concerns would be in those areas?
    Senator Frist and I successfully completed legislation, 
last session, in the area of bio-terrorism. I would be 
interested in your own views regarding the nature of these 
threats as we look down the road.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I have been made aware of Senator 
Frist's and your interest and Senator Roberts'. I would rank 
bio-terrorism quite high in terms of threats. I think that it 
has the advantage that it does not take a genius to create 
agents that are enormously powerful. They can be done in mobile 
facilities, in small facilities. I think it is something that 
merits very serious attention, not just by the Department of 
Defense, but by the country. I have an interest in it and 
certainly would intend to be attentive to it.
    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, very much. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Kennedy follows:]
            Prepared Statement by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join in welcoming Mr. Rumsfeld to the 
committee, and I congratulate him on his nomination to be Secretary of 
Defense.
    Mr. Rumsfeld has a very impressive record of service to the 
country, from his years as a Naval Aviator, as Congressman from 
Illinois, as Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, as 
Ambassador to NATO and, of course, as Secretary of Defense under 
President Ford. The list is long and has continued to grow.
    He recently served as Chairman of the Ballistic Missile Threats 
Commission. He is currently chairman of the Commission to Assess 
National Security Space Management, and also chairman of the 
Congressional Leadership's National Security Advisor Group. This 
extraordinary background will be extremely valuable in dealing with the 
many issues that the Armed Forces of the United States currently face 
and that we will certainly face in the future.
    Many challenges are waiting for our answer, starting with national 
missile defense and nuclear arms control. They also include force 
protection, which is especially urgent after the recent tragic attack 
on the U.S.S. Cole.
    We're concerned about the heavy demands on our forces that strain 
both morale and readiness. We're concerned about training issues, such 
as how to maintain training areas and ensure adequate training budgets. 
We face challenges of recruitment and retention, when private sector 
competition remains strong. We must do more to ensure that military 
personnel and their families have good pay and good housing. They need 
modern equipment, modern weapon systems, and modern information 
technology. We have to be concerned about cyber-security and about 
chemical and biological terrorism.
    Significant changes have occurred in the military since Mr. 
Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense in the 1970s. Women now hold many 
military roles traditionally reserved for males, including service as 
combat pilots and on combat ships. There are more women generals and 
admirals than ever before, and the potential for further gains is 
large.
    The military still faces many problems in this area, including the 
need to prevent harassment and discrimination in all forms. I continue 
to believe that the current ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has been a 
failure. As a world leader, our Armed Forces need to set the example on 
human rights issues and treat all men and women, regardless of their 
diversity, with the respect and equality that they deserve.
    Mr. Rumsfeld's many leadership experiences, in both public service 
and private life, will serve him well in dealing with all these 
challenges and I look forward to working with him in the years ahead.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman Levin. Senator Thurmond.
    Senator Thurmond. Thank you, Chairman Levin. Mr. Chairman, 
I congratulate you on your leadership during this period of 
transition and appreciate your bipartisan approach in holding 
this hearing. Your chairmanship continues the committee's long 
tradition that the defense of our Nation is above politics.
    Before I address the issue at hand, I want to express my 
appreciation for our outgoing Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen. 
His tenure as Secretary of Defense will be marked by great 
advances in the quality of life for our military personnel and 
their families, the refocusing of the Department of Defense to 
the new threats of weapons of mass destruction and cyber-
terrorism, and, more importantly, assuring this Nation's 
position as the world's only super power. I wish him and his 
lovely wife, Janet, the best in their future endeavors.
    Secretary Rumsfeld, congratulations on your nomination and 
welcome to this your second confirmation hearing as Secretary 
of Defense. I hope that the praise of Bill Cohen does not lead 
you to the conclusion that you will not have any challenges as 
you move into the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
    Our Nation is fortunate to have an individual such as you 
follow Bill Cohen. You have a distinguished career both in the 
public and private sector and have shown your willingness to 
take on the tough issues facing the Department of Defense. 
Those of us who served on the Armed Services Committee in the 
mid-70s can recall the problems you encountered then with the 
state of our Armed Forces--they were undermanned, morale was 
sagging, drugs were rampant, and most important they were 
underfunded. Fortunately, drugs in the Armed Forces are no 
longer a major issue. However, overworked and undermanned units 
and underfunded programs are problems that will again test your 
mettle.
    Mr. Secretary, you have been a proponent for a strong 
defense. I can assure you that this committee will provide you 
the support that will be critical as you work to strengthen our 
Armed Forces to meet the challenges of the future. Our Nation's 
history is replete with examples of failing to anticipate the 
future challenges and degrading our military capability.
    Coincidentally, it was 50 years ago, at the beginning of 
the Korean War, when the United States sent the ill-equipped 
and under-trained troops of Task Force Smith into battle with 
tragic results because we failed to anticipate the threat. As 
we commemorate that War, we should make the pledge of never 
again will this Nation send another Task Force Smith to battle.
    Mr. Secretary, I wish you success and look forward to 
working with you in the coming years.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Thurmond for those 
comments and we very personally appreciate it and the 
leadership that you have shown on this committee and in so many 
other places in this Senate over the years.
    Senator Lieberman, we all give you a special welcome back, 
some of us with greater enthusiasm perhaps than others. But 
welcome back.
    Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rumsfeld, I 
was privileged to have a courtesy call yesterday from Don 
Evans, the Secretary of Commerce designate, and I open by 
thanking him for all he did to bring me back to the United 
States Senate. So it is good to be here with my colleagues, 
particularly on this committee.
    Mr. Rumsfeld, I welcome you and join my colleagues in 
expressing not only my admiration for your extraordinary record 
of public and private service, but for your willingness to take 
on this job at this time.
    I have not read ``Rumsfeld's Rules'' yet, but I will 
certainly--I remember there was a little red book in another 
country a distance from here. I do not know what color the 
``Rumsfeld's Rules'' are going to be.
    But as your opening statement suggests, at this critical 
time, unusual time in our national security history, there is a 
surprising amount that we have to do. We are--when I think of 
the comparison that you made of the Cold War situation you 
found on the last occasion when you came in as Secretary of 
Defense and the remarkably difference circumstance you find 
today.
    We are not in ideological and strategic conflict with 
another major super power, the Soviet Union. We are it. But we 
are nonetheless challenged. Technology is expanding the threats 
as you have documented. We have tremendous demands on us to 
maintain our force, to keep our troops with the quality of life 
and training that we want them to have.
    This is going to require some very tough leadership from 
you and priorities, the setting of priorities, and a 
willingness to try to implement those.
    We have been, in the time I have been privileged to be on 
this committee and therefore have been involved more directly 
in national security questions, watching Congress and the 
military and the Executive Branch, we have generally reached 
beyond in authorization what we have ultimately--and 
conceptualization--of what we would ultimately be willing to 
pay for.
    I think we are at such a point now where legitimate claims 
can be made for resources. We have not yet put them together. I 
mean, in the mad cap experience to which Senator Levin refers 
that I went through last year, a glorious experience actually 
and one that I thoroughly enjoyed, the Bush-Cheney campaign had 
a document out suggesting a willingness to spend $45 billion 
more over the next 10 years for national security.
    Vice President Gore and I doubled that to $100 billion, big 
spenders that we are. But what is interesting, and, of course, 
focuses the tough choices you will have, is that the Chiefs, 
the Joint Chiefs, who I believe Senator Warner referred to, 
have essentially told us that what we really need is at least 
$50 billion more a year.
    So let me first put in an appeal which you and I have 
spoken about which is that all of us who care about national 
security have to really reach out and try to build more of a 
public understanding for the need to spend more to keep our 
national security strong in this age.
    When you look at what people think we ought to spend more 
money on as we are deciding how to spend the surplus, national 
security comes out way down on the list. That is not good. As 
long as that exists, it is going to be hard for us here to make 
the decisions we should make.
    The second point is how do you begin to approach the excess 
of needs and the deficiency of resources and make the kind of 
priority decisions that we need you to make?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I want you to know that I understand the task 
facing the Department of Defense is enormously complex. It is 
not a time to preside and tweak and calibrate what is going on. 
It is a time to take what has been done to start this 
transformation and see that it is continued in a way that 
hopefully has many, many more right decisions than wrong 
decisions.
    There is no one person who has a monopoly on how to do this 
or genius. It is going to take a collaborative relationship 
within the Executive Branch and with Congress. I just hope and 
pray that we are wise enough to do it well.
    But the one thing we know of certain knowledge is that it 
is not a peaceful world. It is a different world. It is more 
peaceful in the sense that the Soviet Union is gone. But it is 
nonetheless a more dangerous and untidy world. We also know 
that the power of weapons today is vastly greater than it was 
in earlier eras. We know that with the relaxation of tension at 
the end of the Cold War, the proliferation of these 
capabilities is pervasive. It is happening. We have to 
acknowledge that.
    If I know anything, I know that history shows that weakness 
is provocative. Weakness invites people into doing things they 
would not otherwise think of. What we have to do is better 
understand what will deter and what will defend against this 
new range of threats. I do not look at them in isolation. I do 
not think of long-range ballistic missiles and short-range 
ballistic missiles and cruise missiles and terrorism as 
something that is disconnected.
    I think of it as a continuum. With the Gulf War, the world 
was taught to not try to take on western armies, navies, and 
air forces because you lose. Therefore, you should try 
something else. That means you are going to look at things like 
information system attacks and cyber war. You are going to look 
at bio-terrorism. You are going to look at other kinds of 
terrorism. The vulnerability of space assets has to be 
worrisome to people. As well as shorter range ballistic 
missiles and cruise missiles in addition to long-range 
ballistic missiles.
    Senator Lieberman. Let me ask this question. I agree with 
you that we have to prepare to face this new range of threats 
to our security because no sensible antagonist will take us on 
as we were taken on in the Gulf War because we were too 
dominant. Does that not inevitably mean that we will have to 
cut some of the programs that we are now spending money on that 
may be more continuations of that earlier threat scenario than 
the new one?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. It is entirely possible that that kind of a 
recommendation could come out of this review. Whether it will 
or not, I do not know until I dig into it. I mentioned the need 
for collaboration with Congress. That is true. We also need to 
make darn sure that we are dealing with our allies in a way 
that they are brought along. We are not alone in this world. We 
have some enormously important allies in Asia and in Europe and 
friends in other parts of the world. I think that those 
relationships as well are terribly important.
    Senator Lieberman. Let me ask about the review that you 
have spoken of. Congress has authorized by law a quadrennial 
defense review. That was a way to try to encourage and mandate 
an incoming administration to look forward and to require that 
those in the military present some big thoughts over the 
horizon.
    You have also referred to, and the President-elect referred 
during the campaign and more recently, to a strategic review. 
Help me, if you would, to relate those two reviews to one 
another. Is the strategic review the incoming administration 
has in mind the quadrennial defense review authorized by law? 
Or, since that does not give you a final product until 
December, though it gives you some before, are you thinking 
about a separate review to help you make some of the budget 
priority decisions I have just referred to?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. The latter. My impression is that what the 
President-elect has in mind is that we will take a look at how 
we view the world and our circumstance in it and fashion some 
thoughts with respect to broader strategy and then get down 
into more of the details as to the defense establishment's 
capability or appropriateness of our current arrangements to 
deal with those kinds of threats and opportunities.
    The quadrennial review, I do not know--you say it is 
finished in December?
    Senator Lieberman. Well, you get earlier versions of it 
this spring. Then the final product will be in December.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. My impression was that when Bill Cohen came 
in, it came at him very fast. The timing seemed to me, looking 
from outside, to be unfortunate. Because I did not get the 
impression that Secretary Cohen had much of an opportunity to 
effect it or to calibrate it. I am a little apprehensive that 
that is going to be the case in my situation.
    The realistic thing is too--my whole life, I have 
benefitted from attracting enormously talented people to help 
me. I think when I took my first job in the Executive Branch, I 
hired Frank Carlucci and Dick Cheney and Ron James and people 
all across the spectrum from--Bill Bradley worked there and 
Christy Todd Whitman worked there. Micky Kantor I noticed had 
some remarks to make the other day and he was there as a legal 
service lawyer.
    We had a wonderful group of people. Unless you are a Mozart 
or an Einstein who goes off in a closet who does something 
brilliant, the rest of us people, just people, we get other 
people to help us figure things out.
    They are something like 500,000 security clearances behind 
in the Pentagon today. Now, the process of getting confirmed is 
just unbelievable. I just hope each of you will have that 
opportunity someday. [Laughter.]
    It is an amazing process. I am going to recommend to the 
President that he think about getting some sort of an outside 
commission to look at this. Because the questions from the 
committee are one set. From the Ethics Office, there is 
another. The Pentagon has some others. You are supposed to fill 
them all out in 5 minutes. There is no way to do it.
    I am worried about getting people picked, recommended, 
which I cannot do, as we know, until I am the man. I am not. I 
have to have help. I am being practical as a manager. I know 
that we are going to have to figure out a way to flesh out this 
system a little bit.
    Senator Lieberman. Thanks very much. I would say from your 
performance here this morning that it is clear that you are the 
man. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Lieberman follows:]
           Prepared Statement by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
    Thank you Mr. Rumsfeld for appearing before this committee today. 
You have a distinguished record of service to our Nation and you bring 
impressive credentials to the job for which you are being considered. 
You will need all the expertise you have acquired over your long 
career, for the job ahead of you is one of the most consequential 
positions that one can hold in our government. You will assume 
stewardship of our military at a time when it is at a crossroads 
between taking the path defined by the ideas and methods of the 20th 
century or the path defined by the needs and potential of the 21st 
century. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the NDP conducted in 
1997 pretty well define these two roads for you, and define the choices 
you face. These panels produced two fundamentally and constructively 
different evaluations. The 1997 QDR's conclusion was that although 
future military challenges will likely be different, the ``two war'' 
construct, with some modifications, is and will continue to be the 
proper standard against which to gauge our capability and preparedness. 
By this standard, the QDR concluded, the current forces and weapons are 
satisfactory, and will continue to sustain our military dominance if 
modernized in kind. Much of the Pentagon effort since then has been 
toward increasing the budget to maintain and modernize this force. The 
members of the NDP disagreed. They asserted that ``we are at the cusp 
of a revolution in warfare'' and ``unless we are willing to pursue a 
new course,'' one different than that proposed by the QDR, ``we are 
likely to have forces that are ill-suited to protect our security 
twenty years from now.'' Indeed, the NDP questioned the advisability of 
continuing to use the ``two war'' standard and of continuing to procure 
some of our current core weapons. They concluded that transformation is 
the path we should follow, and therefore that spending better was more 
important than spending more.
    The good news is that the first steps along the path toward 
transformation are being taken. The defense establishment has come to 
accept transformation as a fundamental policy goal, which is evident 
from a growing number of important official speeches and documents. 
Secretary of Defense Cohen has said that our defense policy is 
transformation, and that the strategy to implement it is ``shape, 
respond, and prepare now.'' The QDR states ``we must meet our 
requirements to shape and respond in the near term, while at the same 
time we must transform U.S. combat capabilities and support structures 
to be able to shape and respond effectively in the face of future 
challenges.'' And transformation as a goal is at the core of Joint 
Vision 2020--the Joint Chiefs of Staff vision that guides the 
continuing transformation of America's Armed Forces for the 21st 
century.
    The bad news is that while the services are, to their credit, 
beginning to ``talk the talk'' and even to take steps to transform 
themselves, our actions and resourcing are not really keeping pace with 
the pronouncements. While most see the need for future forces 
fundamentally different than those of today, they urge that change be 
cautious and deliberate. So we continue to place the highest priority 
on current readiness, keeping our organizations and weapons prepared to 
deal with the threats they were designed to deal with, while trusting 
that incremental and evolutionary improvements will allow them to adapt 
to deal with new and more dangerous threats as they emerge. 
Consequently, our resource allocation is still too much like it was 
during the Cold War.
    As a consequence, you are faced with funding a force that costs 
billions more than has been budgeted for it, and that requires more by 
far than President-elect Bush has said he is willing to spend. His 
stated intent to add significantly more money to missile defense 
programs will only add to that shortfall. We have heard that you intend 
to narrow the funding gap by cutting or terminating existing programs. 
You may have to make many of these decisions now before you are able to 
complete a strategic review. If you must do that, those decisions will 
impact the strategic review you will design and conduct as Secretary. 
The commitment of resources to execute the conclusions of that review 
will be substantial, and changing course will be exceedingly difficult 
and time consuming, and we will not likely have the money we would need 
to change course quickly. So if we choose the wrong road now we will 
not have the trained, ready military we will need to dominate on the 
battlefields of the future.
    I look forward to hearing what your approach will be to resolving 
these difficult conflicts, what philosophy you intend to follow to 
provide guidance to those who must decide about initial priorities 
among sea, land, air, and missile programs, and what guidance you 
intend to give the Pentagon to direct their design and execution of the 
upcoming strategic review. I look forward to working with you to build 
a dominant military for the 21st century.

    Chairman Levin. Senator McCain.
    Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
congratulate the President-elect for his outstanding selection 
of Don Rumsfeld to be the next Secretary of Defense. His 
reputation for intelligence, candor, and competency is well-
deserved and we look forward to a rapid confirmation of his 
nomination so that he can get right to work.
    I guess there are very few benefits of old age, but every 
new administration we hear the same complaint that you just 
mentioned. It is a very legitimate complaint. Perhaps maybe we 
ought to do something about this process.
    I am not worried about the willingness of people like you 
to serve in all candor because you are a patriot first and 
last. But I am worried about at lower levels of government, the 
Under Secretary, the Assistant Secretary. Those positions when 
highly qualified men and women look at it and then see what 
they have to go through, they decide not to do that. I think 
that is the compelling reason.
    I do not have a lot of sympathy for you, Mr. Secretary, but 
I certainly do for others that you need to attract on your team 
as you so well pointed out.
    I was interested in your comments to Senator Warner's 
questions about the use of force and when and when not the 
United States troops should be committed. Those of us who 
assailed the administration and NATO's conduct of gradual 
escalation during the Balkans campaign took heart in your 
comments at that time, particularly your reflections on CNN on 
April 4, 1999, with respect to comparisons of Kosovo to Vietnam 
which went as follows, and I quote: ``There's always a risk in 
gradualism. It pacifies the hesitant and the tentative. What it 
didn't do is shock and awe and alter the calculation of the 
people you're dealing with.''
    During an interview with Chris Matthews, you noted that it 
was a mistake to say that we would not use ground forces 
because it simplifies the problem for Milosevic.
    It seems to me we ought to stop saying things to appease 
and placate our domestic political audiences. We ought to start 
behaving in a way that suggests to Milosevic that it is in his 
interest to end this and stop ethnic cleansing and come to the 
negotiating table. I appreciate those words very much.
    But my question is do you think we should have gotten 
involved in Kosovo to start with?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. There are pieces of that on both sides 
obviously. I think that NATO had historically been a defensive 
alliance and been thought of as that. Its image has altered as 
a result of that.
    My comments--and they sound pretty good to me too. I am 
kind of pleased I said those things--were obviously after the 
fact. It was we're there. By golly, I'm no fan of graduated 
response. If we're going to do something, let's do it.
    But I do not know that--the problem is that in our society 
people seem to watch how people manage a crisis or a conflict 
rather than what preceded it. Of course, the real kudos ought 
to go to people who manage things in a way that the conflict 
does not happen.
    Senator McCain. Or not manage them so that the conflict 
does happen.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, sir. When I think back to the Balkans, I 
mean, goodness. Again, I do not want to bring up ancient 
history. But all of us for years did scenarios and war planning 
and war games with respect to Yugoslavia coming apart and 
problems in that part of the world. If we know anything, it is 
that the Europeans I think--by waiting for the Europeans to do 
something, things evolved in a way that are unfortunate. I 
think it requires a lot more effort up front.
    Senator McCain. I think that is certainly true of Bosnia.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. It is.
    Senator McCain. Kosovo is a little closer call.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, it is.
    Senator McCain. So you do not have an answer?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I do not. That is correct.
    Senator McCain. I would like to mention a couple more 
issues to you. I will again propose the question that you 
previously addressed in the advanced questions to the 
committee. Do you believe we still have excess military 
infrastructure that can and should be reduced?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Instinctively I do, but knowledgeably I do 
not. Because I have not gone back in and reviewed it. But I 
would say this----
    Senator McCain. Have you heard the comments of Colin 
Powell, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense 
that you are succeeding, virtually every military expert in 
America?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I have. I am kind of old-fashioned. I like to 
figure things out for myself. But I am a firm believer that 
base structure has to fit force structure.
    Senator McCain. But it does now?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. As I say, my impression is it does not. I 
have not been in there and--the next question after that would 
be, well, in what way? Of course, I do not know what way 
because I have not been over there getting briefed. But my 
brain tells me, my instincts tell me from the past that in fact 
not only should base structure fit force structure, it does 
not. That something should be done about it. Because we cannot 
afford to waste resources with the important tasks we have 
ahead of us. But I am not in a position to say this is how it 
ought to be done.
    Senator McCain. Recently, the United States made a very 
significant investment in problems in Colombia. Largely, but 
not totally, but largely unnoticed by Americans and their 
representatives. I take it from your answer that you have less 
than well-informed personal views which you prefer to discuss 
with the appropriate officials before taking a public position 
and that you have not paid as much attention to it as maybe 
other issues as well.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. That could be true. I have not. I have not 
been to the country in years. I know only basically what I know 
from the press.
    Senator McCain. Do you know that we just invested about 
$1.3 billion in the last appropriation cycle?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. That is my understanding.
    Senator McCain. We are upgrading a base in Ecuador which I 
found out--perhaps I should not admit this--by looking at a 
newspaper.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I did not know that.
    Senator McCain. There are a lot of things going on in 
Colombia, Mr. Secretary. I hate to harken back to other 
conflicts, but I hope you will get very well aware of this 
situation, what we are doing, what the involvement of U.S. 
military personnel is in the area and what kind of investment 
and more importantly what goals we seek here. Because very 
frankly, I do not know the answer to those questions yet. I 
think that at least those of us who sit on this committee 
should be much better informed. I hope that the committee will 
start looking at the situation from an Armed Forces standpoint 
very quickly.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I will certainly invest the time needed to do 
that.
    Chairman Levin. Senator McCain, if I could just interject. 
Senator Warner and I were just chatting. He raised that very 
same subject. I think both of us would agree with your comment 
that we should, indeed, as a committee, get more deeply 
involved and we will.
    Senator McCain. I thank you. I will take responsibility for 
not knowing about the upgrade in Ecuador, but very frankly I am 
not sure many Americans know about it either. Maybe that is 
perfectly fine. But I think we had better have a close and 
careful examination of exactly what we are committed to. I am 
not sure that the members of this committee or Americans, would 
agree with a proposed decision on the part of Colombia to give 
more areas of sanctuary to the so-called narco traffickers 
there. But anyway, finally, Mr. Secretary, I am sure that you 
are aware of my concerns about excess spending and the increase 
of pork barrel spending. It has risen--my time has expired.
    Senator Warner. We cut into your time. Go ahead and take 
that question.
    Senator McCain. Well, I will take about 5 or 10 more 
minutes, Mr. Rumsfeld. [Laughter.] It has gone up. It continues 
to go up. When you were Secretary of Defense, it was about $200 
to $300 million a year of unrequested add-ons in the Defense 
appropriations process.
    It is now up around $6 or $7 billion at minimum--at 
minimum. New gimmicks have been invented since you were there. 
One of them is the so-called wish list that comes over from the 
Pentagon, that although not requested in the budget, would be 
really great to have. So they pick and choose from that very 
long list.
    I want to say this to you, Mr. Secretary, and I do not 
think you need any advice. But unless you get a handle on this 
spending, a billion and a half dollars for an aircraft 
helicopter carrier that the Navy and the Marine Corps said they 
neither want or need, continued acquisitions of C-130s which 10 
years ago the United States Air Force said they did not need, 
we are going to have a C-130 in every schoolyard in America 
before this is over.
    You are going to have to get a handle on this and you may 
have to face down some very powerful interests, both on the 
Hill and off the Hill. So I see it lurch out of control.
    Why do I care? I was just down at Marine Corps Air Station 
Yuma. They are still living in World War II barracks. We are 
purchasing equipment that the military neither wants nor needs. 
We hope we have addressed the food stamp problem. Although, I 
am not sure we have satisfactorily.
    But while all this excess and unnecessary spending is going 
on, the men and women in the military have suffered. It is not 
an accident that Army captains are getting out at a greater 
rate than in the history of this country's armed services. I do 
not mind losing a few admirals and generals. I do mind losing 
the high quality captains that are the future leaders of this 
country.
    So I strongly urge you to look at this issue because the 
urgency of the Cold War situation has therefore allowed us a 
degree of license in unnecessary spending out of the defense 
budget, much of which has nothing to do with defense. You are 
never going to be able to meet our requirements of a new and 
modernized military, much less the men and women in the 
military being taken care of unless you address this issue. I 
thank the Chairman for the additional time.
    [The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
               Prepared Statement by Senator John McCain
    Mr. Chairman, the President-elect should be commended for his 
outstanding selection of Don Rumsfeld to be the next Secretary of 
Defense. Secretary Rumsfeld's reputation for intelligence, candor, and 
competency is well deserved, and I look forward to today's hearing with 
great interest.
    The decline in spending on national defense that we witnessed for 
15 years coincided with dramatic global changes that, rightly or 
wrongly, resulted in a level of deployments that exceeded any previous 
period in memory. That protracted decline in defense spending did not 
come without a price.
    We can rightly point to the United States Armed Forces as the most 
capable in the world, but they are not omnipotent, and they do have 
their breaking point. Shallow analyses that point to the size of the 
U.S. defense budget relative to those of potential enemies combined and 
an overemphasis on the two-war strategy as a planning guide have 
impeded our ability to accurately gauge requirements. The myriad 
readiness problems that have been well documented occur not because of 
the two-war strategy, but despite it. The resources and attention 
needed to correct those problems are required irrespective of that 
strategy. The readiness problems we are witnessing today occur as a 
result of the operational tempo demanded of our military combined with 
a force structure ill-suited to the projected international environment 
of tomorrow. They occur because of the failure of the Clinton 
administration and of Congress to adequately provide for a strong 
defense.
    Not to be ignored is the considerable damage done to our national 
defense through the growing problem of pork-barrel spending and its 
related infrastructure issue, the closing of unneeded military bases. 
Defense spending bills have become a national disgrace, with increasing 
percentages of the budget wasted by earmarking many billions of dollars 
for solely parochial reasons. The problem, in fact, has gotten so bad 
that, increasingly, pork-barrel spending is not occurring on top of 
requested spending levels, but in place of it. In short, we are adding 
pork at the expense of vital programs. Should anybody doubt this 
statement, just wait for the uniformed services to request supplemental 
spending bills for the current fiscal year reflecting spending that 
should have already been appropriated.
    For the past several years, together with Senator Levin, I have 
cosponsored legislation authorizing additional base closing rounds. 
That legislation has been regularly and summarily rejected by the 
Senate. Yes, the Clinton administration politicized the 1995 round and, 
yes, it costs money to close bases. But the real reason for the 
rejection of these amendments has been to protect jobs, not promote 
national defense. The Clinton administration will be gone in a matter 
of days, and no rational person can possibly argue that a closed 
military base costs money once inevitable and programmed cleanup costs 
are completed. Additional base closings, together with contracting out 
of certain activities and the elimination of protectionist statutes, 
can account for as much as $20 billion per year in savings--clearly 
enough to make a sizable dent in the modernization shortfall we are 
facing.
    I am also interested in hearing Secretary Rumsfeld's approach to 
the use of force. Many of the most contentious debates that occur in 
this committee and on the floor of the Senate involve unforeseen and 
ongoing military contingencies. The question of when and how to use 
military force is central to our responsibilities as a government, the 
question of war powers central to our responsibilities as an 
institution. Secretary Rumsfeld's thoughts on these matters will be of 
immeasurable importance as we continue to wrestle with ongoing 
deployments in the Balkans and Southwest Asia and the unknown but 
certain deployments of the future.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to address this 
session of the committee and look forward to Secretary Rumsfeld's 
opening statement.

    Chairman Levin. Thank you. Do you have a quick comment on 
that before I call on Senator Cleland?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I certainly agree that the question that has 
to be posed is whether or not something is going to contribute 
to our national security and whether or not it meets the 
priorities that are important for this country. That has to be 
our focus.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you. Senator Cleland.
    Senator Cleland. Mr. Secretary, since the C-130s are built 
in Georgia, I would like to say that I am for schoolyards being 
able to move anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. 
[Laughter.]
    Let me just say that I am fascinated by the ``Rumsfeld's 
Rules''. I appreciate your appreciation for quotes and 
anecdotes.
    In listening to your incredible resume and your wonderful 
experience that you bring to this task--and you certainly have 
my support for this job. I think you are going to be an 
outstanding Secretary of Defense--I thought about the line by 
Jack Kennedy that the thing he appreciated most in the White 
House was a sense of history. The thing he feared most was 
human miscalculation.
    I think you bring something very special to this post and 
to this committee and to this country with your great sense of 
history, not only in service to this country yourself, but in 
the defense post. I think you can help us avoid a lot of human 
miscalculations. So congratulations to you.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you, sir.
    Senator Cleland. In terms of deployment of American forces, 
I would just like to followup on my fellow combat veteran John 
McCain's comments and some of the comments that have been made 
here. I was privileged to visit General Powell when he was 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Again, a fellow Vietnam 
veteran, someone like many of us that learned a lot of bitter 
lessons about deployment of forces in the Vietnam War.
    I once heard General Powell say something very powerful. He 
said, ``my job is to recommend to the President the best advice 
to the President on how to use the American military to stay 
out of war. But if we get in war, to win and win quickly.''
    When he said that, it occurred to me that that was the best 
mission statement that I had ever really heard about the 
purpose of the American military.
    So he is going to be one of your great colleagues in the 
cabinet and I think that kind of thinking I heard from you 
today. I was appreciative of your comments about using force, 
using American military, using our posture to the extent to 
which we did not have to commit it. But obviously, if we commit 
it, then there are certain things we have to do to make it 
successful.
    In terms of success, I am glad to hear you say that we must 
ask the question how do we know when we are successful? I asked 
this question of several administration people in terms of the 
Balkan War. I said early on, make sure you define victory. 
Because one of these days you are going to have to declare it.
    It leads me to a Clausewitz line that I like very much that 
the leader must know the last step he is going to take before 
he takes the first step. So that steps in motion a whole set of 
thought processes.
    Senator Roberts and I took the floor all last year to argue 
out the question in a bipartisan way basically about when to 
commit American forces, about what is in the strategic national 
vital interest of the United States and what is not. That if 
you commit, then you have a definable objective. Then you do 
have an exit strategy. It has been a pleasure to work with my 
colleague across the aisle.
    I just wanted to share those thoughts with you that might 
be of help in fulfilling your task.
    Onto the question of our men and women in uniform. I 
appreciate your interest in your statement about working hard 
to make sure that we recruit the best and the brightest, that 
we do not just lower our standards, that we do not dummy up the 
military just to get numbers. That is fool's gold. That is 
false economy. Any way you cut it. I would rather have less 
numbers and keep quality people.
    So we do want to go after the best and the brightest, not 
only to join but to stay. Senator McCain pointed out senior 
captains, senior NCOs. I have tried to fight through this, work 
through this, over the last 4 years I have been on the 
Personnel Subcommittee. We have looked at various ways, various 
incentives, not only for recruitment, but for retention. It 
does seem to me that retention is a real special challenge. I 
have learned that you recruit a soldier, but you retain a 
family. You have a family military now. Those families are 
interested in the same things families outside the post are 
interested in.
    One of them is education. For the last 2 years, this body 
has put forward a notion that with my initiative that we ought 
to look at the GI bill and maybe see if we can use that to 
apply to family members to entice members to stay into the 
military for a full career. I would just like for you to take a 
look at that as we go along as just one of our tools that we 
use to retain quality personnel.
    I appreciate in your statement a focus on intelligence. I 
cannot help but feel that intelligence prevents many battles 
and wins many battles when you get in them. That the 
coordination of our intelligence capabilities is itself a 
challenge.
    I mentioned the deployments. Senator Roberts and I came to 
basically a point of view of realistic restraint. We just saw 
with the U.S.S. Cole. Now, if you project force or project 
power, you also make yourself in this terrorist world, in this 
terrorist environment, a target, so that power projection 
requires power protection.
    Therefore, I think we have to be very realistic about our 
power projection. I think one of the reviews that I would be 
grateful for you to do as you review the American military is 
to see where it is deployed around the world. We literally are 
out there everywhere in the world and I think it's a time for 
review.
    In terms of weapons systems, I noticed that a couple of 
years ago, you joined with seven other Secretaries of Defense 
to endorse full funding for the F22. That is something that I 
think that is important to our national security interest.
    Let me just say that one of the Rumsfeld's Rules is do not 
necessarily avoid sharp edges. Occasionally, they are necessary 
to leadership.
    So onto a sharp edge. National missile defense. I have been 
a big supporter of theater missile defense, but especially the 
Arrow system that we worked very closely with, with our Israeli 
friends. I am a big booster of research and further testing of 
an anti-missile system.
    I guess I feel right now that we are not ready for 
deployment of a system. I am not sure that the concept has been 
proven. But I am willing to work on it to prove it out, test 
it, and then make judgments on deployment later.
    But one of the wonderful briefings I have received in the 
last year or so is from your commission on missile systems. Of 
course, we were all concerned about the North Korean launch of 
the missile in the Pacific.
    I went to South Korea right up to the DMZ this past August. 
It was fascinating to get the briefing on North Korea and see 
where they were. We got a fascinating briefing. We had given to 
us by the Department of the Army a photo taken at night of 
lights on the Korean peninsula which also showed lights just 
into Southern China.
    It is interesting. You see lights in South Korea. You see 
lights in China. North Korea literally is a big, dark, black 
hole. It is amazing to me that 50 years after the Korean War, 
they still cannot turn the lights on.
    I just wonder--we do not want to overreact here. I think 
any missile defense system that is deployed should be well 
thought out and not just on the basis of one launch by a 
country that cannot even turn the lights on.
    So I point that out to you because I am willing to walk 
down this path with you to continue to prove the concept. But I 
think first things first. Let us prove the concept and then 
think about deployment.
    I would say too that in my analysis of threats, it is this 
terroristic threat that is maybe our biggest challenge. 
Particularly, in terms of missile systems one that Senator Sam 
Nunn and that great expert on nuclear warfare, Ted Turner, have 
recently articulated and that is that we might want to look at 
the whole question of the Soviets, former Soviets, or the 
Russians now and their de-alerting of their existing systems 
and any loose nukes that might be out there. That might be one 
of our biggest challenges in terms of missile threats.
    Now, I would like for you just to respond to maybe the last 
point that I raised.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I think the danger that has been 
suggested with respect to the disarray in the former Soviet 
Union and the large number of nuclear weapons is a very real 
concern. There is just no question but that it has to be looked 
at in two dimensions. First is the actual materials which there 
are a number of countries that have appetites for it. If your 
circumstance is that anything is for sale, there is a risk.
    The second dimension to it is the fact that you have a 
large number of very bright, talented, experienced weapons 
people in the Soviet Union that are not getting paid and not 
getting their pensions. Again, if everything is for sale, their 
brains and their knowledge is for sale. It results in a risk 
for accelerated proliferation that is serious and real and I am 
very much concerned about it. I recognize the fact that the 
United States needs to address it and play a role in trying to 
avoid that proliferation.
    I would like to add one word on missile defense if I might. 
We talk frequently about the risks of deploying missile 
defense. We are properly concerned about our allies in that 
regard. We are properly concerned about attitudes by Russia and 
China and other countries.
    I think it is useful from time-to-time to also ask 
ourselves what are the risks of not deploying missile defense. 
I would mention several. One is it seems to me if some 
countries that have significant technological capabilities, 
decide that they are vulnerable to ballistic missiles from 
their neighbors and that we lack the ability to assist them in 
defending against that capability. That we may contribute to 
proliferation by encouraging them to go forward and develop 
their own nuclear weapons and their own ballistic missiles. I 
think that is just a fact.
    Second, the other thing that worries me if we do not deploy 
ballistic missile capability is I have been in the White House 
as Chief of Staff and as Secretary of Defense on the National 
Security Council. I have seen the process that a President has 
to go through when there is a risk or a threat.
    If we know of certain knowledge that another country has a 
nuclear warhead that can effect us and we do not feel we have a 
good grip on their motivations, their behavior patterns, what 
could dissuade them, and we know that they are capable of using 
it, we are forced into one of two course of action.
    Either we acquiesce and change our behavior and change our 
interest and alter what we would otherwise have done or we have 
to preempt. I think putting a President of the United States 
and a country in the position where their choices, their 
options, are so minimal that they are forced into a position 
of--as Israel was--with respect to the radon and nuclear 
capability in Iraq so many years ago--where a President is 
forced to go in and take action of a preemptive nature because 
he lacks the defensive capability to persuade those people that 
it is not in their interest to do that.
    So that is a dimension to this missile defense thing that I 
do not think gets into the debate to the extent it ought to. I 
think we need to look at deterrence across the spectrum.
    I was in a meeting up in New York. Some person raised their 
hand and they said that my father was a good friend of Colonel 
House. I thought back, my goodness gracious, Colonel House. 
That was Woodrow Wilson's day. I was talking about missiles and 
missile defense and so forth. He said, one day my father asked 
Colonel House why he was so courteous. Why he was just the most 
gracious, courteous, person he had ever met. The answer was by 
Colonel House, well, young man, I grew up when gentleman 
carried revolvers. If you know everyone has a revolver, you 
tend to be courteous.
    Well, North Korea is selling, has been and is today to my 
knowledge, to my not today knowledge, but very recent 
knowledge, selling those capabilities and technologies and 
trading them around the world. They are an active world class 
proliferator. It is my understanding when the United States 
representatives met with them, their response was when we asked 
if they would change their behavior with respect to ballistic 
missiles, one of their responses was something to the effect 
that you are America. You have bombed in the Sudan. You have 
bombed in Afghanistan. You are bombing in Kosovo. You are 
bombing in Iraq. You are giving food aid to North Korea. Now, 
why? Why is the behavior so different? Well, they believe it is 
because they have those weapons. They believe that those 
capabilities they believe they have are sufficient to alter 
behavior of their neighbors. I do not think we as a country 
want to think that the old mutual assured destruction where the 
United States and the Soviet Union could kill each other 
several times over is necessarily a deterrent that is well-
fashioned for the period we are moving into.
    Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Thank 
you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you. Senator Inhofe.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can remember 
when I heard on TV--I did not have any indication that you 
would be nominated nor that you would accept if nominated to 
this position. I told my wife there is not a person in America 
today as qualified as Don Rumsfeld for this position.
    I also had two personal reasons that I am rejoicing in your 
nomination. One is that as Senator Durbin said when you are 
inducted into the National Wrestling Hall of Fame--of course, 
that is located in Stillwater, Oklahoma. So you are even more 
of a hero there than you are in some other areas. I remember 
also when I came from the House to the Senate in 1994, I went 
through some of these confirmation hearings on the different 
Chiefs. I can remember identifying with them because we had 
served at the same time. You know, myself and Elvis Presley and 
some of these guys. So now as of about 5 years ago, Mr. 
Chairman, there is not one person in the service who was 
serving when I was serving. So you and I are contemporaries. We 
served precisely the same years and now I have someone I can 
communicate with.
    I want to also complement you and your family and I look at 
your beautiful granddaughter over there. I think there is not 
one of my eight grandkids who would listen to me for 2 hours 
and be as patient as she is.
    I think when we assess this thing, I know there is this 
euphoric attitude after the Cold War is over that somehow the 
threat is not there. I really believe the threat is greater 
today. I think we are in the most threatened position that we 
have been in as a nation in our Nation's history. Incidentally, 
George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, agrees with 
that.
    I think when you look at it, Senator Warner is right. We 
cannot try to pin you down as to what kind of a cost this is 
going to be. But I would say that when you have the Joint 
Chiefs all agreeing that the range is similar between $48 and 
$58 billion additional. Do you have any reason to believe that 
is unreasonable?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I have no reason to believe any of those 
numbers are unreasonable. It takes--I really do like to get my 
brain engaged before my mouth. I need to get in there and pour 
over it and I need to get some people to help me.
    Senator Inhofe. Well, there is one thing that has not been 
brought up that I think you--I am going to ask that you look 
into immediately. That is what we are going to have to do in a 
supplemental before the current budget year. We have been 
talking about it in future years. But right now we have a list 
that has been provided us with $4.5 billion of near term 
readiness requirements. We are talking about spare parts and 
equipment maintenance and another $2.5 billion for emergency 
personnel or modernization programs.
    Now, we have been told that if we are unable to get that, 
we may have to cease training in the fourth quarter of this 
year. I am going to ask you to really pay attention to the 
current needs, those things that are having a deteriorating 
effect on our retention and those things that have to be done.
    Our RPM accounts, for example. I mean, you can go down to 
Fort Bragg in a rainstorm as I have been there and our kids are 
covering up their equipment with their bodies to keep them from 
rusting. So those are the things that have to be done 
immediately. I hope that you would look at those.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I will indeed. Thank you, sir.
    Senator Inhofe. Just so there is clarification as to the 
responses that you made, when the Chairman first asked about 
the missile defense law that we passed, the Missile Defense Act 
of 1999, and he read the two parts of that bill that I think we 
have heard many, many times before, do you see that there is 
anything incompatible about those two statements?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. The first is deploying an effective system.
    Senator Inhofe. As soon as technologically possible.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. The second was negotiation.
    Senator Inhofe. Yes.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Not that I can see.
    Senator Inhofe. Well, I do not either. But I just wanted 
to--because I think that the act is very specific. Let us keep 
in mind that was not just passed by a huge margin in the House. 
It was passed by a 97 to 3 margin in the Senate. Not one person 
who has been in here today voted against it. So I would only 
ask that you would recommend to the administration that you 
immediately start complying with Public Law 106-38 and start 
getting and deploying.
    By the way, I want to say that if there is one--one of the 
great recent services that you have provided for this country 
is the Rumsfeld Commission. I think if I were to single out one 
or two sentences in there when those who were opposed to our 
meeting what I think our requirements are on a national missile 
defense system. They often say, well, these countries, Iran, 
Iraq, and other countries are not going to be able to have this 
capability for another five to ten years. You pointed out that 
an indigenous system does not exist today. That these countries 
are trading technologies and trading systems. So I appreciate 
very much your making that statement and making it very clear 
to this committee.
    Third, there is one thing that we have not really talked 
about and I would ask that you address. It does not have a lot 
of sex appeal. Not many people talk about it. But it is our 
near-term readiness and modernization.
    Just as one example, and I could use many other examples, 
but this is a personal one. I chair the Readiness and 
Management Support Subcommittee and have had a great deal of 
concern as to how these efforts over in Kosovo and Bosnia are 
draining our ability to defend America. Just one being the 21st 
TACOM. The 21st TACOM is responsible for ground logistics in 
that area of the Balkans, but also in the Middle East. They're 
at about 100 percent capacity right now.
    Some of the equipment they had over there in the M915 
trucks that we are using, many of them with over a million 
miles on them. We determined that if we could just use the 
amount of money that we are going to have to use to maintain 
those for a 3-year period, we could replace them with new 
vehicles.
    Now, the problem there is an accounting problem that you 
are well aware of. I am not sure whether it was back in 1975 or 
not. But we cannot get anything done and prepare for the future 
when fiscally in a normal prudent business decision, you would 
say, no. We are not going to keep fixing those. We are going to 
have new ones.
    Do you have any thoughts about how you might address that?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, there is no difference that the 
government operates quite differently from business. There is 
also no question that at a certain point people do not maintain 
fleets of things that are antiquated because of the upkeep and 
maintenance cost of continuing them.
    Senator Inhofe. Yes, but, of course, we have been doing it.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, sir.
    Senator Inhofe. Because a question on base closure was 
asked, I would only make a request that the force structure 
that we have today is about one-half of what it was during 1991 
during the Persian Gulf War. That can be quantified, half the 
Army divisions, half the tactical air wings, half the ships 
going out from 300 ships--600 ships to 300 ships.
    After the U.S.S. Cole, tragedy took place, I went over 
there. I talked to virtually every rear admiral and everyone 
who was around there. They said that if we had had--when we cut 
down the number of ships, we cut our refuellers or our oilers 
down from 32 to 21. If we had not done that, every one of them 
to the last one said we would not have gone into Yemen or the 
other ports. We would have refueled at sea.
    Now, when you go from the Mediterranean through the Suez 
Canal and the Red Sea and turn left and go up the Mediterranean 
Sea to the Persian Gulf. It is about 5,000 miles. You have to 
have some refueling capability. Virtually everything in there 
is in kind of a threatened area.
    I went back to the bone yards and found that we had two 
vehicles out there that were in very good shape and cost very 
little more money to put them back into service. Those were the 
Higgins and the Humphreys. I would hope that you would consider 
doing that and talk to your Navy people--and, of course, you 
draw on your own experience there--as to why it would not be 
prudent to pull some of those back into service and to get that 
refueling capability in that area. I just make that request 
that you would consider that.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I will be happy to look at it. Thank you, 
sir.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, very much.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Could I clean up two things that are a little 
embarrassing to me? The Senator mentioned I was in the 
Wrestling Hall of Fame. It is true. But I did not go in the 
front door with the great wrestlers. I came in the back door 
with the so-called distinguished Americans who had wrestled. It 
was Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Dennis Hastert, and 
Rumsfeld and a few others. [Laughter.]
    Second, I was described as the captain----
    Senator Warner. We would add John Chafee is my 
recollection, our distinguished colleague.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. That is right, exactly. I was described as 
captain of the college football team and it is true. But I was 
a little guy. It was the 150-pound football, not the big guys. 
I would not want to let the record stay inaccurate.
    Chairman Levin. Well, we will keep the record open for a 
number of additional comments. [Laughter.]
    Senator Inhofe. One last thing just for the record. I would 
ask also in this setting and this environment today at this 
time, you cannot get into your F-22, joint strike fighters, 
crusader, global hawk, for example. I know you were a real 
supporter of unmanned vehicles sometime ago.
    But I hope for the record maybe later on you can have some 
time to think about this and address these platforms. We would 
like to believe, and many of the American people believe, that 
we have the very best of everything. But I was very proud of 
Gen. John Jumper not too long ago when he said in terms of air-
to-air vehicles, we are not superior. In fact, the Russians 
have some things on the market right now, the SU-35, that are 
better than any air-to-air combat vehicle we have, including 
the F-15s. So I am hoping that you will be able to assess our 
modernization and get it as specific as you can as early in 
your term as possible.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you. Senator Reed.
    Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Rumsfeld, not only for your 
willingness to serve, but for your lifetime of public service.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you.
    Senator Reed. We had a chance this morning to chat briefly. 
I thank you for that also. I was listening to your response to 
Senator Warner about the conditions for committing American 
forces today. Frankly, and I think you would agree, that it is 
in a sense a work in progress that you are trying to understand 
the forces and the structure that we have and the threats we 
face.
    I might suggest that we are pretty good at the initial 
phases of these operations because they are essentially 
military operations, the forceful entry into contested 
territory. We are not very good at the back end which is the 
policing operation which is humanitarian operations. One of the 
reason we are not is that we do not have those resources. We 
have not been able to coordinate with our allies and with 
national organizations to have such resources. I wondered if 
you might comment upon this whole issue, not just in terms of 
America's role, but being able to parade an organization or 
mutual organizations that can do missions that you might feel 
needed to be done. We have the forces militarily to make the 
entry, but we are uncertain about whether or not we can extract 
ourselves in reasonable time. Would you comment on that?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I can comment briefly. We all know it 
is a lot easier to get into something than it is to get out of 
it. We all know that everyone is not capable of doing 
everything. In fact, the tasks as you properly point out are 
distinctly different. I have had an impression over the years 
that we have a significant role in helping to deter aggression 
in the world. The way you do that is to be arranged to defend 
in the event you need to which you know well as a West Point 
graduate.
    Having been at NATO and looking at different countries and 
what the different countries bring to that alliance, it is 
pretty obvious that the United States has some things that we 
bring to it that are notably different from some of the other 
countries. It is also true that the other countries can bring 
significant things.
    I do not think that it is necessarily true that the United 
States has to become a great peacekeeper if you will. I think 
we need to have capabilities, as you are suggesting, that are 
distinct from war fighting capabilities. But I also think other 
countries can participate in these activities that are needed 
in the world from time-to-time and bring--they can bring the 
same capabilities we can to that type of thing. Whereas, they 
cannot bring the same capabilities that we can, for example, 
with respect to air lift or sea lift or intelligence gathering 
or a variety of other things.
    There is one other aspect to being on the ground in an 
area. Someone mentioned with respect to the U.S.S. Cole. If you 
are a space asset or the Marines that were in Beirut Airport 
back when I was President Reagan's Middle East envoy, if you 
provide an attractive target, a lucrative target, somebody may 
want to try to test whether or not they can damage that target.
    That is a lot less true--the United States of America is an 
attractive target. So when we are on the ground, we tend to 
become a bit more attractive, a bit more ``lucrative'' as a 
target. It seems to me that it may very well be that other 
countries can do some of those things in a way that is less 
likely to create the kind of targeting that the United States 
tends to draw.
    Senator Reed. Thank you. You made reference to and 
anticipated my next question which as the former Ambassador to 
NATO, you have a great experience you are bringing to the task 
because there are issues, one of which is to what extent NATO 
will operate or European forces will operate independently of 
NATO.
    We have a current controversy about the depleted uranium 
being used in Kosovo. We have an ongoing debate and discussion 
about national missile defense. Most--many European governments 
are frankly opposed to it.
    Then we also have the issue not only of whether or not we 
are willing to essentially allow our allies to do some things, 
frankly because they might get the impression that they can do 
everything alone and they do not need us any longer. I wonder 
from your perspective and as you go in how do you propose to 
deal with some of these issues relative to NATO?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I would begin with several principles. I 
think NATO is just an enormously important alliance. It has a 
record of amazing success. I believe in consultation with our 
NATO allies. I think that they have difficult political 
situations and close margins in their parliaments. They need 
time. They need discussion with us. They need leadership. They 
need an opportunity so that the solution can be fashioned in a 
way that makes sense.
    With respect to the European defense force, let me just put 
it this way. I think anything that damages the NATO cohesion 
would be unwise for Europe and for the United States and for 
our ability to contribute to peace and stability in that part 
of the world.
    Senator Reed. During the campaign, Mr. Rumsfeld, the Bush 
campaign made a great point about suggesting that China was a 
competitor. Frankly, in that type of dynamic, there is always 
the fear that competition will lead to conflict. How do you 
think you can use your resources at the Department of Defense 
to preempt conflict with China?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I think how China evolves in the 21st 
century into the world in Asia and elsewhere in the world is 
enormously important. I think our behavior and the behavior of 
other countries in the region and the world is going to make a 
difference as to how they evolve. I would characterize our 
relationship with the People's Republic of China as complicated 
and multi-dimensional.
    It is true, as the President-elect said, that we are 
competitors. They are seeking influence in the region and we 
are in the region. We have been in the region. I think it is 
important we have been in the region because we have 
contributed to peace and stability in that part of the world.
    We are trading partners simultaneously. So on the one hand, 
we are somewhat of a competitor. On the other hand, we are a 
trading partner.
    We watch what they say and they write. I am no more an 
expert than others, but I do read what some of their military 
colleges, writings are saying. We see their defense budget 
increasing by double digits every year. We see an awful lot of 
their military doctrine talking about leapfrogging generations 
of capabilities and moving toward asymmetrical threats to the 
United States, cyber warfare and these types of things.
    I do not think the history between the United States and 
the PRC is written. I think we are going to write it. I think 
we have to be wise and we have to be engaged and we have to be 
thoughtful. But we cannot engage in self-delusion. They are not 
strategic partners in my view. They are--it is a multi-faceted 
relationship.
    Senator Reed. Let me touch upon this. Many of my colleagues 
have national missile defense. But from the context of the 
overall theory of deterrence, you described from your vantage 
point in the White House the sort of two choices. If someone 
had a ballistic missile that could reach our shores, the choice 
is being acquiescence or preemption.
    Yet, for decades, Russia had exactly that capability, the 
Soviet Union. I would suggest we did not acquiesce and we did 
not conduct preemptive strikes.
    It seems to me that what is going on here in this 
deterrence theory is that it is as much about the psychology or 
one's perception of the psychology of the opponent as well as 
throw weight and defense mechanisms.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Absolutely.
    Senator Reed. Inherent, it seems that what you are saying, 
is that you really distinguish some of these so-called rogue 
states as being irrational as different from the Soviet Union, 
unable to appreciate the fact that any type of unilateral 
attack on the United States, even if frankly--one would assume, 
even if it was successfully defeated by a missile defense, 
would result in almost inevitable retaliation. Is that at the 
core of your thinking, that we are dealing now with some 
irrational actors?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. No, sir. I must not have explained myself 
well. Two things. My comments about the behavior of the states 
that we are talking about--I am not terribly enamored of the 
phrase rogue state. It leaves the impression that the 
leadership there is kind of like a rogue elephant careening off 
a wall blindly and that is not the case. I mean, I have met 
with Saddam Hussein and I met with the elder Assad as Middle 
East envoy. These people are intelligent. They are survivors. 
They are tough. They do not think like we do. Goodness knows, 
they do not behave like we do with respect to their neighbors 
or their own people. But they are not erratic.
    You are correct. We absolutely must--that is why this 
intelligence gathering task we have as a country is so much 
more important today, not just because of proliferation but 
because the weapons are so powerful.
    It is not a matter of counting beans in Russia, how many 
missiles, how many ships, how many tanks? It is a matter of 
knowing a lot more about attitudes and behaviors and 
motivations and how you can alter their behavior to create a 
more peaceful world.
    The thing that I would want to clarify is that when I said 
what I said, I was distinguishing between the relationship of 
the United States and the Soviet Union. There the so-called 
mutual shared destruction indeed worked. The potential to be 
able to have massive retaliation I think created a more stable 
situation.
    To pretend that the fact that we had through massive 
retaliation a stable situation with Russia and that that 
necessarily would deter not only Russia, but others from making 
mischief is obviously historically wrong. We had a war in 
Korea. We had a war in Vietnam. Saddam Hussein went into 
Kuwait. Not withstanding the fact that the United States and 
the Soviet Union had a perfect ability to destroy each other 
several times over.
    So what you need is deterrence across the spectrum that 
addressed the evolving threats that are notably different as 
you well know. I just must not have made myself very clear.
    Senator Reed. Well, again, this is a topic that cannot be 
exhausted in 5 or 6 or 7 minutes.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. No, it is an interesting topic.
    Senator Reed. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and your 
comments. Thank you very much, Mr. Rumsfeld.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Reed. We are 
going to call on two more Senators before lunch. We are going 
to try to squeeze in both Senator Roberts and then Senator 
Bingaman. Then we will break for lunch. If we break right at 
1:00, we will come back at 2:00. If we go 5 minutes after 1:00, 
we will come back at five after 2:00.
    Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say I 
think you are the right man for the right job.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you, sir.
    Senator Roberts. This is a little different experience in 
regards to the usual nomination process at least for me and I 
think other members of the committee. We have all of our 
prepared questions that are prepared by staff in large type so 
that we can read them and go on from there.
    But I think in your case, you shine the light of experience 
and expertise into the nomination fog and I think it has been 
very helpful. I think it has been educational. I think you 
caused us to think a little bit and I think that is very 
appropriate. I feel compelled to use part of my time--I should 
not, but I am going to--to inform my colleagues and Mr. 
Rumsfeld that in terms of our vital national security 
interests, I think that Latin America, Central America, our 
involvement in Colombia in the Southern Command where there are 
31 nations involved is just as important as the Balkans. I 
noted that there was some concern in regards to maybe Congress 
going in with a blindfold or not really fully aware of all the 
details.
    Let me point out that the subcommittee of which I am 
privileged to chair and Senator Bingaman was the ranking 
member, we had lengthy hearings and the full committee had 
hearings. We had General Wilhelm. We had the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense. We had the Assistant Secretary of State. 
We had two of those. We had two ambassadors. We went over in 
considerable detail what the pros and cons were in regards to 
our involvement.
    More especially since we left Panama and went to Miami and 
found thousands of miles in the Southern Command that we are at 
risk. We do have bases. We have them in El Salvador. We have 
them in Aruba. Then I think we have them in Ecuador as well to 
do a tough job.
    We took a lot of infrastructure away to go over to the 
Balkans. Well, why am I saying this? That is because there are 
360 million people down there. The average age is 14 with a lot 
of problems.
    In regards to immigration, in regards to drugs, in regards 
to trade, in regards to possible revolution, and in regards to 
our energy supply, where we have about 22 percent of our energy 
coming from Venezuela and Mexico and in regards to what a 
fellow down there named Chavez is doing, I think we better pay 
attention to it.
    Now, I cannot say whether our policies in Colombia are 
going to work or not. But I do say that we have taken a 
considerable interest in this, had a subcommittee debate and in 
the full committee and in the Appropriations Committee where 
General Wilhelm had to stand tall and parade rest before the 
appropriators and in the Senate and in the House, this was not 
done without due consideration. I would urge your attention to 
that because I think it is very important.
    I want to talk about--I want to ask you if--in fact I am 
going to recommend a criteria in regard to the use of troops. 
This is in concert with what my dear friend Senator Cleland and 
I determine in our realistic restraint foreign policy dialogue 
that at least us two listened to. We had to listen to each 
other over on the Senate.
    We came up with the criterion before we would put the 
troops in. One was the stakes are vital to the United States. 
Second, public support is assured. Third, overwhelming force is 
used in regards to a clear definition of goals and purpose. 
Last, everybody agrees on an exit strategy. I think that is a 
pretty good list.
    The reason I mention that is on behalf of the warfighter. I 
was in Kosovo on exactly the same day that we mounted up and 
the 27th Marines went in. I took the advantage to get briefed. 
They probably did not want to brief me. That was the last thing 
they wanted to do was see a U.S. Senator there as they were 
getting ready to mount up.
    But I asked a lance corporal, I said, what are your goals 
here? Do you think you can do the job in regard to Kosovo? He 
said, sir, I'm a United States Marine. I can do the job.
    I said, but what is your personal goal? He said my personal 
goal is to take care of myself so that I can come home after 6 
months to my wife and kids because I know just as soon as I 
leave, these guys are going to start shooting each other all 
over again.
    I think too many times it is not that we should not pay 
attention to the geo-political concerns and the strategic 
concerns. My concern is the warfighter, that person in uniform.
    I believe that as we go down this we remember that it is 
one thing to have a cause to fight for. It is another thing to 
have a cause to fight and die for.
    So I am in agreement with the Powell Doctrine. I pretty 
much said what I think we ought to do on down the road. I offer 
that up as a suggestion.
    The Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee of which 
I am privileged to chair and we have drugs and we have 
terrorism and we have weapons of mass destruction and we have 
the counter threat reduction programs. We have a whole bunch of 
things. Every staff member back here has to deal with me 
because of this subcommittee and the foresight of the 
distinguished Chairman.
    We asked witnesses in terms of things that really bother 
you, whether it is a cyber attack or a biological attack or 
whatever it is, what keeps you up at night? What is the one big 
thing that keeps you up at night? Now, other than you filling 
out all the paperwork you have to in regard to the ethics 
business, what keeps you up at night?
    What would you tell the Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
Subcommittee right now that you think is an immediate concern 
in terms of our national security? What keeps you up at night? 
Now, I know you said that you cannot really single one out, 
that this is a continuum and a many faceted kind of thing here 
with missile development, terrorism, so on and so forth.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, two things I would say. I would repeat 
what I said about the importance of considerably improving our 
intelligence capabilities so that we know more about what 
people think and how they behave and how their behavior can be 
altered and what the capabilities are in this world.
    I think the goal ought not to be to win a war. The goal 
ought to be to be so strong and so powerful that you can 
dissuade people from doing things they otherwise would do. You 
do not have to even fight the war. That takes me to the second 
point.
    The second point is I do not know that I really understand 
what deters people today because I do not think one thing 
deters everybody. I think that we need to understand that there 
are different parts of the world. There are different types of 
leaders with different motivations. We have to do a lot better 
job of thinking through deterrence and assuring that we have 
done the best job possible.
    I mean, everyone is going to make mistakes. But today when 
mistakes are made with the power of weapons, they are not 
little mistakes, they are big mistakes.
    We need to do everything we can to fashion a set of 
deterrents, a nest, a fabric that does the best possible job 
for this country.
    Let me go to your first point just very briefly and add a 
thought for consideration. You mentioned overwhelming public 
support as a criteria. I am uncomfortable with that. I think 
that leaders have to lead and build support. I look back at 
history. I think there have been times when we have had to do 
things when the public was not there yet.
    I think that what needs to be done is to have leaders in 
office, presidents, who think these things through, who make 
the right decisions, who are sufficiently persuaded that 
overwhelming support, public support, follows.
    You cannot sustain anything without it. I quite agree. But 
I think that thinking that you are going to have it at the 
outset is optimistic.
    Second, on overwhelming force. I have watched presidents 
look at their situation in a pre-crisis period, a build-up 
period. They have very few tools to deal with. The military 
tends to come in and the choices are not--you do not have a lot 
of arrows in your quiver. It is a proper thing to say we do not 
want to do something unless we are going to put the force into 
it we need. But the concept of overwhelming force in isolation 
I would think needs to have another dimension. It is this.
    In the pre-crisis period, in the early period, you can do 
things to alter people's behavior that does not require 500,000 
troops and 6 months to build up. If we are wise and think these 
things through, there are things that can be done in a build-up 
period that will persuade people they ought not to be doing 
what they are thinking about doing, that will persuade the 
people they need to support them in doing what they are 
thinking about doing, that those people ought not to support 
them.
    That does not require overwhelming force. That requires a 
lot better intelligence and a lot more tools to affect and 
alter thinking in those periods. I think we need to broaden 
that concept somewhat.
    Senator Roberts. I appreciate that. My time has expired. 
Thank you.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you. Senator Bingaman is next. We 
will then recess and Senator Allard will be first when we 
return.
    Senator Bingaman. Mr. Rumsfeld, thank you and 
congratulations on your stamina in considering all of these 
questions.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you.
    Senator Bingaman. As well as congratulations on your 
nomination. I certainly intend to support you.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you, sir.
    Senator Bingaman. One of the issues that we always hear a 
lot of talk about, but at least in my view has not been given 
adequate priority in defense budgeting, is science and 
technology.
    It seems like, at least for the last several years, every 
time we see a defense budget proposed by the administration, 
the percentage of the defense budget that is committed to 
science and technology is reduced. It always loses out compared 
to procurement, compared to readiness, compared to all these 
other things.
    I know that President-elect Bush gave a speech at the 
Citadel a year and a half ago where he talked about the 
importance of science and technology investment. He said he was 
committing an additional $20 billion--or he would if elected 
President--commit an additional $20 billion to defense research 
and development between now and 2006. I think that was the 
commitment he made in that speech or the statement he made.
    Let me add one other aspect of this. The reductions in 
growth in defense research and development in recent years has 
been justified at some of our hearings on the basis that the 
industrial companies will pick up the difference here, that 
U.S. industry is sufficiently strong that we do not need to do 
what we once did in science and technology.
    That to my mind is very much at odds with what I understand 
is happening to our defense industrial base. They do not have 
the luxury of putting substantial new resources into this area. 
So I would be interested in any comments you have about how we 
can increase research and development, defense related research 
and development and support for science and technology.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Senator, I agree completely with everything 
you have said. When President-elect Bush announced that I was 
his choice for this post, I said that I had visited with him. I 
had read his pronouncements and plans for defense and that I 
supported them enthusiastically. Certainly with respect to 
science and technology, he is on the mark and you are on the 
mark and I agree.
    I came out of the pharmaceutical business where we invest 
in research and development that is not guaranteed to produce 
anything in the next 5 minutes. You have to be patient. You 
have to live with a lot of failures. I have been involved in 
the electronics business, quite the same.
    If you are not investing for the future, you are going to 
die. You simply run out of gas at a certain point. This 
wonderful country of ours has such fine leadership in science 
and technology. But the reality is an awful lot of the foreign 
students who used to come over here and stay and study are now 
going back to their countries.
    They are leaving with an enormous amount of knowledge and 
the country, this committee, this department, simply must be 
willing to make those investments.
    Senator Bingaman. Well, thank you for that answer. Let me 
ask about one other area that I also think tends to get short 
changed in the defense budgets that I have seen, and that 
relates to test and evaluation. Again, there does not seem to 
me at least to be a strong constituency for funding the 
necessary infrastructure to accomplish and maintain our ability 
in the test and evaluation area. I have a parochial interest in 
this. Because White Sands Missile Range is in my state. It's 
our largest, and I believe our most capable test and evaluation 
facility.
    But this is an area that I hope you will give some 
attention to. It seems to me to be one of those areas that 
falls between the stools when people start putting together 
defense budgets. It does not have the natural advocates behind 
it the way we are currently structured that would allow it to 
be given sufficient attention.
    I am glad to hear your comment. Or I will go onto another 
question.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I am not knowledgeable about the state of 
that and will be happy to look into it.
    Senator Bingaman. One other area I wanted to ask about, and 
this has been asked about by some of the other Senators. There 
was a New York Times editorial that I am sure you saw 
expressing concern about what they anticipate would be a 
missile defense organization. The MDO recommendation to the new 
president that he needs to order construction of a radar system 
in Alaska to begin this March in order to meet the deadlines 
that you identified in the commission report that you came up 
with for actual deployment by 2005 I believe. I believe I have 
those dates right.
    I wondered if you have any insight into whether or not such 
a recommendation will be made, whether or not you would support 
such a recommendation to begin construction of a radar site in 
March or whether you believe that is premature.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. It would be premature for me to comment on 
it. There is no question we simply have to get some folks pass 
through this committee engaging that subject. I have to get 
myself up to speed. It clearly would be an issue that would end 
up with the President and the National Security Council.
    Senator Bingaman. Let me ask about one other thing, one 
other area, and that is export controls. My impression is that 
there are major problems in the system we have in place now to 
control defense related exports, that it has worked to the 
disadvantage of many of our companies that have defense related 
work, but also do a lot of commercial work. This is an issue 
that involves several departments, not just the Department of 
Defense, but the Department of Commerce, Department of State. I 
think we have probably added to the problem here in Congress by 
shifting responsibilities to the Department of State and not 
adequately funding them in this area.
    I do not know if this is an area that you are informed 
about. If so, I would be anxious to hear your views. If not, I 
would be anxious to just urge you to look at this and see if 
you could bring some constructive recommendations to this 
system.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I agree that it is something that has 
to be looked at. It is an enormously complicated set of 
problems of which I am only marginally informed. I have bumped 
into it through the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission and 
watching that set of issues. I have bumped into it through 
business on a number of occasions. There has to be a balance 
between national security interest and our obvious desire to be 
able to encourage investment in this country to create advanced 
technologies.
    To the extent you inhibit that, you do not stop it. You 
simply drive it offshore. A businessman can sit down in a room 
in Chicago and decide if he wants to do research and 
development in France or in Asia, in Japan or in Skokie, 
Illinois. Just with a decision it gets changed one place or 
another.
    To the extent we are unwise and allow a system that needs 
to be very dynamic because there is so much happening to be 
static and prevent things that need not be prevented or delay 
things to the point where people are unwilling to accept the 
costs which delay imposes, then we damage ourselves, not just 
economically. We also damage ourselves from a national security 
standpoint because we force people to go offshore to develop 
these technologies.
    So we need to give that system a good look.
    Senator Bingaman. Thank you, very much. My time has 
expired.
    Chairman Levin. We are going to recess now for 1 hour. We 
will start with Senator Allard. The order of recognition for 
all my colleagues is on a sheet of paper here, so you can see 
where in that list you will come. We will stand recessed until 
2:05.
    [Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m. the hearing was recessed.]

                           AFTERNOON SESSION

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m. in room 
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin 
(chairman) presiding.
    Committee members present: Senators Levin, Byrd, Cleland, 
Landrieu, Warner, Inhofe, Allard, and Sessions.
    Other Senators present: Senators Akaka, Bill Nelson, Ben 
Nelson, Carnahan, Dayton, Collins, and Bunning.
    Committee staff member present: David S. Lyles, staff 
director.
    Majority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, 
counsel; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member; 
Creighton Greene, professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling, 
counsel; Peter K. Levine, counsel; and Michael J. McCord, 
professional staff member.
    Minority staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee, staff 
director; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff director; Charles S. 
Abell, professional staff member; Charles W. Alsup, 
professional staff member; John R. Barnes, professional staff 
member; Edward H. Edens IV, professional staff member; William 
C. Greenwalt, professional staff member; Mary Alice A. Hayward, 
professional staff member; Lawrence J. Lanzillotta, 
professional staff member; George W. Lauffer, professional 
staff member; Thomas L. MacKenzie, professional staff member; 
Ann M. Mittermeyer, assistant counsel; Joseph T. Sixeas, 
professional staff member; Cord A. Sterling, professional staff 
member; Scott W. Stucky, general counsel; and Eric H. Thoemmes, 
professional staff member.
    Staff assistants present: Beth Ann Barozie, Thomas C. 
Moore, and Michele A. Traficante.
    Committee members' assistants present: Menda S. Fife, 
assistant to Senator Kennedy; Christina Evans, Terrence E. 
Sauvain, Barry Gene (B.G.) Wright, and Erik Raven, assistants 
to Senator Byrd; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to Senator 
Lieberman; Andrew Vanlandingham, assistant to Senator Cleland; 
Jason Matthews and David Klain, assistants to Senator Landrieu; 
Gregory C. McCarthy, assistant to Senator Inhofe; George M. 
Bernier III, assistant to Senator Santorum; Thomas A. 
Vecchiolla, assistant to Senator Snowe; Robert Alan McCurry, 
assistant to Senator Roberts; Charles Cogar, assistant to 
Senator Allard; and Scott Douglass, assistant to Senator 
Sessions.
    Other Senate staff present: Richard Kessler, assistant to 
Senator Akaka; Pete Contostavlos, assistant to Senator Bill 
Nelson; Sheila Murphy, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Larry 
Smar, assistant to Senator Carnahan; Christopher Ford and Sam 
Patten, assistants to Senator Collins; and Jeff Freeman, 
assistant to Senator Cochran.
    Chairman Levin. The committee will come to order.
    Senator Allard.
    Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would echo the 
comments that have been made by my colleagues on this 
committee, Mr. Rumsfeld, about your qualifications. I do not 
think anybody can legitimately question your qualifications, 
and I am absolutely delighted with the President's appointment 
in appointing you specifically as Secretary of Defense. I do 
not see how you are going to apply the Rumsfeld's Rules over 
there as Secretary of Defense when you testify before this 
committee, and I respect your administrative capabilities, and 
I think everybody here also recognizes those.
    When you visited my office we shared our experiences. I 
shared my experience on the NRO Commission. You shared your 
experience as Chairman of the Space Commission. Both reports 
are coming out with a recommendation. I guess the Space 
Commission's report is coming out today, and ours, the NRO 
Commission is already out that there needs to be, in fact it is 
critical that there is a dialogue between the Secretary of 
Defense and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I 
just would hope that you would just for a moment at least 
express to me how you feel about this and what you plan to do 
to improve communications.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I thank you, and I know of your service 
on the NRO Commission and, of course, have discussed it with 
you. The international community is really not a community. It 
is a set of organizations, the CIA and the NSA and the NRO and 
the DIA and the Air Force, Army, and Navy Intelligence, the 
State Department, the FBI, there are all kinds of pieces to it, 
and I think to use the word community is an overstatement, and 
because of the way the legislation, the way the funding works, 
it is something that I think takes a lot of senior level 
interaction so that things do not get bottlenecked.
    There are some very complicated issues in rearranging our 
intelligence-gathering to fit the new century, to fit the new 
circumstance with proliferation, and I think that bureaucracies 
do not like to change. They are terribly resistant to change, 
and the only way they are going to change is if the very senior 
people who meet regularly understand where each is going, and 
recognizes the fact that each has responsibilities that cannot 
be performed unless the two of them work together.
    I suppose you could have perfect organizations and people 
who are not too good and you are not going to have very good 
organization or operation, and vice versa. You could have 
organizations that are not perfect, but if you have people who 
really care about it and are willing to force those issues 
through the bureaucracies it could work pretty darned well, and 
I just think that that is a start.
    Senator Allard. With this election, there was a lot of 
discussion about voting by members of the military, and I do 
not know whether you have given this any thought or not, but I 
was disturbed, I think as many members of this committee were 
disturbed about credible attempts to disqualify certain 
military votes, and most of these were due to hypertechnical 
kinds of reasons, but in the legal community they are real 
reasons, and I am wondering if you are going to give any 
thought about how it is that we can make sure that that problem 
does not get repeated again on military votes.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Senator, I have discussed this with the 
President-elect, and thought a bit about it. As you suggest, it 
is complicated because of the role the States play, and not one 
State but 50 States. I do think it is an enormously 
discouraging thing for people serving overseas in the United 
States Armed Forces to read in the paper that because there may 
not be a postmark or some other issue, that their vote might 
not be counted.
    It is just not fair, it is not right, and we have to figure 
out ways to do it, and I quite agree with you that if confirmed 
that the Secretary of Defense should address the issue and put 
in place some people to think that through and figure out what 
kinds of recommendations might be made so that there is a high 
confidence that the men and women in the Armed Services in fact 
vote and have their votes counted.
    Senator Allard. I just do not know that anybody has ever 
really thought through just how those ballots may be handled, 
getting from the base or where there will not be a post office 
or maybe even a postmark getting them to their State where the 
individual is registered to vote, so I appreciate your answer 
on that.
    On emerging threats, I think your 1998 ballistic missile 
report threat, you indicate there is an emerging threat and it 
is maturing more rapidly, and do you still believe the threat 
is emerging and maturing more rapidly, and also what do you 
perceive as our greatest threats?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Maturing more rapidly of course is relative. 
More rapidly than the international community at that time had 
anticipated, or had described. Our report, as you may recall, 
followed the 1995 NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate which 
Congress decided they wanted a second look at, so they 
empaneled the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission. We did take 
a look at it, and we came to a number of distinct disagreements 
with that National Intelligence Estimate.
    I do not think I would say it is currently evolving more 
rapidly than the intelligence community believes, because since 
our report we then followed it with an intelligence side letter 
to the international community, and Director Tenet empaneled 
the entire international community and we presented it, and 
they have been addressing the kinds of things that we 
suggested.
    My impression is that more recent NIEs have begun to take 
account of some of the suggestions made, and that I would 
think, if you dropped a plumb line through the international 
community today and asked where they are on this issue, I would 
think that they are probably a lot closer to where we were than 
they used to be.
    Senator Allard. I have not had a chance to completely 
review your Space Commission report, but from my briefings I am 
going to be, I think, pleased with its findings. One of the 
areas you talked about is vulnerability of our space assets, 
and I am wondering if you can comment about the vulnerability 
of our space assets and how you would manage that.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I have not had a chance to see the 
final report, either. I was asked to become the nominee and I 
had to resign from the commission, and the following days they 
have completed it and printed it and they are now in the 
process of briefing Members of the House and Senate and the 
executive branch on that report.
    Senator Warner. If I can interrupt, we are going to release 
it at 2:30, and I am going to absent myself to go over for a 
few minutes.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Adm. Dave Jeremiah, Steve Cambone, the staff 
director, other members of the commission are going to be doing 
that, but one of the things that became fairly clear is that we 
have seen a significant growth in the use of space assets for 
all kinds of things, clearly from a military standpoint but 
also from a civil governmental standpoint as well as a civilian 
private sector standpoint, and as you end up with this greater 
degree of dependence on these assets you obviously become more 
vulnerable to interruptions of those capabilities.
    I forget what the number is, but something like 70 or 80 or 
90 percent of the pagers in the country were out for a period 
because of an interruption on a Galaxy satellite. We know that 
Russia or former Russian republics are selling, in effect, 
hand-held jammers that can jam satellite signals. We know that.
    There is an organization in England that makes and puts in 
space microsatellites that have a variety of capabilities for 
lots of countries. They do it for--China has a relationship 
with them, and many other countries do as well, and if you are 
as dependent as our country is on space, you are, by 
definition, vulnerable, more vulnerable than others, and it 
seemed to the commission, unanimously, I might say, that that 
calls for attention on the part of our country to see that we 
have the ability to preserve those assets and defend the assets 
in a way that we could have reasonable assurance that we are 
going to not be dramatically inhibited, for example, in 
presidential leadership during a pre-crisis buildup, that we 
are going to be able to communicate with our military forces in 
a way that is appropriate in a conflict, to say nothing of the 
fact that our economy is so dependent today that significant 
economic disruptions could occur, and I am not just referring 
to space assets and space systems. I mean, ground stations as 
well as these systems.
    Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Thank 
you.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Allard follows:]
               Prepared Statement by Senator Wayne Allard
    Thank, you Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Rumsfeld, good morning and welcome to the committee. I 
enjoyed our meeting last week and during the course of today's hearing, 
I will broach a few of the issues we discussed.
    I again look forward to hearing your views on the many important 
subjects facing America and the military, but I hope the presence of 
the media means that all of America will be introduced to you and your 
achievements for the country. Further, I always look forward to any 
opportunity when we have a chance to publicly discuss the many crucial 
issues facing America's national security and military service members.
    Mr. Secretary, as we all know, for the last several years you have 
been involved with numerous commissions and studies, most notably your 
work on the ``Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the 
United States'', and most recently the Space Commission. I carefully 
studied the missile threat report, found it detailed, thoughtful, well 
researched, and credible. I have been operating with it in my mind 
whenever this committee deals with the missile defense issue. A new 
administration is seen by many as our only chance for fixing a critical 
flaw in our defense--a lack of NMD. Many of us are breathing a sigh of 
relief that we might finally be entering a phase of concrete actions. 
Better yet--actions with concrete.
    Your other recent project, the Space Commission, is also of great 
interest to myself and many others in Colorado. Colorado has a close 
connection to military and civilian satellite launch and control. We 
are aware of the competing needs of civilian, military and 
intelligence. I don't want to get into the report too much for it is to 
be released today. While I do not have all the details of the report 
but from the briefing I received earlier, I am encouraged by the 
findings and the forward thinking recommendations. I hope we can 
continue to work together on these issues.
    Finally, I note that at the press conference announcing your 
nomination, President Elect Bush mentioned that one of his defense 
goals was to ``strengthen the bond of trust between the American 
president and those who wear our Nation's uniform.'' There has been a 
real degradation in that area. I hope to see this rapidly addressed. I 
will bring up this issue later in my questions.
    Mr. Secretary, I look forward to your second tenure in the 
Pentagon. I hope we have a productive hearing today and have already 
concluded you run a tight ship. I am looking forward to hearing what 
your ``Rumsfeld's Rules'' might be.

    Chairman Levin. Thank you very much. Senator Landrieu is 
next.
    Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Congratulations 
on your nomination. I look forward to working with you through 
these hearings, and I just want to say that Senator Durbin's 
and Senator Fitzgerald's comments go a long way with me. They 
are a ringing endorsement, and my own personal knowledge of 
your good work.
    I just have a few questions. The first two have to deal 
with the nuclear policies of our Nation. In your opening 
statement, you made an excellent point about our need to invest 
more money and more resources in our defense. I could not agree 
with you more, and have a voting record to support that.
    We need to make sure our money is spent wisely and well, 
but the need to make new investments, to shore up our defenses 
and to modernize them I think are crucial, and so I want to 
commend you for that, and one of the ways that we will be able 
to do that, there are really only two ways to identify new 
moneys, or to redirect some of the moneys we are spending now 
in new ways to make that goal that you have stated actually 
come to pass, and of course one of the big cost drivers is our 
nuclear strategic defenses.
    Given that, and you are aware, because you served in this 
position before, that we are prohibited by law from falling 
below our START II levels, but we are coming upon several 
crucial and costly, and our underlying costly decision points, 
particularly regarding our Peacekeeper missile system, which 
the Defense Department has recommended that we move past, if 
you will.
    I believe that it would make sense for our Nation to 
establish a cost-effective and appropriate deterrent, 
independent of anything Russia may do, because they have 
already provisionally ratified the levels indicated by START 
II, but it does not comport with our law, and so my question 
is, do you believe that we need to hold to some artificially 
mandated level of nuclear weapons, or in light of our great 
need to find resources within our budget as well as add to 
them, that there is some potential here for not only strategic 
thinking but some good cost savings could be applied in other 
ways, and would you be willing to explore or to comment today 
about some of your thoughts regarding that?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I certainly agree with you, we are 
going to have to do both. We are going to have to find new 
dollars in nontrivial amounts, and we also have to see that the 
defense establishment functions in as cost-effective a way as 
is humanly possible, and that we find savings, and third, we 
are going to have to undoubtedly not do some things we have 
been doing, because the nature of our world has changed, and we 
are going to do some other things, and it certainly is at least 
logical, although I cannot tell you what that is, it is logical 
that we ought to be able to not keep on doing some of the 
things we have been doing.
    With respect to the numbers of weapons, it is not a subject 
that I have engaged since the announcement a week or so ago. 
The President-elect has commented on the subject of numbers of 
weapons. We know that the Russian systems are very likely to be 
declining in some numbers, apart from negotiations, apart from 
agreements, simply because of their economic circumstance.
    We also know that Russia is not the only nation in the 
world that one needs to be attentive to. The Chinese are 
increasing their--they have a very modest nuclear capability at 
the present time, but they are increasing their budget in 
double digits. They do have at least a publicly pronounced 
desire to be a factor in strategic nuclear weaponry.
    I do not know whether we can reduce or not. I suspect that 
that will be part of the review, and in what numbers. I am 
afraid that the likelihood is that any reduction--there is a 
minimum below which you can go and maintain the kind of target 
list that rational people think is appropriate. My guess is 
that there are very likely not a lot of savings in that, but I 
do not know that.
    Senator Landrieu. Well, I look forward to working with you 
on that, I think to be open to evaluate these questions from 
the bottom up, because it brings me actually to my next point, 
which is our targeting plan, which is our single integrated 
operational plan, our SIOP plan which actually lays out the 
nuclear targets and is one of the, for obvious reasons one of 
the most carefully guarded secrets of our Nation.
    I raise this issue to you today because one of our most 
distinguished departing Members, Senator Bob Kerrey, who served 
for many years on the Intelligence Committee, has been very 
frustrated publicly and privately. Many times publicly on the 
floor of the Senate and other places he has expressed his great 
concern, and I wanted to express it for him as if he were here 
today. This particular plan of targeting our nuclear weapons 
has been unavailable to be reviewed by the leadership of our 
committee, either Republican or Democrat, or even to the 
highest level of congressional Intelligence Committee members.
    While it is claimed under our law or rules that he has to 
have reason to know, he, as the highest ranking member, was not 
given the information in order to make rational decisions, 
exactly what you said about not only what can we afford, but 
what is an effective deterrent, what do we need to do to 
maintain the safety of our citizens.
    So my question would be, if you wanted to make a comment 
about it today, but at least could you assure this committee 
that you would be willing to work with the appropriate Members 
of Congress, and not all Members would be on an equal footing 
here, but the leadership of our committee and the Intelligence 
Committee members particularly, to jointly review that, because 
it has a direct bearing on the strategic posture that we either 
take or not take, and is driven by the target.
    So could you make a comment, please, for the record?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes. For the record, those are decisions that 
I think are the President's, and it is not for me to opine as 
to what extent, if at all, the current procedures ought to be 
changed.
    I do know that the U.S. plans are reviewed, admittedly by a 
very small number of people in the executive branch, the 
National command authorities. They are reviewed regularly. They 
are changed as circumstances change in the world. As you 
suggested, they are highly classified, and that is about all I 
can say.
    Senator Landrieu. My third question is, again commenting on 
your opening statement, on your phrase that you would like to 
try to help us develop weapons systems, I think--I do not know 
the exact term you used, but taken off the shelf as opposed to 
the more traditional ways we have developed, to try to get 
weapons systems more quickly and more cost-effectively. I would 
like to commend our current Under Secretary, Rudy de Leon, for 
suggesting that we apply that same principle to the Reserve 
units in trying to combat terrorism in cyber space, to actually 
be able to access the brain power of the American people by 
developing more strategic smart Reserve units instead of 
developing that intelligence within the Defense Department to 
actually, if you would, Mr. Secretary, be able to pull it off 
the shelf.
    So have you given any thought to perhaps strengthening our 
Reserves in this way, that we could get the best and the 
brightest minds in the United States to apply their great 
ability and intellect to help us to fight this new front in a 
smart, cost-effective way for the American people, and one that 
I think would tend to be more successful, perhaps, than the old 
ways that we are used to doing? Have you been briefed much 
about this, or know much about what I am suggesting?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I have not been briefed on it, and it is not 
a subject I have engaged personally. There is no question but 
that cyber attacks and information warfare are an exceedingly 
important subject for the country. They are important for the 
private sector. They are important for the Government. They are 
certainly important for the military. I had not addressed the 
subject as to what role the Reserves and the Guard might play 
in that, but it certainly is worth exploring.
    Senator Landrieu. My time has expired. I would just urge 
you to think about the strategy to solicit service from a core 
of very talented, well-skilled individuals to bring to bear the 
new abilities or talents we are going to need to fight the 
threats of the future.
    Thank you very much.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Landrieu.
    Senator Sessions.
    Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask a 
question, I wonder where we are on the possibility of moving 
this nomination? I think it would be well if we have as much 
support as it appears we have today for this extraordinary 
nominee I think the world would well receive the fact that we 
could promptly confirm him. Do you have any thoughts about how 
we could move this nomination, if there are no objections, as 
there appear to be? I think it would help the President-elect 
and his team to get started as early as possible.
    Chairman Levin. Technically, I think the nomination has to 
be submitted by the new President. I think the first thing he 
usually does after being sworn in is to sign a number of 
nomination sheets and nominate his Cabinet officers. The 
nomination then has to be received technically by the Senate. 
Then, I believe it will be Chairman Warner's plan at that time, 
probably the same day, but I do not want to speak for him, that 
we try to meet even on Inauguration Day, if possible, to act on 
and confirm, if we are ready at that point to act on and 
confirm.
    There is significant paperwork which we must go through. 
The nominee is working very hard on it with all of us. It has 
to be finished, too. I hope we can complete the hearing today, 
but there is no guarantee of that. It depends upon how many 
questions need to be asked that we have not had a chance to 
ask. That is our goal. I agree with your point, in any event 
even though it is not technically possible to even receive a 
nomination until Inauguration Day, or act on it. We will act 
promptly after we are legally able to act on this nomination, 
because it does have, indeed, broad bipartisan support.
    Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really believe 
we should move on that, and there might be some uncertainty in 
the world among those who--we had a prolonged election process, 
and I think it might be good for stability if we could move as 
promptly as possible.
    I remember, when I was back in college, at Huntington 
College where I attended, they introduced the old president as 
a president proven and the new one as a president challenged, 
and you are both a proven Secretary of Defense and a challenged 
Secretary of Defense, so we are delighted to have you here. I 
think your testimony has been superb. It is wise and thoughtful 
and strong, and I know you know there are some real challenges 
out there that have to be met.
    One thing I would say is that Senator Lieberman's comments 
really went to the heart of where we are, in my opinion. I 
think this Nation has a serious problem with our defense 
funding and structure, that in the past decade we have failed 
to maintain adequate funding streams. We are paying salaries 
and the like and that kind of thing, but really, recapitalizing 
the military has not occurred as it should, and I asked 
Secretary Cohen, your predecessor--who by the way was 
extraordinarily cooperative with this Senate.
    I was a new member of this committee and he just did a 
great job of being forthcoming and helpful, and I would ask you 
to do the same, and want to compliment him on the work that he 
did, but he said this in answer to a question of mine. He said, 
as I indicated before, Senator Sessions, ever since the height 
of the Cold War we have seen a tremendous decline in defense 
spending.
    This was last year, and many on this committee and 
throughout this body were urging a peace dividend, and we have 
been enjoying the fruits of that peace dividend, but it has 
come at the cost of relying on what President Reagan did in the 
1980s as far as the buildup. We have been living off that, and 
now we are at the point where we have to replace it.
    Do you understand what he is saying, and would you tend to 
agree with that?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I do, indeed. It is a surprise to me, when 
you think about it, but when I was Secretary of Defense I went 
to the roll-out for the F-16 and made the decision on the M-1 
tank and the B-1 bomber, and that was a long time ago.
    Senator Sessions. What we have is the question of how much 
needs to be spent. It is my understanding that the number of 
$45 billion that President Bush was reported to have estimated 
that he would have to spend in addition was based on several 
programs he intended to initiate, did not represent his full 
commitment to spending more for defense, but I think Senator 
Lieberman rightly suggests it is going to take a lot more than 
that and a lot more than the $100 billion over 10 years that 
was--and I think, Mr. Rumsfeld, that it--and I will ask you to 
respond to it, it is going to be your duty, and I think you 
have the credibility and the competence to evaluate this 
Defense Department to analyze the threats we are facing in the 
world, to comprehend what can be done technologically and how 
much money can be saved wherever it can be saved, and then I 
think it will be your duty to come back to this committee and 
use all the credibility that you have to sell this committee 
and this Nation on the amount of funding we are going to need 
to maintain the strength of the United States in the 21st 
century.
    How would you respond to that?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. First, your understanding of President-elect 
Bush's comments about budget are exactly mine, that he 
identified some particular things he wanted to see funded. He 
priced them, and he mentioned the price tag. I do not believe 
that he suggested that that was the totality of what he had in 
mind, because he was asked for a defense review and promised 
that as well, and that is something that of course has not been 
done, and until that has been done, it is clearly not possible 
to come up with the numbers.
    I think second, with respect to the numbers, I do not know 
what the number is, but I have an impression that goes not to 
the total number over the 5-year period, but the impression is 
that we need some money up-front, and we may very well have to 
come back with a supplemental or something that would indicate 
the needs that exist now so that--because there have been 
things that have been pushed off, as has been mentioned here, 
for example, the shipbuilding budget and some other things, 
science and technology and others that have been mentioned.
    Senator Sessions. There has been a lot put off and, in 
fact, we had testimony from one official, one General on 
research and development. He used the phrase, we are eating our 
seed corn. I am now looking at a National Association for the 
Advancement of Science survey, historical table on the amount 
of money spent for research and development. Since 1989 in real 
dollars, not inflated dollars, in actual dollars, the amount of 
DOD research has dropped 20 percent, while other research in 
nondefense departments and agencies are up 50 percent. Senator 
Bingaman raised that point.
    I really do believe that we got squeezed to pay for lights, 
to pay for salaries. We were cutting, eating our seed corn. We 
were cutting back on things that are going to come back to 
haunt us and are going to cost us more money today than it 
would have if we had started on a 6 or 8-year program of 
research and development.
    One more thing and I will give up this questioning. One 
expert has said that the post-Cold War, the references to the 
post-Cold War foreign policy are really a statement, an 
admission that we have not developed a post-Cold War foreign 
policy. Is it your opinion, briefly, that we do need to develop 
a more comprehensive foreign policy in this post-Cold War 
environment that the American people and this Congress can 
rally behind?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I certainly agree, but by agreeing I do not 
want to suggest that it is easy. There are some who look at our 
current period and characterize it as a transition out of the 
Cold War into something that is still ahead. There are others 
who suggest that possibly history might indicate that this is 
it, that we are not transitioning to something else, but what 
we are in now is what we will be in for a period, and that if 
that is true, and I am certainly not one who can suggest that I 
know the answer, but if it is true, it puts a much greater 
urgency on fashioning policies and standards and some flags we 
can plant down ahead so that we as a country can point 
directionally and know how to arrange ourselves to function and 
live with a maximum degree of safety and stability during that 
period.
    Senator Sessions. Thank you.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
    Senator Byrd.
    Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, you have been around this 
track before, and I appreciate your presence here today, and I 
compliment the President-elect on nominating you. Certainly it 
is my present intention to support you.
    My time is brief, and so I will get right into a question. 
The Department of Defense continues to confront pervasive and 
complex management problems due to its inadequate financial 
management systems. This can greatly diminish the efficiency of 
the military services operations.
    Since 1995, the DOD's financial management has been on the 
General Accounting Office's list of high-risk areas vulnerable 
to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. While the Department 
has made progress in a number of areas of its financial 
management operations, no major part of DOD's operations has 
yet been able to pass the test of an independent financial 
audit.
    The Chief Financial Officers' Act of 1990, as amended by 
the Federal Financial Management Act of 1994 requires the 
Department of Defense to prepare annual audited financial 
statements. Nevertheless, 10 years after the enactment of the 
CFO Act of 1990, the Department of Defense has yet to receive a 
clean audit opinion on its financial statements.
    A recent article in the Los Angeles Times, written by a 
retired vice admiral and a civilian employee in the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense, accused the Secretary of Defense of 
being unable to account for the funds that Congress 
appropriates to it. The authors wrote, and I quote in part, 
quote, the Pentagon's books are in such utter disarray that no 
one knows what America's military actually owns or spends. That 
is the close of my extract.
    The thrust of this Los Angeles Times article is backed up 
by the DOD's own Inspector General's financial audit for fiscal 
year 1999. I have a copy of that here in my hand. I assume you 
have seen it.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I have not. I cannot even say I look forward 
to seeing it. [Laughter.]
    Senator Byrd. Well, I will look forward to hearing what you 
have to say about it after you have seen it. [Laughter.]
    That audit report found that out of $7.6 trillion in 
Department-level accounting interest, $2.3 trillion in entries 
either did not contain adequate documentation or were 
improperly reconciled, or were made to force buyer and seller 
data to agree.
    This DOD IG report is very disturbing. Last year, according 
to the General Accounting Office, the Pentagon reported that it 
did not expect to have the necessary assistance in place to be 
able to prepare financial statements for 3 more years. That was 
last year. We are now advised that the Pentagon is currently 
telling the Office of Management and Budget that it will take 
them until the year 2005 or 2006.
    Now, I also note in the Washington Post of January 9, 2001, 
this sentence, which I extract from an article titled, ``Bush 
Talks Defense with Key Members of Congress.'' Here is the 
sentence: The chiefs of the Armed Services have said that they 
need a budget increase of more than $50 billion a year to 
modernize their forces. That figure dwarfs the $4.5 billion in 
added defense spending proposed by Bush during the campaign.
    Now, if the Pentagon cannot account for what it is doing 
this year, how can it hope to improve its operations next year? 
As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, thank God, now for 
17 days----[Laughter.]
    I seriously question an increase in the Pentagon budget, 
and in the face of the Department's recent Inspector General's 
report how can we seriously consider a $50 billion increase in 
the defense budget when DOD's own auditors say the Department 
cannot account for $2.3 trillion in transactions in 1 year 
alone?
    Now, $2.3 trillion I would readily assume is a large amount 
of money. According to my old style math, there have been 1 
billion minutes, give or take a little, it will not make much 
difference, since Jesus Christ was born, 1 billion minutes, and 
according to that same old math, $2.3 trillion, which the 
Department cannot account for in 1 year alone, would amount to 
$2,300 per minute for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. 
Now perhaps we can begin to understand the magnitude of $2.3 
trillion.
    So why is this happening? Of course, I would not expect you 
to be able to answer that question. The state of affairs did 
not occur on your watch, but you are inheriting it. Now, my 
question to you is, Mr. Secretary, what do you plan to do about 
this?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Decline the nomination. [Laughter.]
    Chairman Levin. We will stand adjourned in that case. 
[Laughter.]
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Senator, I have heard some of that and read 
some of that, that the Department is not capable of auditing 
its books. It is--I was going to say, terrifying. It is such a 
monumental task. I have met with two former officials of the 
Pentagon who served in the budget and control areas, and I have 
mused over the fact that I have read some of these things and 
asked what they thought.
    One insight that I got was that to a certain extent the 
financial systems have been fashioned and designed to report on 
requirements that they receive from various organizations and 
they have not been fashioned and designed for financial 
management the way you would in a corporation. I do not know 
whether that is a useful insight or not, but it is something 
that is rattling around in my head, and certainly something 
that I think--I doubt, to be honest, that people inside the 
Department are going to be capable of sorting this out.
    I have a feeling it is going to take some folks from 
outside to come in and look at this and put in place a process 
that over a period--and I regret to say, but I have seen how 
long things take. I think it is going to take a period of years 
to sort it out, and it will probably take the cooperation of 
Congress to try to get the system so that you can actually 
manage the financial aspects of that institution, rather than 
simply report on things that have happened imperfectly.
    That is not a satisfactory answer, but I hear you. I 
recognize the problem and, if it is not solved, I hope at least 
that when I leave, if I am confirmed, that it will be better 
than it was when I came in.
    Senator Byrd. My time is up, but Mr. Secretary, I have 
every confidence in you. I think I have the duty to request and 
to urge, and I am sure that my colleagues on both sides here 
join me, and I am sure as well that you do, because you have 
indicated the enormity of the task, and I think this may have 
come, perhaps, not as a surprise to you, but you have not seen 
it. Will you pledge to make balancing the Pentagon's books a 
topmost priority? The simple answer is yes, but I would like to 
hear your answer.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I do not know that I can assure you it 
will be the topmost priority, but it will certainly be among 
the top priorities. It simply must be done for the National 
security interests of the country, as well as from the 
standpoint of the taxpayers of the country.
    Senator Byrd. Absolutely, and let me close by saying that, 
as an appropriator, I cannot have much confidence in the budget 
request when we have such a track record as we see here, and 
the Joint Chiefs come up here and ask for $50 billion, even 
$4.5 billion more, whatever it is. I, as an appropriator, and I 
would think every member of the Appropriations Committee, would 
have to look with a jaundiced eye, perhaps not on some specific 
items, with which they are perhaps more acquainted, but with 
the overall--it is a terrible record, and it is preposterous 
that the Defense Department does not know what has happened to 
this money.
    But I thank you for your testimony, and I hope you will do 
everything you can to set this thing in order and put the 
Pentagon's house in order in this regard.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Byrd. Senator Collins.
    Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rumsfeld, I 
want to start by echoing the praise of my colleagues in 
congratulating you on your appointment, which I hope very much 
that you will not decline, and to also commend the President-
elect for making such an outstanding choice.
    I want to start with a comment before going to a couple of 
other issues, and I want to follow up with the exchange you had 
with Senator Kennedy, in that I share both yours and Senator 
Kennedy's concerns about the current shipbuilding rates. They 
do not support the goal of a 300-ship naval fleet, as 
identified by the last QDR and the Clinton administration's 
defense budgets have been gradually taking the Navy not toward 
a 300-ship Navy but ultimately toward a considerably smaller 
fleet.
    To make the challenge confronting the new administration 
and the new Congress even more stark, even a 300-ship Navy has 
been increasingly recognized as inadequate to meet the 
increased operational and deployment requirements that we face. 
In addition, recent press reports indicate that the DD-21, the 
Navy's revolutionary new destroyer program, may be among the 
Pentagon programs most at risk of procurement budget cuts.
    Now, I know from our brief conversation that you have not 
yet had an opportunity to review specific procurement programs, 
but I do want to express my concern about the direction that 
shipbuilding is heading, or has been heading in, and seek your 
commitment to reverse that direction, and to look to increasing 
our shipbuilding budget. I believe you gave that kind of 
commitment to Senator Kennedy in your earlier exchange, is that 
correct?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Indeed, I share your interest and concern, 
and if we are each year building fewer ships than are necessary 
to maintain the kind of Navy that this country needs, then we 
are damaging ourselves, and we are damaging our national 
security.
    Senator Collins. Thank you. I look forward to working with 
you closely in that area.
    Last month, Mr. Rumsfeld, I accompanied Secretary of 
Defense Bill Cohen on a holiday trip to visit our servicemen 
and women in Kosovo and Bosnia. We brought with us entertainers 
such as the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, which I will readily 
concede the servicemen were far more interested in talking to 
than they were in talking to United States Senators and Members 
of Congress.
    Nevertheless, I did have the opportunity to speak with 
members of our active duty components, as well as reservists 
and members of the National Guard who were stationed in Bosnia 
and Kosovo, and while morale generally appeared to be high, I 
nevertheless heard many accounts of the effects of the 
increased operational tempo on the lives of those who are 
serving, their families and, in the case of reservists and 
guardsmen, their employers.
    I was concerned about what I heard, because of the 
implications for retaining and recruiting men and women to 
serve in the military. For example, I spoke to one young 
Reservist from my home State who had returned to his family 
after an assignment in the Middle East, only to be called on 
again to be sent to the Balkans.
    In addition, a young naval officer from my home State 
recently resigned after 12 years in the Navy because continuous 
9-month periods of sea duty proved too great a burden on his 
growing family.
    I am told that the Army is currently considering reducing 
its overseas assignments to periods of 120-days, and that other 
services, including the Guard and the Reserves, may adopt 
similar models. I realize that this issue really ties to the 
underlying issue of peacekeeping forces and these daunting and 
protracted missions we have undertaken, but I wonder if you 
support looking at ways that we can ease the burden on our 
young men and women who are serving so far from home for such 
protracted periods.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, indeed. In any organization that does 
not use conscription or force to have people work there you 
have to fashion the sort of incentives that will enable you to 
attract and retain the people you need to run that activity in 
an efficient and cost-effective way. I do not know what the 
number is, but I think it was Senator McCain who mentioned the 
attrition rates with respect to our young captains. I think it 
is something like 12, 13, 14 percent.
    My goodness. That has to tell anybody that we are doing 
something wrong. We simply cannot have that kind of churning 
when you train and develop and have this fine talent and then 
lose it. It costs so much to bring people through the intake, 
bring them along, get them experience, train them, and then you 
lose them, and so we have to arrange ourselves so that we have 
a high confidence that we can attract and retain the people we 
need, and that is a mixture of things.
    It is a mixture of how they feel about their Government, 
and how they feel about the defense establishment. It is partly 
how their families are functioning and whether or not they feel 
that they are able to do what they need to do for their 
families. As you suggested, the operations tempo can be a 
difficult thing, time away from families. It is pay, it is 
health, it is education, it is a whole host of things, 
opportunity, and it is also feeling that the country cares and 
appreciates what they have done and what they are doing.
    Senator Collins. You are absolutely right about that, and I 
did in my discussions with the young men and women whom I met--
I was so impressed with their pride and their professionalism, 
their dedication to their jobs, and many of them want to stay 
in the service, or they want to continue in the Guard, and we 
need to figure out ways to deal with the very real family 
concerns they have, and I appreciate the fact that you 
obviously acknowledge that and are committed to looking at 
that.
    I want to raise quickly just one final issue. The Defense 
Department has for years tried to take steps to reduce the 
physical and electronic security, or the vulnerability of its 
communications satellites, but in recent conflicts such as 
Kosovo, and even in peacetime, it is my understanding that the 
military has come to depend more and more heavily upon 
commercial communications satellites.
    It seems to me the Defense Department needs a stronger 
effort to work with the private sector and other appropriate 
parties to improve the safety, not just of our military 
satellite communication links, but of civilian ones as well, 
and I would be interested in knowing whether this is a priority 
area for you and whether you have any plans in this regard.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. It is an area of interest to me. I am 
certainly not an expert. We do know that commercial 
capabilities in this area have for the most part no hardening 
or no ability to survive mischief and attacks. We also know 
that properly, in my view, the United States Government, 
including the military, are using more and more and should use 
more and more civilian capabilities for communications, for 
imagery, for a variety of things. It is efficient. They are 
good at it.
    On the other hand, we have to be certain that we have 
secure systems so that we are not blinded at critical times. It 
is an area that I do intend to interest myself in, and I thank 
you for bringing it up.
    Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Senator Collins, thank you.
    Senator Akaka.
    Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, before the Senator responds, 
may I ask consent that the audit report to which I referred in 
my questions be included in the record, report number D-2000-
179, dated August 18, 2000?
    Chairman Levin. It will be made a part of the record.
    [The information referred to follows:]
      
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Levin. Senator Akaka.
    Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask my opening statement be placed in the 
record.
    Chairman Levin. It will be.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]
             Prepared Statement by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am honored to join the committee for today's hearing. I want to 
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing me with the opportunity to 
participate today.
    I look forward to working with you and Senator Warner and the other 
distinguished members on this committee to address issues involving our 
National Security and our Armed Forces, beginning with the confirmation 
hearing for the Secretary of Defense.
    The Department of Defense has a substantial impact on my home State 
of Hawaii. We proudly have military installations from every Armed 
Service branch in the State of Hawaii.
    We have traditionally had a very good relationship with the United 
States military, and I look forward to continuing to work with the 
Department of Defense in fostering these relationships.
    I am familiar with Mr. Rumsfeld's experience, accomplishments and 
impressive record, including his service as the chair of the U.S. 
Ballistic Missile Threat Commission.
    I look forward to hearing more from Mr. Rumsfeld on his vision for 
our Nation's security and military preparedness, and again, I thank my 
colleagues on the committee for welcoming me to participate today.

    Senator Akaka. Mr. Chairman, we are sitting in this hearing 
with a man who has had tremendous experience, and has had lots 
of confidence given by others, and is now being considered for 
Defense Secretary. After reading your bio, I think that this is 
the kind of person we would expect much from because of your 
experience. I think, talking about deals, I think we have a 
good deal in hand with you.
    In the Pacific and in other areas, we have had some issues, 
and besides issues of appropriate funding, issues of the 
criteria for the deployment of U.S. troops, and necessary 
situations. There have been issues in the community regarding 
encroachment, including the importance of dealing with 
communities surrounding military installations and training 
ranges, and the environmental constraints on training ranges.
    I must tell you that in Hawaii we have had over the years, 
as long as I can remember, very, very good relationships with 
the military. We work well together. We live well together. We 
respect the leadership of the military, and they have helped us 
out in many ways.
    Now, they have really tried to deal with our communities as 
well, so encroachment is an issue. I understand you intend to 
deal with these issues in a more comprehensive and systematic 
fashion, and that you are open to work with all parties 
involved, so my question to you is, how do you intend to 
implement a more comprehensive approach to these issues?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I wish I had an answer that represented 
a solution to the problems. As you properly point out, not just 
in the United States, including Puerto Rico, and Japan, and in 
other parts of the world where the United States Armed Forces 
has a presence there are pressures and difficulties that run to 
this issue that is characterized as encroachment.
    I do not know the way the encroachment goes, whether the 
base is encroaching or the community is encroaching on the 
base, which happens to be historically the case in most 
instances, but it is a problem that is real, it is serious. The 
United States needs bases, it needs ranges, it needs test 
ranges, and it cannot provide the training and the testing that 
people need before they go into battle unless those kinds of 
facilities are available, and each year that goes by there are 
greater and greater pressures on them.
    Admittedly, I suspect, and I do not know enough to say, but 
I suspect that, as with many things, there are ways that 
technology can assist us in these areas that will enable the 
military to do things that they need to do that they used to do 
physically that they will be able to do with computers and 
various other types of technologies. Certainly that is true 
with all kinds of simulations and what-have-you, but you cannot 
do everything, and you do need to do live fire for people 
before they go into battle to have some sense of what that is 
like.
    I am afraid it is not so much a problem as a fact of our 
times that, not to be solved, but to be coped with over a 
period of time. I think it is going to be a constant pressure 
on the defense establishment, and all we can do is our best.
    Senator Akaka. I was glad to hear your commitment to 
research and development, and how you feel about not standing 
still, or static, but in order to move ahead we must move into 
areas like that.
    You also mentioned in your response to Senator Kennedy the 
book on the Corona satellite program. I feel that space and the 
military, of course, can work so much together. What role, if 
any, do you see for the new commercial satellite imaging 
industry to supplement our classified systems?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. My impression is that the United States 
Government, including the military, will and should be 
increasingly using commercially available capabilities, 
satellite capabilities. Whether it is communications or 
imagery, there are a great many instances when you could take 
available off-the-shelf products and services of the type and 
use them to great effect.
    Senator Akaka. I know you are well-versed in missile 
defense. In your response to the committee's advance policy 
questions you state, before deploying a national defense, 
missile defense, a factor to be considered is, and I quote, 
``the urgency of the ballistic missile threat to the United 
States.'' How do you assess the urgency of that threat now, and 
has it changed since the Rumsfeld Commission report?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. The Ballistic Missile Threat Commission I 
think have the subject right, and I think that has been agreed 
to by both Secretary Cohen and by others. What has happened in 
the intervening 2 years is that time has passed. Proliferation 
has continued. People have advanced in their development 
programs of missiles and weapons of mass destruction.
    I do not believe it possible to stop the proliferation of 
things we do not want proliferated. I think we ought to try, 
and we ought to work hard at it, but the reality is today that 
in this relaxed environment, and so much available on the 
Internet, and so many people willing to sell almost anything 
for a price, that we have to learn to live in that world, and 
we are capable of living in that world. There is no question 
but that we can do it, and so I think that time passes, and 
capabilities grow.
    Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. My time is up. I just 
want you to know that you have my support.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
    Senator Bunning.
    Senator Bunning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first want to 
say that I am honored to serve with all of the other people on 
this committee, this esteemed Senate Armed Services Committee. 
It has been a promise I made to my constituents, and a desire 
of mine since coming to the Senate 2 years ago, to serve on 
this great committee, and I am very happy to be here.
    Second, Secretary Rumsfeld, welcome. It is good to see you. 
Assuming you are confirmed as the next Secretary of Defense, I 
am looking forward to working with you and your Department of 
Defense.
    Of course, the United States has the strongest military in 
the world. There is no arguing that fact. However, our biggest 
challenge may be to keep it strong, and to redefine it in this 
new century.
    It has been said that our military is stressed, 
overdeployed, and underfunded. Many talk of the last 10 years 
as the decade of decline for our military. I hope you find it 
not to be true.
    I look forward to this committee and Congress working with 
you to take on the tough issues regarding missile defense, the 
readiness of our military, particularly recruitment and 
retention, and the overall wellbeing and safety of our 
citizens, soldiers, and Nation.
    Over the past 8 years, I have watched generals and officers 
come before this committee and testify about the readiness and 
overall strength of the military. Time and facts have proven 
that they were either ill-informed or not giving Congress the 
full picture as to what really was happening, for whatever 
reasons, with our military.
    I simply ask you that you urge those under your watch to 
tell us the truth, the good, the bad, and sometimes the ugly, 
for only with the truth can we help to shape a military through 
policy and funding that is strong and ready to protect this 
Nation with peace through strength throughout the world.
    Now, I am looking forward to working with you. As I stated, 
over the last 8 years many generals have testified before this 
committee regarding the overall readiness, strength, and 
quality of our military. Time and facts have proven the 
generals were either ill-informed or not fully up-front with 
the committee, and things turned out worse than they had 
testified. Therefore, we in Congress made decisions about 
funding and policy based on the words of those generals. What 
will you do to make sure that this does not happen again under 
your watch?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I suppose for one thing, if I find that 
people are telling Congress something that is not so, you will 
not find them back up here telling Congress anything.
    Senator Bunning. We can count on that?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, sir.
    Senator Bunning. Senator Allard talked about this, but I 
think it needs to be reiterated, about the military ballots, 
particularly voting by our soldiers on bases. We know that 
there was a proposal to not allow our military to vote on 
bases, and Congress stopped that and allowed it to happen for 
one more year.
    I would like to ask you the question if you think that is 
the right or wrong thing to do, that we continue to extend the 
privilege to our military to vote on base?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I do not know enough about it to answer. I am 
not an attorney. I do not know the extent to which State law 
governs, and I am simply not current, and I should be, and I 
will get current.
    Senator Bunning. Can you give me a general idea about your 
thinking about military people voting on bases, if it is legal?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. If it is legal, sure. I just do not know 
enough about the legalities, but I think that in our country we 
like to have people participate in the elections of our 
country, and certainly people who are serving in the Armed 
Services ought to be treated at least equally in terms of 
having an opportunity to vote.
    To the extent the defense establishment can find ways to 
facilitate the ease of that voting, I think we ought to try to 
do that, and to the extent we cannot because of legalities, I 
think it is perfectly proper to recommend to other entities, 
whether it is the White House or State and local governments, 
that this is our view and we would hope that they would take 
steps to provide so that men and women of the Armed Forces can, 
in fact, vote.
    Senator Bunning. This is a more localized question. This is 
about Fort Knox, which is a training and doctrine post, and the 
U.S. Army Recruiting Command is located there as well. When 
initial entry trainees come to Recruiting Command at Fort Knox 
they see 50-year-old barracks that are run down and literally 
patched together. Fort Knox has the oldest entry training 
barracks in the Army, with no barracks being built since before 
the Korean War.
    Despite that fact, Knox has been absent on TRADOC's list of 
recommended posts to receive new training barracks or a 
Starbase complex which integrates barracks, classrooms, and 
dining facilities and other soldier components. How will you go 
about assessing the condition of trainee barracks in 
recommending new construction of training barracks complexes 
for the Army?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I suppose the first thing to do would 
be to try and see if we can find the best possible people to 
serve in the posts of leadership in the Army that share the 
concern you have expressed about the circumstances of these 
barracks. That is a part of the broader question we were 
talking about earlier.
    This establishment will not function if we do not have 
talented people, and talented people are simply not going to 
accept an environment for themselves and their families and a 
circumstance that drives them away from the military. We need 
people who we can attract and retain, and who are proud to be 
there and available to be there.
    Senator Bunning. My last question, I read in your answers 
to the committee policy questions that you cannot fully give 
your opinion on whether you do or do not support another round 
of base closures because you are awaiting the DOD's next 
defense review. I have been seeking answers as to whether or 
not the last round of BRAC has saved money, or whether or not 
we have reduced our strength and readiness. I have never 
received any real answers with numbers either way.
    We all know the policies of BRAC, but I hope in your tenure 
as Secretary of Defense you can illustrate to us the realities 
and simple facts as to how past base closures and possible 
future ones have and will affect the taxpayers and the 
military, because no one has ever shown me actual numbers on 
the actual savings of the last BRAC, so before I ever look at 
anything new I want to see the old.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I am sure that there must be data. My 
general impression on the subject is that there is no question 
but that savings result from adjusting base structures to fit 
force structures. There is also no question but that they tend 
not to occur in the first or second year. They tend to come out 
over a period of time, so there is a cost factor. There is also 
a factor of military efficiency, and both benefit, the former 
being somewhat more easy to quantify than the latter.
    Senator Bunning. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Bunning.
    Senator Nelson.
    Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome this 
opportunity to appear at today's confirmation hearing, even 
though my membership on the committee is not fully official, 
and should I serve on the committee I would be honored to be a 
part, and I look forward to it.
    I have been tremendously impressed, Mr. Rumsfeld, with your 
knowledge of the whole subject of national defense, your 
concern about readiness, your concern about budget realities, 
the external and internal security risks, and those 
unpredictable circumstances which are always there, and at this 
point in time virtually every question that could be asked 
seems as though it has been asked, and I do not want to be 
redundant, but there are a couple of questions that I would 
like to ask you.
    First of all, I think it was Senator Cleland who mentioned 
that defense does not poll very high among the public. Maybe 
that is because the public seems to be falsely secure when we 
are not. There are different kinds of threats today, as you 
have indicated, and there are limited resources to deal with 
those threats, so my first question is, do you have some plans 
that would engage and raise the public awareness and interest 
in the importance of the kind of defense we need to provide for 
today's world to get more resources and more money to be 
supported for national defense?
    It is always a challenge when there are limited resources 
and seem to be unlimited demands in all kinds of areas, and I 
wonder if you do have some specific plans to make the public 
far more aware of the need for these increased resources.
    The second question is, it has been often said that someone 
who takes on a new challenge can bring to it one big idea, and 
while you have been very generous with your thoughts about all 
of the realities that we are dealing with and what you propose 
to do, to the extent that you know at the present time, I would 
like to ask, do you have one big idea, and if you do, what is 
it? You can choose which order you prefer to respond.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, let me just make a comment on the first 
point you have posed while I think about the second. With 
respect to the first, I do not think there is any one person 
who is going to help our country and, indeed, our allies as 
well fully understand what needs to be done and why. It is a 
task that takes a lot of people, multiple centers of leadership 
in Europe and Asia and in this Congress, in the executive 
branch.
    I give President-elect Bush high marks on the 
pronouncements he has made with respect to national defense, 
and I think that that is a good start. That bully pulpit of the 
White House is an important place, and we need leadership there 
that is sensitive to these issues and concerned about them.
    We all know that history is filled with instances where 
people were surprised. There were plenty of signals, plenty of 
warnings, plenty of cautions, but they were not taken aboard. 
They did not register. They were not sufficient to cause a 
person to act on those concerns. It was not that the 
information was not there. It just did not register.
    It happens to people in businesses. They go along, and 
pretty soon they do not see all those warning signs out there 
and they do not act on it. We see it in families when a 
youngster goes wrong, and when do you step in and do something, 
or try to do something?
    We know that the thing that tends to register on people is 
fear, and we know that that tends to happen after there is a 
Pearl Harbor. It tends to happen after there is a crisis, and 
that is too late for us. We have to be smarter than that. We 
have to be wiser than that. We have to be more forward-looking.
    So I would throw that back and say, it is going to take 
you, and it is going to take every member of this committee, 
and it is going to take Presidents, and it is going to take our 
friends in other countries to make sure that we understand that 
it is a world full of hope and opportunity, but it is also a 
world filled with dangers, and there are different kinds, and 
we need to be attentive to them, and I think we can be wise 
enough to do that.
    There is a wonderful book on Pearl Harbor by Roberta 
Wohlstetter, and a forward by Dr. Schelling, that talks about 
this problem of seeing things happen and not integrating them 
in your mind and saying, yes, we need to be doing something 
about that now, that I reread periodically because it is so 
important.
    As to a single big idea, I do not know, but it may be this. 
It may be that one of the biggest things we have to do is what 
I mentioned earlier, and that is, recognize that the deterrence 
of the Cold War worked. Those deterrents very likely will not 
work as well or as broadly as we will need during the period of 
this era of globalization, or post-Cold War period, or whatever 
we are going to end up calling it, that the problems are 
different, and the demands will be different, and that we as a 
people have an obligation to be smart enough to think about 
those things and to see that we get arranged as a defense 
establishment with our allies so that in fact we dissuade 
people from doing things.
    We do not want to win wars, we want to prevent them. We 
want to be so powerful and so forward-looking that it is clear 
to others that they ought not to be damaging their neighbors 
when it affects our interests, and they ought not to be doing 
things that are imposing threats and dangers to us, and I think 
we can do that, but I think it is going to take some fresh 
thinking.
    Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson.
    Next, under our early bird rule, is Senator Dayton.
    Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 
thank you very much for your support in my obtaining a spot on 
this esteemed committee. I understand Senator Warner's dismay 
about the expansion of the membership after seeing how long it 
takes to move once around the cycle here.
    Senator Warner. I did not express dismay, I expressed 
appreciation to so many Senators wanting to come on. In years 
past we used to be like the old Navy. We went out and pressed 
them out of the bars and dragged them in. [Laughter.]
    Chairman Levin. He was not referring to Senators in bars, 
by the way.
    Senator Dayton. As you can see, if you were to cut it any 
finer, I would be the one who would be cut off, but feeling my 
lofty 100th position in seniority I can see I am going to be 
sitting at the end of a lot of tables for the next couple of 
years.
    But Mr. Rumsfeld, I join with the others in congratulating 
you for your willingness to take on this huge responsibility. 
Your career in both the public sector and the private sector is 
certainly admirable, and as a citizen and a public servant I 
think to combine those careers with the longevity of years is 
extraordinary, and I wish you well, and I do not presume to 
have the expertise that my colleagues here or you have, so my 
questions are inquisitory, not meant to be presumptive.
    I know that you said in your opening statement, you talked 
about the timetable, the cycle time for the development of new 
major projects, now 8, 9 years, and how that pace has slowed 
while technology has accelerated. To what do you attribute that 
lengthening delay, and what would you think might be some of 
the approaches to improving it?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. It is interesting to me that this is the 
case. We have seen in the sixties things could go from concept 
to deployment in a very short period of time. They had much 
more flexibility with respect to acquisition.
    There was much greater secrecy, and there was much greater 
urgency, quote-unquote, perceived urgency which allowed much 
more flexibility in acquisition rules and much greater secrecy, 
so at a time when those numbers have gone from a year or 2 to 8 
or 9, and in a period when technologies--in those days took 5, 
10, 8 years to change.
    Today they are changing in a year, so you have those two 
things conspiring to produce equipment that when it is there is 
not the most advanced possible. There has to be a way to 
shorten that process.
    Business is finding ways to do it. Silicon Valley has 
dozens of ways to do it. I do not know, beyond what I have 
said, that in some cases I think you leapfrog systems, but in 
other cases I think you probably keep platforms and leapfrog 
elements of that and provide flexibility as advanced 
technologies come along.
    We are going to have to do it. We cannot simply be spending 
money to produce things that are going to be behind the curve. 
We have to find ways to do it.
    It sure will not be Don Rumsfeld that will figure it out, 
but if I am lucky we will find people who are smart enough and 
a lot smarter than I am to put down and screw their head into 
it and then come up to Congress and talk about how we can 
adjust these systems so that they will work in the environment 
we are in, which is much more rapidly paced.
    Senator Dayton. It has certainly done a lot for Minnesota 
business. The difficulty and the length of time and the 
cumbersome procurement requirements, bidding contracts, 
procedures, anything that can be done it seems to me to reduce 
by two-thirds or more the amount of paperwork requirements and 
therefore the timetables involved will benefit the private 
sector as well as the Government.
    Perhaps related to that, you talked also about the need to 
try to have the technological systems of the various services 
better coordinated. You talked about, I think your phrase was, 
borne jointly, where they would start again, given the 
disparity of the services and the contracting procedures, like, 
how realistically are you going to effectuate it. I cannot get 
my Washington office computers and my Minnesota office 
computers joint at this point yet, so when you talk about the 
complexity of what you are doing, isn't that problem going to 
get worse?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I am having the same problem with my 
computers, but it could. I mean, we have to see that the 
services can talk to each other. They simply must be able to do 
that, and the effort that occurred really well after my watch 
on, quote, jointness, has I think made strides in that 
direction.
    But I mean, your point about the private sector, the 
Government of the United States has not been a good customer. 
We have not been a good interactor with the defense industry. 
It is not an accident. The last time I looked the three top 
defense contractors in size, Boeing and Raytheon and Lockheed, 
had a market cap that was less than Wal-Mart. Now, why is that? 
Because doing business with the Government is not a great deal.
    Senator Dayton. I might prefer that you stick with the 
analogy of Target, but I would not quarrel with you. 
[Laughter.]
    In your response to the questions you were asked about the 
international criminal court, and particularly the Rome Accord. 
You said you opposed it. Is it that you oppose that concept in 
the entirety, or oppose the particular framework of the Rome 
Accord? What is your position, sir?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I do not have the letter I signed along with 
George Shultz and a host of Republicans and Democrats 
expressing our concern about that, but if I am not mistaken 
President Clinton has recently signed that and announced he was 
not going to send it to the Senate, is that correct? I think 
that is right.
    Again, I am not an international lawyer, but my view of it 
was that it posed a risk to the men and women in the Armed 
Services that they could be doing the bidding of the United 
States Government and the United States Senate and be hauled 
before an international court for war crimes, and it concerned 
me, and it concerned a whole series of former Secretaries of 
State and Secretaries of Defense, which is the reason we signed 
the letter.
    The current status of the situation as I understand it is 
that the President has signed it and said that he had concerns 
about it and was not going to send it to the Senate for 
ratification. I am further advised that a signed agreement like 
that, even though not ratified, has standing, standing in the 
sense that if you sign it and it is not ratified, you take unto 
yourself the obligation not to undermine it and to support it 
and to behave reasonably in accordance with it. That concerns 
me, so I am uncomfortable with the position that President 
Clinton has taken.
    I am not the nominee for Secretary of State, nor am I the 
President-elect. It is up to them to take--in the National 
Security Council context to consider this, and my understanding 
is that President-elect Bush has indicated that is what will 
happen, that he will not send it up either, but whether or not 
he wants to leave it stand I think is an issue that the 
National Security Council would engage at some point in the 
future, and I would need to know a lot more than I currently 
know.
    Senator Dayton. My time has expired. Just quickly, we are 
sending you up there with all of the responsibilities, all this 
good advice. We talked just before this afternoon about your 
going there essentially by yourself. What can this committee do 
to help you get underway most productively over the next couple 
of months?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. If I get through this process and it looks 
like I am going to be confirmed, then the next order of 
business is twofold. One is to get briefed up by the fine 
people who have been serving there and understand what the 
circumstance is, and the second is to come to some judgments as 
to who I think ought to be recommended to President-elect Bush 
for nominees, and there are an enormous number of critical jobs 
that need to be filled.
    With a backlog in clearances and a backlog in FBI 
approvals, and the amount of time it takes to get through the 
Office of Government Ethics, and the amount of time it takes to 
process a human being through this thing, the odds are, if I 
get there, I will be there alone, without another soul that has 
been brought in to help, and you have to be very careful about 
bringing people in on a temporary basis to help you, because of 
the assumptions and presumptions, and because they have not 
been confirmed by the Senate they are really not in a position 
to make decisions.
    So we have a strange complication here, where we are kind 
of tangled up on ourselves. On the 20th we are going to have a 
President of the United States in office, and who knows how 
many of his Cabinet will be there. He cannot even nominate 
until he is sworn in, as the chairman said. I do not know what 
the answer is.
    As I said earlier, I know that I am just one human being, 
and there is no way I can do that job down there. The only way 
I can ever do anything in my life is to find the best talent 
around.
    Chairman Levin. Senator Nelson.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, this is a pleasure for 
me to be a member of your committee, one in which you and the 
next chairman operate in such a bipartisan manner, and I am 
privileged and honored to be a part of the committee.
    Mr. Secretary--I will call you that ahead of time--welcome. 
Clearly, the issue of terrorism is going to be one that is 
going to be facing us quite a bit in the future.
    As we look back in the breakup of the Soviet Union, it is 
questionable whether the United States moved quickly enough to 
do what it could, as in the resulting chaos, where people 
utilizing money perhaps spirited away nuclear weapons, tactical 
nuclear weapons, the command and control system, all of the 
temptations that came into the system at that time, I would 
like to have your comments on that, and what you think we 
should be thinking about in this committee, assisting you as we 
try to confront this issue of containing this proliferation.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. The problem of terrorism is an exceedingly 
serious one. It is a problem for us in our homeland. It is a 
problem for deployed forces. It is a problem for our friends 
and allies, and I think it was Lenin who said that the purpose 
of terrorism is to terrorize, and that is what it does. It 
changes people's behavior, and the wonderful advantage is, a 
terrorist can attack at any time in any place using any 
technique, and it is physically impossible to defend at every 
time and every place against every technique.
    In Beirut, I watched a process where they first used trucks 
with explosives to drive into a barracks and kill 241 American 
Marines. The next thing, people started putting barricades up 
like we have around the White House, and what do they do then? 
Well, you change your method.
    What you do is, you start using rocket-propelled grenades 
and lobbing them over, so the next thing, you look at the 
embassy, the British Embassy in Beirut, and they have wire nets 
hanging off the building to reject rocket-propelled grenades. 
Fine. It did not happen again.
    The next thing, they go after targets. They go after 
people, families, going to and from their place of work. So it 
is not something that ends. It is something you need to be 
attentive to. It is something we need to have vastly better 
intelligence than we do today, and it is something that needs 
to not simply be a Defense Department problem, or a homeland 
defense problem, but it is also a diplomatic problem.
    We have to find ways to function in this world where we 
work with people and try to create an environment that is less 
hospitable to terrorists and to terrorism. I do not know the 
number, but I have something rattling in my head that we are 
spending today something like $11 billion on this problem, and 
I do not have any idea if that is the right number or the wrong 
number, but it is a lot, and it is a lot more, for example, 
than is being proposed to spend on some other defense 
techniques, but it is a problem.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Well, we are looking forward to 
working with you on this. Down in Florida we had an interesting 
election this year.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I noticed that.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Part of the problem was military 
overseas ballots, and I want to work with the committee 
particularly in devising a way that--in Florida, for example, 
42 percent of the ballots were not counted, of the military 
overseas ballots were not counted because they did not qualify 
under Florida law, even though the Attorney General issued a 
ruling in the midst of all the controversy actually changing 
the effect of the law so that it did not have to be just a 
postmark, that it could be a signature, a date, and a witness, 
and what we need is some uniform procedures, and I am going to 
propose to the committee that we have voting by military 
overseas personnel by the Internet.
    It is interesting that just today a consortium of 
companies, both software and hardware companies, are proposing 
to do software for Internet voting for the entire country. 
Well, that is on down the road, but I think we ought to look at 
the Internet for our military overseas personnel. We can 
discuss that later.
    Finally, I have some knowledge of launch vehicles and the 
competition of American launch vehicles with foreign launch 
vehicles, and we are getting into a situation, as you have 
responded to other questions on space-based assets, of, we have 
to have the assurance that we can get those assets to space and 
now it is not necessarily the DOD payloads that we have to have 
on expendable booster rockets, which are Government vehicles, 
but we have a great reliance now of getting our commercial 
satellites on orbit, many of whom perform a function that is 
absolutely essential to the functioning of the free world, and 
we are relying on foreign competitors getting over half of 
those payloads to orbit.
    So I am going to look forward to working with you and your 
staff on this, and this committee as well on that. I would love 
to have any comments you have.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, you are of course exactly correct. 
There is no question but that the launch capability of the 
United States has been diminishing relative to the rest of the 
world, and there have been three or four studies that have 
analyzed in some depth the nature of the problem with respect 
to U.S. launch capabilities, and I think it is important you 
have raised it, and certainly I am aware of those studies.
    Our Commission on Space Management and Organization did not 
go into detail on it because it had been addressed by so many 
previous organizations, and I think the problems are 
fundamentally rather well-known. They are not being attended 
to, but they are rather well-known.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Did your report get into the transfer 
of technology by putting American spacecraft on the top of 
foreign vehicles, particularly the Chinese?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. It did not. There have been others who have 
looked at that, and there is no question but that if you are 
going to marry a payload with a launch vehicle, that it 
requires inevitably a certain amount of technology transfer.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you.
    Senator Carnahan.
    Senator Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rumsfeld, you have certainly shown this committee 
impeccable credentials, and you have shown a great deal of 
candor and forthrightness in answering all of the questions 
that have been presented to you today, and I thank you for that 
and for your patience.
    Because of the length of the day and the brevity of my 
seniority I will confine myself to just one question. Fort 
Leonard Wood in Missouri is a major part of the Army training 
system, with a chemical school, an engineering school, and an 
MP school and I have been told that, from Congressman Ike 
Skelton, that the readiness level at this TRADOC post is not 
all that it should be, as it is not in other posts as well. I 
was wondering what your thoughts might be on how we would 
address the readiness level at TRADOC posts.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I am certainly not knowledgeable about 
that particular situation, but people are aware of their 
circumstance, and to the extent readiness levels in an 
institution like that, an organization like that are not what 
they ought to be, the people there know they are not what they 
ought to be, and it affects their attitude, it affects their 
morale, it affects their feeling about their jobs, and whether 
or not they want to stay in the service, so it seems to me it 
is part of a much broader problem that we must address, and 
certainly if it is true there, as I understand that it is, then 
it is very likely true in other locations.
    I would say one other thing about readiness. It is one 
thing to say, here are our readiness categories and here are 
the levels of readiness that we need to meet, and that is well 
and good, but the first thing to do is say, ready for what? We 
need to make sure what we are getting ready for, and that they 
are not simply categories that existed in the prior period that 
are not well-adapted to the future, because people understand 
that, too, the people who have the responsibility for that.
    It is not good for morale if you know you are breaking your 
neck trying to get your readiness level up for something that 
in fact made a lot of sense yesterday but may not make as much 
sense tomorrow.
    Senator Carnahan. Thank you.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Carnahan.
    Mr. Rumsfeld, let me go back to national missile defense. I 
want to press that issue with you. I want to follow up on a 
number of questions which I, Senator Cleland, Senator Reed, and 
others have asked here.
    First, you said this morning that your experience led you 
to the view that in a crisis, that a President should not be 
presented with just two options, either capitulation or a 
preemptive strike. I could not agree with you more. But there 
is a third option that is missing from your response, which is 
to pursue the policy of the United States and not be deflected 
by any threat with a real level of confidence that it would be 
a totally irrational act for anybody to carry out that threat.
    You this morning said those dictators you enumerated are 
rational folks. We do not like them. We do not like what they 
do, but that they act rationally.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Maybe not rational in our context, but by 
their standards.
    Chairman Levin. We have been told over and over again by 
our intelligence sources and otherwise that the first goal of 
these regimes is survival and self-perpetuation. This third 
option, which you did not address this morning, which is to 
pursue the course we are on and not be deflected by that 
threat, seems to me to be a very important and most likely 
option. We should not signal in any way to any of these folks 
that one possibility of their having such a weapon of mass 
destruction would be that we might acquiesce.
    I think Senator Reed made reference to that point. It seems 
to me it is absolutely critical, number 1.
    Number 2, you indicated that we should consider certain 
adverse effects if we fail to deploy a national missile 
defense, and I agree with that. I think the pros and cons of 
deployment at a time when we have a technologically feasible 
missile defense, when that time comes, if it comes, that the 
pros and cons should all be on the table.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I agree.
    Chairman Levin. What is essential is to consider the 
effects you made reference to. It seems to me those are 
important effects, that we also have to consider the negative 
effects of a deployment if it is unilateral--if it requires us 
to pull out of the ABM Treaty that we have with Russia--and if 
it results in a larger number of weapons on Russian soil and 
Chinese soil.
    We had a report yesterday referred to in this morning's 
paper by the writers, Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler. I referred 
to it this morning, but I just want to read one thing to you, 
that the most urgent unmet national security threat to the 
United States today is that weapons of mass destruction, or 
weapons-usable material located in Russia, could be stolen or 
sold to terrorists or hostile nation-States and used against 
American troops abroad, or citizens at home. Now, whether that 
is the most urgent unmet national security threat or not, and I 
happen to think it certainly ranks near or at the top, I think 
you would agree that it is a serious concern. I qualify this. I 
say, if the effect of our deployment of a national missile 
defense would be to increase the proliferation threat of a 
weapon of mass destruction, or material that is involved in a 
weapon of mass destruction by Russia responding to our 
unilateral withdrawal from this treaty by no longer reducing 
the number of weapons she has, or increasing the number of 
weapons she has, that is a factor which I hope you would 
consider. Would you agree it is a legitimate factor to 
consider, however you come out in the end?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I agree completely that in this process the 
advantages and disadvantages of deployment should be considered 
and the advantages and disadvantages of not deploying should be 
considered.
    Chairman Levin. I welcome that. It seems to me that is 
important. But there are some other disadvantages I just want 
to throw in there, and I happen to agree with you that we 
should look at all the advantages and disadvantages. But I want 
to mention a couple of others.
    Our allies have urged us not to unilaterally deploy this 
system, not to leave them out of any system. They have not 
urged us, as far as I know of, in any case to unilaterally 
deploy. I use the word unilateral to mean that we would pull 
out of the treaty with Russia and proceed on our own, without 
being able to modify it.
    Now, you have said in your answers to the questions to the 
committee that you would seek modification of that treaty with 
Russia. I believe that was in your answers. It seems to me that 
is the course which should be followed. If it was not in your 
answers, then it was the President-elect that made reference to 
an effort to modify the treaty.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. It may have been the President-elect.
    Chairman Levin. Now, there is one other factor which I 
think should be placed on the table.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Am I going to get a chance to comment?
    Chairman Levin. Absolutely, and if you cannot remember all 
of these points, then I will remind you of them. But there is 
another consideration here which seems to me that should be put 
on the table. Even if we are willing to take those adverse 
effects because we think that the positives outweigh the 
negatives, we are still left with the fact that there are other 
means of delivery besides missiles, trucks, and ships, which 
are cheaper, more reliable, have no return address.
    In the case of a truck, we could be threatened by one of 
these dictators with the kind of ultimatum like, I just invaded 
Kuwait. If you try to throw me out of Kuwait, there is a truck 
going around the interstate of the United States that has a 
biological or chemical weapon on it. You are going to lose part 
of your major cities, or you are going to see your air 
poisoned, for example.
    We are going to face potential threats even if we 
successfully create a national defense technologically, and 
even if we decide to take the risk of proliferation, which 
might result, if Russia's response is what she said that it 
will be, which is, forget the reductions, forget START II, 
forget START III. Rather than building down she is going to 
build up, creating the threat which Baker and Cutler talked 
about in their report.
    I would urge you to read the President's signing statement 
when he signed the Missile Defense Act, by the way. I think it 
is really important that you read that statement.
    I made reference this morning to the Missile Defense Act. 
Those factors which I have tried to enumerate in the last 
couple of minutes are all on the table before a deployment 
decision would be made by the current administration. Of 
course, it later on decided to delay it because of the failure 
of the tests. But I would urge you to read that statement 
before he signed the act, relative to the meaning of those two 
clauses, before you reach any final conclusion on the meaning 
of those two clauses yourself.
    I will stop there. I will help you to remember all of these 
factors if you were not able to write them all down, but I 
surely want to give you a chance to respond.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you. I think I have them all down. My 
question is, can I read my handwriting, I was writing so 
rapidly here.
    I think we have to begin with the fact that the President-
elect has indicated that he intends to deploy a missile defense 
capability. I do not want to get ahead of myself and argue in 
any way that suggests that I know what the outcome of the 
review will be or what he means by that, or what the National 
Security Council will end up recommending, and I understand 
that Congress has a role in this. The authorization and 
appropriation process is there.
    First, with respect to the concept of unilateral, I may 
overstate for emphasis a little bit, but I have the impression 
that for at least a period of 4, 5, or 6 years the argument has 
been made by the United States Government that missile defense 
would be destabilizing, that missile defense would be a bad 
thing, and that it could be, and the feedback we got was yes, 
that is right. The Russians say, we do not like it, and the 
allies say, we do not want the Russians to be unhappy and we do 
not want the agreements between the United States and Russia to 
be ruptured by the United States doing something unilaterally.
    There is no way I can prove what I am going to say, but I 
have a feeling that once the Russians understand that the 
United States is serious about this and intends to deploy, as 
opposed to the reverse of that, that they will in fact find a 
way in the negotiations--I do not know quite how, or when, or 
in what way--in the discussions that take place to accept that 
reality, recognize that there are threats from States with 
capabilities that not only threaten us and our allies and our 
friends, but over time will threaten the Russians as well. They 
are worried about terrorism. They are worried about military 
capabilities.
    Second, the implication has been set forth that we would do 
something precipitous or unilateral with respect to our allies. 
That is just not going to happen. We understand how important 
that alliance is. We understand that our allies need to be 
consulted. We also understand that to some extent the allies' 
concern is twofold. One is that--and I am meandering off into 
the Secretary of State-designate's area of responsibility and 
not mine, but--and I will tighten this up a little bit, but the 
allies are concerned, and I have talked with a number of them, 
about being disconnected.
    Our program, as it is currently on path, could conceivably 
have the effect of providing States with protection, but 
leaving our allies with less protection, and that kind of 
decoupling would be unwise by us. It would be unhelpful to the 
alliance, and I do not think you will see things happen--I 
think you will see a much closer consultation take place.
    Next, you mentioned the Baker-Cutler thing and connected it 
to this in some way. I do not see the connection. My impression 
is that--and I did not read the article. I was so busy getting 
ready for today that I did not read it carefully, but I was 
under the impression, at least, that they were talking about 
the loose-nuke problem, the risk that in fact nuclear materials 
and nuclear weapons and nuclear competence in terms of people, 
could and are and may to a greater degree lead to 
proliferation. I agree with that completely.
    The Russians have been telling us they have not been doing 
it, and they have been doing it. They have been helping Iran. 
They have been helping other countries. Certainly they have 
been helping India, and we know it and they know it, and they 
know we know it.
    Is it because they are actively trying to make mischief? Is 
it because they're making money, or is it because they do not 
have the kinds of controls over what is taking place in that 
country and there is a demand for that kind of assistance, or 
is it some combination of those? I do not know for sure, but I 
know that they in fact are active proliferators.
    The Baker issue is, I think, a somewhat different one, is 
my impression. You are right, there are other means of 
delivery, we know that. We know anything other than fighting 
armies, navies, and air forces is attractive because they are 
all cheaper. They are all more readily available, and they all 
offer the prospect that even without doing it you can affect 
people's behavior because you can threaten the use of a terror 
weapon and terrorize others and alter their behavior.
    My view of that is simply because you cannot do everything 
does not mean you should not do anything. I mean, I agree to 
the extent it is unattractive to work one end of that spectrum 
or some place along the spectrum. It inevitably will lead 
people to look for the weak link, to look for another part of 
that asymmetrical spectrum to assert their influence. I agree 
with that. That is a fact, and yet that does not say to me that 
it makes sense for us to remain vulnerable to ballistic missile 
attack if we do not have to.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you. I am sure my time is up.
    Senator Warner.
    Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think everyone 
realizes our second round is 6 minutes.
    Chairman Levin. Yes. I should have announced that.
    Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to 
compliment you and others. This has been an excellent hearing, 
and I have moved about a little bit in the course of this 
hearing and wanted to go over and welcome your Space Council 
and they are carrying on, as you might expect, quite well, and 
others, and throughout the whole way this compliment is being 
paid to this committee as a whole for undertaking a very 
thorough and in-depth hearing.
    I shall proceed quickly, under my 6 minutes. Did you want a 
seventh-inning stretch here?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. No, I am fine.
    Senator Warner. As you can clearly see, there is a 
diversity of views on this very important subject. For the 23 
years my good friend and I have been here in this Senate 
together, we have from time to time been on opposite sides on 
this question of missile defense, but listening to this very 
important colloquy between the two of you, let us also include 
the following category, and that is accidental.
    Military men and women training all over the world on all 
types of systems, accidents happen. No treaty is going to stop 
that. No form of deterrence is going to stop that, and I have 
often said that every President better have a draft statement 
on his desk to explain to a half-million American people who 
lost their lives and their families and survivors why we were 
not prepared to stop an accident, so that is a factor we had 
better figure in.
    Now, I want to cover some very important subjects that we 
touched on, and our very valued ally, Israel. As we have had a 
strategic relationship with them for many, many years. 
Unfortunately that area of the world is embroiled in conflict, 
one which you, as a former negotiator and troubleshooter, have 
a clear understanding of the origins. Regrettably, many of 
those origins are still there.
    I would like to have your views on that, and in the gulf 
region we have done our best. We have formed a magnificent 
coalition under President Bush. Some 13 nations came together 
to stop the aggression of Saddam Hussein, and send his forces 
back in-country, and we are in there alone today, except for 
some help from Great Britain in the air campaign and from some 
other nations in the sea campaign, to contain him. I would like 
to have your views on how we approach that.
    As I stated this morning, President-elect Bush has put 
together an extraordinary and superbly well-qualified national 
security team. These questions are going to be on their desk on 
the day of arrival.
    I would like to also explore with you the relationship 
between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan. Again, we 
have had a longstanding relationship with the people of Taiwan. 
We have in place certain agreements, and lastly I think we 
should cover the policy that you would hope to recommend to the 
President with regard to the withdrawal of our peacekeepers and 
our timetable, maybe not specifically, but the general 
discussion of the withdrawal from Bosnia and Kosovo. This is a 
subject I have been active in.
    Last year, I and other colleagues--Senator Byrd joined with 
me and I joined with him on separate pieces of legislation to 
try and bring to the attention of our allies the commitments 
they made, the fact that we were trying to fulfill our 
commitment, and somehow if they did not continue to live up to 
those commitments we would have to address a withdrawal policy.
    Well, guess what happened. Very quickly the allies came in 
and fulfilled their commitments in terms of money in Kosovo and 
troops and likewise, and that situation righted itself.
    I think it is important that the United States keep some 
presence in both the Kosovo and Bosnian military forces so long 
as our allies are there, perhaps not to the level that we have 
today, but we do not want to give the perception that we are 
not a reliable partner in all of these, so if you would sort of 
kick off, and we will take the first one.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. OK. Most of what you have posed, well, falls 
over in the area of the Department of State and the National 
Security Council as much or more than it does the defense 
establishment.
    Senator Warner. But you are a team, and you are at that 
table.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I understand, and I am going to reach out and 
comment, but I want to preface it by saying that we are not in 
office. We have not had meetings. We have not talked about 
these things.
    Senator Warner. I understand that.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. It would be wrong for me to try to think I 
could sketch out policy, so whatever I am saying is coming from 
Rumsfeld.
    Senator Warner. That is clear, but we have an obligation 
under advise and consent to get your views, because you are one 
of the most experienced, if not the most experienced person on 
that team.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, with respect to Israel, the situation 
is very difficult. The hostilities are obvious. People die in 
that region regularly. Israel is a very small country. They 
cannot make many mistakes about what they give up. There is a 
feeling I have had, watching that process, that to the extent 
someone leans forward, someone leans back, to the extent 
someone leans back, someone leans forward, and it goes that 
way.
    I do not think it is possible for the United States of 
America to go in and grab people by the scruff of the neck and 
think they could put them together and have something stick. It 
has to make sense on the ground.
    I have questions about Mr. Arafat's ability to manage his 
affairs, his circumstances, and I think to be dealing with him 
as though he were a State in control of his circumstance may 
not--may be somewhat unrealistic. I am hopeful. I think that it 
is an important issue that I am sure Secretary of State-
designate Colin Powell and Condy Rice and the President will 
engage, and certainly I will be happy to be a participant.
    The gulf coalition is in fact unraveling and there is no 
question but that Saddam Hussein's appetite for weapons of mass 
destruction has not disappeared. Under the agreement, he was 
allowed to continue working on ballistic missiles below a 
certain range and, of course, the weight of the warhead affects 
range, so he has his team together, and he is working 
aggressively to make better relationships with Syria under the 
new Assad, and I suspect that we will not have heard the last 
of him by a darned sight.
    The control over assets and funding I think is rather 
important and fundamental, and ought not to be let go. There is 
a lot of pressure from various coalition partners to ease up, 
but I think that central principle is one we ought to think 
about.
    Senator Warner. We have over 20,000 U.S. troops in that 
region containing these policies.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. They are risking their lives in the north and 
south with flights. It is a dangerous situation.
    The PRC and Taiwan, so much has been said I think there is 
not much I can add. Clearly, we have laws, we have obligations, 
we have hopes, and that situation also seems to ebb and flow in 
terms of the volume of the words coming out of the PRC on that 
subject, and at the moment they seem to have ebbed rather than 
flowed.
    Senator Warner. But the one thing certain is a steady 
buildup in the PRC military capabilities.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Not just generally, but in that area.
    Senator Warner. That is correct.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Third, peacekeepers in Bosnia. The first 
thing I would say is that we have forces on the ground. We have 
troops there, and we ought to be supporting them, and I worry 
about forums like this where we talk about altering what we 
have, the Government, the President, Congress.
    We have to decide what we want to do on these things, but 
discussions that lead to uncertainty harm the people on the 
ground who are trying to do things, and I went into Bosnia 
sometime back and visited with people from various factions, 
and they are either leaning forward or they are leaning back, 
and you can be sure the more there is talk about departure, the 
more they wait you out. It is true across the globe.
    I have never been a fan of deadlines. I mean, the original 
deadline that we would be out by Christmas was not wise, not 
good policy in my judgment. We ought not to do that. It tells 
everybody, wait for a year, go on.
    I think what we ought to do--and I know the President has 
said he will review it. He will. When he has a view--you can be 
certain he will not do anything precipitous. He understands the 
importance of the relationships with our allies. What he will 
decide, I have no idea. He will certainly consult with Congress 
as well as allies, and we will all know when that process has 
completed.
    Senator Warner. I think that term, consult with Congress, 
is a very reassuring one, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
committee, and I thank the distinguished witness for those 
replies.
    Chairman Levin. Senator Lieberman.
    Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I had to leave for 
a while. I apologize for that. I must say, coming back, I 
thought I would find you weary, mentally worn, but I am 
discouraged to find that you are as sharp as you were when I 
left this morning. [Laughter.]
    I want to thank you particularly for some of the straight 
talk. As another member of the committee was fond of saying 
earlier last year, you have been on the straight talk express 
here for part of today, and I appreciate it.
    Chris Williams, sitting behind you, worked with Senator 
Lott, and Senator Lott and I have sponsored some legislation on 
our concern about proliferation to Iran, and you were dead 
right that the Russians have just continued to do that. 
Sometimes we do not like to deal with that reality, but it is 
real, and I appreciate the straight talk that you gave, and I 
hope that we will continue to work on that, because it 
threatens our security and the security of our allies.
    The same is true of your answer just now on the question of 
our forces in the Balkans, and I thank you for it. We made a 
serious mistake here some years ago, under political pressure, 
where we did set a deadline, and it created a real credibility 
gap that we are still fighting to overcome.
    Believe it or not, I want to come back to national missile 
defense in a slightly different way and make this statement and 
ask you for your reaction. I accept the reality of the threat. 
I think it is a serious one. I was an original or early 
cosponsor of the National Missile Defense Act. I was pleased 
when it went through Congress and pleased when the President 
signed it, and I was up in my office for meetings, listening to 
your earlier testimony, and if I understood correctly, in 
response to a question from Senator Akaka you indicated logic 
would tell us that in the time since your commission's report 
the threat has just naturally become more serious because 
proliferation goes on.
    My concern is about the timeliness of a response, and just 
to say that I am concerned, as the new administration comes in 
and thinks about the layered approach to national missile 
defense, that if you think about the 2005 date, or whatever 
date, even earlier by some estimates, which some of these folks 
who have hostile intent toward us could get capacity to do our 
homeland damage, I think that one of the reasons--not all, but 
one of the reasons the Clinton administration chose the land-
based alternative for national missile defense because it was 
possible, assuming technological abilities, to get, if you 
will, online earlier. Sea-based is essentially a concept now, 
and estimates I have seen say that it will not come online any 
earlier than 2010, space-based probably later than that.
    So my concern is, as you think about the alternatives you 
have as you come into office, that you take a look at the fact 
that while the land-based system missile defense may not be the 
best, it may be the one that we can get operating earliest.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I do not disagree with that. I do not know 
enough to know, of certain knowledge, that that is right, but I 
have a set of impressions, and they are these, that the current 
program may very well have been something that could be done 
sooner than some of the other alternatives such as sea-based or 
space-based capabilities.
    On the other hand, my further impression is that the 
current system was designed to fit within the treaty. I have 
never believed--I mean, that treaty is ancient history. It is 
almost--it dates even back farther than when I was last in the 
Pentagon. That is a long time.
    Think what has happened to technology in the intervening 
period. I mean, to try to fashion something that fits within 
the constraints of that, and expect you are going to get the 
most effective program, the earliest to deploy, and the most 
cost-effective, it is just--it boggles the mind. That is not 
how people do advance technologies, is to sit down with those 
kinds of constraints and try to fit it in that straitjacket.
    I do not disagree that at this stage it may be something 
that could be done earlier than other alternatives, but I would 
say it may very well be that pieces of it might very well fit 
in what one might ultimately want to do.
    Now, this is all sheer speculation on my part. I mean, the 
press has kind of played me up as an expert in missile defense, 
and I am not. I know a lot about the threat, and I spent a lot 
of time on it, but I have spent much less time on the ways of 
dealing with it, and that is something I have simply got to 
wrap my head around.
    Senator Lieberman. I have one more question. Incidentally, 
enjoy whenever the press plays you up as an expert on anything, 
because it will not last long. [Laughter.]
    I want to come to the fifth of your priorities in the 
opening statement you made, reform of DOD structures, 
processes, and organization. One of the things that struck me 
in my years on the committee is the extent to which the goals 
of the Goldwater-Nichols Act have not yet been realized.
    That is one of them, which is one of the central ones, 
which is based on the conclusion, I think correctly, that 
warfighting would be joint, that therefore more of the 
operation of our military should be joint, and there has been a 
natural institutional resistance to that, and look, the four 
services have extraordinary histories of capability and unique 
functions to play, but I was thinking, in terms of your 
background, in this case in the private sector, that too often 
probably I found myself saying, I do not think any CEO of a big 
company--and there is no company as big as the Pentagon. You 
are about to become the CEO of the largest company in the 
world, but would tolerate that kind of overlap.
    We have made some progress lately, particularly through the 
establishment of the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, and I 
really commend it to you and hope you can get to know it well, 
but ideally we should be having more joint experimentation, 
joint acquisition, joint training, so that when we come to 
warfighting we will not only have avoided redundancy and saved 
some money along the way to do some of the many things that we 
have all said today we want you to do, but we will be better 
able to fight jointly.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I do not disagree at all. I think warfighting 
is inevitably going to involve all of the services, and to the 
extent they have not trained and exercised and equipped for 
interoperability in that kind of an environment they are not 
going to do what they could do had they done that.
    Senator Lieberman. My time is more than up. Thank you very 
much.
    Chairman Levin. Senator Sessions.
    Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that the 
chairman has been a skillful questioner, let us say on national 
missile defense.
    Now, we went through a long battle on it. Senator Lieberman 
and Senator Cochran formed an opinion, as did a number of us, 
that we needed to move forward. We accepted your bipartisan 
unanimous report that by the year 2005 we did have a threat 
that we needed to be prepared to defend against, and in the 
Senate I think Senator Roberts had over 90 votes, maybe 3 
dissents, to deploy and follow through on this.
    The President did, in fact, drag his feet. We did not do 
the Alaska radar work that we hoped to have done this summer, 
so we have already missed the 2005 year that your commission, 
your report suggested we should try to meet, and so we are now 
at 2006, and I believe this summer we will have another date 
that we will need to make a decision soon to get started with 
the Alaska base or we will be at 2007.
    I just wanted to say, to follow up on Senator Roberts, I 
believe this Congress is for this. I believe we voted 
overwhelmingly for this, and with determined leadership, the 
technological problems will be overcome, and I think we need to 
move forward.
    Most Americans have no idea we have no defense to incoming 
missiles, absolutely none. They saw in Israel, in the Gulf War, 
some Patriot and Scuds, and think maybe we have that here. We 
really have none of that here, and I believe we need to move 
forward on that. I salute you for coming to it with the 
background you do, and I salute you for the report that you 
issued, and your fellow members, which we acted on, and the 
President did sign.
    I would like to pursue a little bit--and by the way, on 
national missile defense, we are talking about a $3 billion a 
year expenditure, maybe $4. That is hardly 1 percent of the 
total defense budget. It is not going to drain our defense 
resources to deploy national missile defense.
    Colombia has 38 million people. It is a significant trading 
partner of the United States, but 40 to 50 percent of that 
country is now being held by Marxist guerrillas who are working 
with the narcotraffickers. Venezuela is showing some strange 
activity.
    At best, I do believe we need to give more attention to our 
hemisphere, and when you compare that to Kosovo, there are 2 
million people we have no trading relationships with, and it is 
clearly in the backyard of the Europeans.
    Would you share with us your view about the importance of 
our involvement in this hemisphere in general?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, in general is about what I can do. 
Again, I am reluctant to be continuously infringing on my 
friend Colin Powell's areas of prospective responsibility. We 
live here. It is important to us, there is no question that 
this hemisphere is, and I think that successive administrations 
in both parties have recognized that and addressed that over my 
adult lifetime.
    That is a very complicated problem down there, and I need 
to get steeped in it. We have talked a bit about what is going 
on. I understand there are a limited number of U.S. military 
forces, that the State Department has the lead, that a lot of 
what is being done there is being done by contract personnel, 
that there is fear around the periphery that whatever is done 
in Colombia is not going to end the problem but move the 
problem geographically.
    I have read the same speculation you have about the 
Venezuelan involvement. I do not know much about it beyond 
that. It is going to take a lot of very careful thought, and a 
combination probably of the kinds of things that are being done 
as well as diplomacy, to see if we cannot have that situation 
begin to get better rather than worse, thus far.
    I have seen the maps that show the minimal control that the 
Government is currently exerting in the country, and it tends 
to be urban areas, as I understand it.
    Senator Sessions. It is a disturbing situation, and I do 
not know the answer to it. I do not believe it requires troops, 
but I do believe we need to say, which Ambassador Pickering 
would not say in one of these hearings when I asked him, that 
we endorse--perhaps they have sense, but we need to endorse 
unequivocally the oldest democracy in the hemisphere, except 
ours, Colombia, in their struggles with the Marxist guerrillas, 
in my view, and we need to encourage them to be aggressive, and 
if they are not going to defend their country, I do not see how 
we can defend it for them.
    But I believe they are going to be reaching a point soon 
where they are going to decide they have to fight to preserve 
their democracy, and if they do not fight they are going to 
lose it. At that point I think we are going to have to help 
them. I wish we did not, I wish it was not a problem, but I am 
afraid it is.
    Finally, I would say I agree with you totally that this 
treaty with Russia and the missile defense question is ancient 
history. It was with a dead empire that no longer exists. 
Surely we will deploy the best system and work and just deal 
with the Russians in a fair and objective way, tell them we 
love them, we want to be partners and friends with them, but we 
are going to do what is in our interests to protect our 
American citizens, and I think they will accept that if we will 
quit waffling and be clear, and I hope that you will do that.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you.
    Chairman Levin. Senator Cleland.
    Senator Cleland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for the 
committee's information, I do understand that under the voting 
of military ballots and the counting of military ballots 
overseas, with your help, Mr. Chairman, and myself and Senator 
Hutchison and Senator Warner, we have asked for the GAO to do 
an independent investigation on this whole issue of military 
ballots being counted, and how military votes overseas, and 
that that report will be to us in a matter of months.
    Mr. Secretary, let me just say, thank you very much for 
waiting us out and for being so patient. A couple of years ago 
you signed a letter along with Dick Cheney supporting full 
funding for the F-22, which is advanced technology for our 
tactical aircraft. I would like to, Mr. Chairman, submit that 
letter for the record, if there is no objection.
    Chairman Levin. It will be made a part of the record.
    [The information referred to follows:]
      
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
      
    Senator Cleland. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your support 
of the F-22 in the past. I hope we can count on your continued 
support for the F-22. Any remarks you would like to make on 
that?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. No, sir, other than that I said what I said, 
I believed it when I said it, I am now in a circumstance where 
I have to take a review and look at that and other things and 
try to come to some rational conclusions, and I shall do so.
    Senator Cleland. Thank you very much. In terms of airlift 
capability, it is interesting that the fiscal year 2000 defense 
authorization bill did direct the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to this Congress no later than February. The 
airlift requirement report is in. The current requirement for 
airlift in the Pentagon is almost 50 million ton-miles, and a 
mobility requirement study estimates the requirement may rise 
to around 54 or 55 million ton-miles.
    With the move away from more forward-deployed forces, an 
airlift and air mobility more and more important, the C-130J is 
integral to our rapid deployment operations. The last 
administration proposed some 24 new C-130Js over the next 4 or 
5 years. I have a special interest in this program, Mr. 
Secretary, and would hope that you would continue to look hard 
at the C-130J program, particularly in terms of its critical 
role in moving our forces abroad.
    Finally, Warner-Robbins is one of three remaining Air Force 
depots. There used to be five. Now there are three. Part of the 
challenge here, it seems to me, is to determine if the Pentagon 
is going to continue to keep core capability in its maintenance 
and depot facilities, and in determining that core capability I 
just hope you would work with all of us so that our military 
commanders will have the ability in a crisis to ramp up and 
work 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, to meet the needs of our 
servicemen and women overseas.
    So I will just have those thoughts, and any response from 
you would be welcome.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I have not engaged this subject of depots. I 
understand that among all the caucuses in Congress these days 
the depot caucus may take the cake as being the largest one. It 
is a subject that--let me phrase it this way. There is no 
question but that the United States military needs to have what 
they need to have, and the question is, in what way can they 
assure that they have that so that their capabilities, and our 
capabilities as a country to contribute to peace and stability 
are assured?
    I have not looked at it. I understand it is there and will 
certainly address it.
    Senator Cleland. Thank you very much. We talked about one 
big idea, and when I heard that I thought about maybe a 
question on deterrence in this new globalized era, and defining 
what could maybe deter the terrorist or the biochemical attack 
and so forth, and I appreciate your views on that and look 
forward to that continued discussion.
    But one of the big ideas I would just like for you to think 
about in the challenge of dealing with an all-volunteer force, 
and now a married all-volunteer force in terms of a big idea, 
in the last few years, in looking at the GI bill and its power 
to attract young men and women to the military, maybe one of 
the big ideas we ought to explore together is in the American 
military being the greatest university in the world.
    In other words, we are going to have to train constantly, 
and there probably already is the greatest university, 
certainly the biggest university in the world, but education 
begets education. If the American military can become known not 
just as a good place to get a couple or 3 or 4 years of 
education and then get out, but some place to educate yourself 
and your family over the long haul, then maybe we can work in a 
wonderful way on our retention problem as well.
    Because people who get out that contact me, get out 
basically with tears in their eyes. They love the military, 
they love the service, but they get out because they have 
pressures on their families. One of the pressures on their 
families is their kids' education.
    So I would just like to throw that out as an interesting 
big idea that we can explore as we walk down this road 
together, because it does seem to me that the power of the GI 
bill, or the power of education and the military can be a 
powerful tool to keep people--I mean, to attract people and to 
keep people in that otherwise would get out, but we have to 
broaden it so that it includes their families as well.
    I might say one of your colleagues in the Cabinet will be 
Tony Principi, who was the author a couple of years ago of the 
Principi Commission report, which actually recommended the 
concept that a serviceman or woman can take their unused GI 
bill assets and transfer them to their spouse or to their kids, 
thereby creating a college fund for them. Tony Principi was the 
author of that idea, and he will be in the Cabinet with you as 
head of the Veterans Administration, so I wanted to throw that 
out as a big idea that you might consider.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you very much.
    Senator Cleland. Thank you very much for your patience, Mr. 
Chairman. No further questions.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Cleland. Let me also add 
our thanks for your continuing leadership on the broadening of 
the GI bill. It is a very important initiative. You have had a 
little success. You deserve a lot more success, and hopefully 
will achieve a lot more success in that area.
    Senator Nelson.
    Senator Ben Nelson. Mr. Secretary, in Nebraska we have the 
Joint Command and Strategic Command. The military for the last 
several years and the civilian leadership have worked toward 
finding ways to marry the military establishment in a way that 
certainly will work better for cooperation and collaboration, 
and obviously under a Joint Command you tend to get that. It 
surprises people in Nebraska to see the Strategic Command under 
the control of an admiral from the Navy, because Nebraska may 
be nearly landlocked, except for the Missouri River.
    I have a question that really relates to how you develop an 
exit strategy without showing your hand. We have a civilian 
military. We have a citizen Government, and yet we know that 
the right of the public to know is there, and this body 
provides oversight so that when you come with an idea that you 
would like to provide some knowledge about, the first question 
is, what is your exit strategy? Once you have tipped your hand, 
there is no going back. The genie does not go back in the 
bottle, whether you say we are not going to use any land 
forces, we are going to be out by December--are we somewhat 
relegated to going back to 1968? When nominee President Nixon 
was running and said, ``I have a plan to end the war,'' he 
would not tip his hand.
    I think when you have this challenge it is very easy for 
people to put you in the box, where they want to know that you 
have a plan, they want to know what it is, but once you have 
told them, it is like the coach giving his playbook to the 
other team, the other coach.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. You have put your finger on an enormously 
difficult problem. I was chief of staff in the White House when 
Vietnam ended, and you had all of these fine people who had 
supported that effort, and at some point you pulled the plug, 
and when you do, people are killed, people are hurt, people are 
damaged, and the reputation of our country for following 
through and for consistency and for being a reliable partner is 
damaged for a period.
    I was the one who had to go tell President Jamail of 
Lebanon that the United States and the President and Security 
Council had decided to withdraw support, and walked into his 
office, and it was a heartbreaker, just an absolute 
heartbreaker. There were a whole host of people who had stepped 
forward and relied on us to help him try to get the Syrians out 
of his country, and at a certain moment it is gone.
    You are right, if you talk and if you telegraph something 
more people get killed, more people are damaged, and the 
hardship is much greater.
    What is the answer? Well, I do not know what the answer is. 
I think part of the answer is, let us try not to get into 
things we cannot get out of. Let us try not to get into things 
we cannot finish well.
    We are still going to have this happen. We are not always 
going to be right. We are going to end up trying to do things 
because we are concerned and we care, and it will not work 
because we miscalculated. We thought there was a greater 
possibility that there could be an institutional capability to 
sustain itself and create a nation that could build and go 
forward, but that is hard.
    We are not geniuses at nation-building, institutional 
capabilities. There has to be something where people say, my 
gosh, the Marshall Plan, goodness gracious, those countries 
there, they were capable, they were competent, we gave them 
money. They did what they did, and the analogy of the Marshall 
Plan to some of the kinds of continents that we have been 
dealing with and problems that we have been dealing with I 
think is a mismatch.
    You are right, I think that about all you can do is if you 
have been wrong, do it fast, confess, and get out. That is all 
you can do, and try not to get yourself in a situation where 
you cause other people to support you and then you leave them 
in the lurch, which is just a heartbreaker.
    Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you. Senator Dayton.
    Senator Dayton. Mr. Chairman, I believe that a member of 
President Kennedy's Cabinet said that as Secretary you have one 
boss and 535 advisors, and I think you have received enough 
advice for one day. I wish you well, and I would cede the rest 
of my time unless there is anything you would like to say, sir.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I would like to say something, Senator, and I 
thank you for that opportunity.
    Chairman Levin. By the way, there will be another round of 
questions.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Maybe I will save it, then. [Laughter.]
    Well, I will say it right now. I must say, if I know 
anything I know that you do not tackle Defense Department 
problems and issues and challenges by political party. You do 
it on a bipartisan basis, and I respect the way you and Senator 
Warner have handled your back-and-forth chairmanships, and I 
admire it, and I assure you that I approach these issues in a 
nonpartisan way, and I intend to work with the committee in 
that way and look forward to it.
    Chairman Levin. We are going to have a third round for 
those who might be interested in asking additional questions.
    First, on the space policy question. There was a report in 
Defense Daily recently--it quoted--I do not know who was saying 
these words, but here are the words: ``Rumsfeld understands the 
need for militarization of space.'' My question is, do you see 
the need for the ``militarization of space''?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I did not say it, and I do not know who wrote 
it, and I do not know quite what it means. Let me see if I can 
put some words around my thoughts on the subject. We know what 
has been done on land by way of military conflict, we know what 
has been done on the sea, and we know what has been done in the 
air. I think it would be a stretch to suggest that space will 
not at some point in the future find itself receiving similar 
attention.
    Why do I say that? Well, if, for example, we have an 
interest on the sea to maintain the sea lanes open and to 
create an environment that is hospitable to sea traffic for 
international intercourse, and we have a lot of assets in 
space, one would think we would feel or share a similar view 
about having the assets in space free to provide these services 
and the capabilities that they do, and to the extent we do, as 
we do, both civilian and military space assets, and to the 
extent they conceivably, as with ships and tanks and planes, 
become a target at some point, there is no question in my mind 
but that it is in our interest to create the kinds of 
deterrence and capability so that it is not attractive to 
disable the United States and our enormous dependence on space 
assets.
    I do not know quite what that means in answer to that 
article, but those are my views, and I should say these were my 
views as a member of the commission. They are not the views of 
the administration, since I have not had a chance to even 
discuss these things with President-elect Bush or the National 
Security Council.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you. You made, I think, brief 
reference to this today. That the United States and North Korea 
signed an agreement in 1994 which provides that North Korea 
will end and disband its plutonium production capacity. By the 
way, I actually went up to see with my own eyes that that was 
being done. It also called for the United States to lead a 
coalition with South Korea and Japan to provide North Korea 
with proliferation-resistant light water reactors if it 
complies with every step of the agreement, and it also provides 
for some fuel, I believe, to substitute for the loss of that 
capacity. Assuming that both sides comply with this agreement, 
in your judgment does this agreed framework serve our national 
security interest?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I will offer some personal views, but I have 
to again begin with the beginning, and that is, this is quite a 
distance off my turf, and certainly the National Security 
Council and President and Secretary-designate Colin Powell will 
be addressing it.
    My view on North Korea is that they have been as active a 
proliferator of technologies across the globe as any country 
that I know of. It is hard to believe that a country that 
cannot feed its people, that has a dictatorship that is as 
repressive and damaging to its country as anything on the face 
of the earth, could be developing and marketing and benefiting 
financially from the proliferation of these technologies, but 
it is a fact.
    I was very impressed with the Senator's photograph of the 
Korean peninsula earlier today, where it showed lights in the 
south, and lights in China, and black, and it is a wonderful 
metaphor for the problem.
    I think talking is fine. I am glad they are talking. I 
think there has not been, to my knowledge, changes in their 
military posture with respect to South Korea or with respect to 
their activities of proliferation. It is good to be hopeful. It 
is good to talk. I am not an expert on the agreed framework. I 
have not been there, as you have. I am not sure I would be 
welcome.
    Chairman Levin. As far as you know, have they dismantled 
their plutonium production capacity?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I know that--I know what I know and I know 
what I do not know, and I do not know what I do not know. 
Specifically, they are world-class tunnelers. They have gone 
underground across that country in a way that few other nations 
have done. They have underground emplacements that have 
enormous numbers of weapons.
    For me to sit here, having never been there, and not being 
a sufficient expert to know anyway, and say that I have high 
confidence that they are doing what the agreed framework 
suggested would be foolhardy. They do not have a record of 
behaving well, and we know they are a secretive, closed 
society, and it is perfectly possible for Americans to go 
milling around there, think they see something, and it is over 
there. It is a shell game with those folks.
    Chairman Levin. Let me try a different question. Is it in 
our interests to try to find a way to eliminate North Korea's 
plutonium production capacity so they cannot build nuclear 
weapons? Is it in our interest to do that?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I would broaden it. I think it is in our 
interest, and our Asian allies' interests, and our 
antiproliferation interest across the globe that North Korea 
stop proliferating, stop threatening South Korea, and begin to 
behave rationally to its people and stop having them die of 
starvation.
    So I guess the answer is, sure it is in our interest, but 
there are a lot of things that are in our interest with respect 
to North Korea, and I do not know that I would stick one ahead 
of the other.
    Chairman Levin. I would agree with you there are a lot of 
things that are in our interest, but it is in our interest to 
end the plutonium production?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. You bet.
    Chairman Levin. There are a lot of other things in our 
interest as well, but at least you would agree that it is in 
our interest?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes.
    Chairman Levin. Senator Warner.
    Senator Warner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Just to put on our old Navy hats for a moment, and that is 
the shipbuilding program in the Navy. Any reasonable analysis 
of the curves in the outyears, the current projection? We are 
going to be moving down precipitously close to the 300 level, 
and I just think at the moment the most you can say is, again 
climbing back into our purple suits so we are fair to all, we 
have to address the level of naval ship construction, and we 
have to do it early on. Do you not agree with me?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I agree. I think that the pressures we face 
around the world with respect to bases suggest that we do need 
to be able to have capabilities that are afloat.
    Senator Warner. My follow-on for that, of course, is that--
and these are true stories--Presidents, when they are awakened 
at night by that phone, either you on the other end or someone 
else, the Secretary of State advising them of a crisis 
somewhere in the world, as Senator John Stennis, the very 
valued and wonderful chairman of this committee used to say, 
the Presidents would always say to me, well, the first thing 
that comes to mind, where is the nearest U.S. aircraft carrier? 
Do you recall that?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I do indeed. Mr. Stennis was chairman when I 
was last Secretary.
    Senator Warner. I testified before him, as did you, many 
times. We have to keep that carrier level up. We have 12 now, 
one in training capacity, several in upkeep, some in transit, 
four to five at max on station throughout the world, and I 
would hope that you would indicate to me now that your 
preliminary thinking is, we have to maintain that minimal 
level, in my judgment, of that key asset of our arsenal of 
deterrence.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Senator, as an ex-Navy pilot I am not unaware 
of the value of aircraft carriers, but the last thing I am 
going to do is start speculating about one weapons system. I 
have an enormous task to gather some folks and look at the 
whole picture and see that they come into a coherent whole, and 
I am reluctant to start piecing things out.
    Senator Warner. That is all right, my good friend. You 
maintain your reluctance, and I will not have any reluctance to 
continue to bring that subject up with you repeatedly from time 
to time. [Laughter.]
    South Korea. It is so interesting, my modest experience in 
the U.S. military, and I have said this before, it did a lot 
more for me than I was able to return to them on Active Duty, 
but anyway, with South Korea, in the Marines in 1951. We are 
still there, 50-plus years, and we have a very significant 
number of our troops there.
    Now, you have covered the North. Let us talk a little bit 
about the South and its importance as our strong ally, and its 
importance for the forward-deployment of our troops to be in 
that region. I think this record should reflect some of your 
views on that.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I think the U.S. presence in Asia 
since, essentially since the Korean War and World War II, has 
been a superb investment in the sense that we have, without 
question, contributed to a more stable region.
    Their presence there is still useful in that regard, and I 
think that--I am trying to think where I heard it or read it, 
but there have been comments to the effect that in 
conversations between the North and the South, both have 
indicated that the U.S. presence is a useful thing, and I find 
that very interesting. The rhetoric sometimes from the North is 
a little different, but my impression is that realistically we 
are wanted and it is a good thing for us to be there.
    I also think it has been helpful from the standpoint of 
Japan.
    Senator Warner. I do, too, and indeed they are very 
valuable allies for the security of that region out there, and 
we should really touch a little bit on our valuable allies, 
Australia and New Zealand, and you will undoubtedly be visiting 
that region of the world, where we have had to dispense some of 
our troops not long ago for a contingency situation, but they 
are valued allies.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. As you look at what is happening in that part 
of the globe, and the periodic difficulties that the People's 
Republic of China has had with its neighbors, whether it is the 
Spratly Islands, or difficulties with India, difficulties with 
Russia, difficulties with Vietnam, there is no question but 
that Australia is a truly important nation, and it is important 
to that region, it is important to us, and it seems to me that 
it merits a priority from the standpoint of the United States 
of America.
    Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, again, an excellent hearing. 
I would yield back the balance of my time. I think our witness 
has more than fulfilled our expectations, and the endurance 
test he has withstood indicates he can handle that department 
pretty well.
    Chairman Levin. Just a few more questions. Senator 
Sessions, would you like to go first?
    Senator Sessions. You go ahead.
    Chairman Levin. The Army has been in the process of 
transforming itself into a lighter and more agile force that 
can deal with the challenges posed by threats in the uncertain 
future. In response to the pre-hearing questions, you stated 
you would not be in a position to evaluate the Army's plans 
until you have conducted a complete review of all the services' 
investment programs. That review is expected to take several 
months, and therefore I have the following questions.
    Does your answer mean that we should not expect any changes 
to the Army's transformation plans in this budget cycle?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I just do not know.
    Chairman Levin. Are you open to the possibility of 
reallocation of resources among the military departments, if 
your review points in that direction?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. It would be foolish for me to say that I was 
not open to anything at this stage, because I really am coming 
out of civilian life into an institution that is not easily 
understood.
    Senator Warner. Or managed. [Laughter.]
    Chairman Levin. You have been asked a number of questions 
about the U.S. and China, and I have one additional one in that 
area. What approach would you take with respect to military-to-
military contacts between the United States and China? Do you 
have any feelings?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. We have had some, and I have been there 
myself.
    Chairman Levin. Do you have any feelings about continuing 
or expanding those contacts?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I have not thought about it. Off the top of 
my head, I have no reason to believe that they are undesirable.
    Chairman Levin. Just a couple of questions to follow up 
Senator Sessions' questions on the missile defense issue. I 
want to read just a portion of the statement of the President 
when he signed the Missile Defense Act. I think it is 
important.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. I would like a copy of it, if you have it.
    Chairman Levin. We will provide that to you.
    Before I do that, though, I want to ask you a question 
again. I think you answered it clearly this morning, but given 
something which was said just a little while ago, did your 
report on the North Korean or on the missile threat in general 
suggest anything relative to the deployment of missile 
defenses?
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Not that I can recall.
    Chairman Levin. Now, this is just a part of the President's 
statement. I am going to give you the whole thing to read after 
the hearing. I am going to be putting the whole thing in the 
record.
    [The information referred to follows:]
      
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
      
    We have been talking about two sections. One is the 
``policy of the United States to deploy as soon as 
technologically possible an effective national missile defense 
system with funding subject to the annual authorization of 
appropriations and the annual appropriation of funds for NMD. 
By specifying that any NMD deployment must be subject to the 
authorization and appropriations process, the legislation makes 
no clear decision on the deployment has been made.'' We call 
that the first point.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. This is reading from his statement?
    Chairman Levin. I am. This is part of what the President 
said relative to the second policy that was in that National 
Missile Defense Act.
    Section 3 puts Congress on record as continuing to support 
negotiated reductions in strategic nuclear arms, and he also 
said our missile defense policy must take into account our arms 
control and nuclear nonproliferation objectives. At the end he 
said: ``Any NMD system we deploy must be operationally 
effective, cost-effective, and enhance our security. In making 
our determination, we will also review progress in achieving 
our arms control objectives, including negotiating any 
amendments to the ABM treaty that may be required to 
accommodate a possible NMD deployment.''
    I offer you an opportunity to react as to whether you 
disagree with any of that. It is kind of hard, because maybe I 
read too many excerpts for you to follow. In any event, do you 
wish to comment now or not as to whether you have any 
disagreement with that. I really would urge that you read the 
President's statement after this hearing so that you are 
familiar with the thinking of both the administration in 
signing that act, but also the thinking of many of us--I will 
not say a majority, necessarily--but many of us in supporting 
that act after section 3 was added in the Senate.
    It is a very important part of the history of that National 
Missile Defense Act. Now, let me give you an opportunity to 
comment if you want.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will read it. As you 
went through it I was trying to parse it in my mind, and 
clearly, while President Clinton is President that is his view. 
We have a President-elect coming in who has expressed some 
views that are somewhat different from that.
    Chairman Levin. I am talking about the view of the 
President about the act he was signing. I do not know if the 
President-elect has any different view about this act. He has 
not spoken, as far as I know, on that issue. Maybe he has. But 
I am talking about just what the President who signed the act 
said when he signed it.
    Senator Sessions, do you have anything more?
    Senator Sessions. I do not.
    Chairman Levin. Let me just make a very quick final 
statement. First, we will include any statements in the record 
by committee Members who either were not able to be here today 
or who were here today but would want to expand on any 
statements they made. There were a number of Members who had 
other commitments. This hearing came up quickly and a number of 
our Members were unable to make it, although they are occupied 
in a number of instances on business that relate to this 
committee's work.
    Second, several Senators have indicated that they have some 
questions that they would like to submit to you for the record. 
We will ask for those questions, if possible, by the end of 
this week. You have many things to do. I do not expect there 
will be a lot, but there could be some, and I want to keep that 
record open. I know Senator Thurmond asked me to keep the 
record open for questions he wanted to ask. There may be others 
that want to ask questions. The record will be kept open for 
that purpose.
    We will keep the record open at least through tomorrow. We 
urge everybody to get their questions in by tomorrow, and then 
urge you to respond by the end of the day next Wednesday. If 
any questions come in after that, we will just give you 
additional time. We do not expect there will be a lot.
    We look forward to getting all of that paperwork you made 
reference to.
    Mr. Rumsfeld. We have it over at the other places. Before 
they want to release it they want to try and massage it.
    Chairman Levin. As always, there is an FBI report which we 
will receive and we will review. We again want to recognize 
your family for your attendance and your patience. You may not 
have noticed, but the audience has significantly dwindled. What 
has not dwindled is the love, affection, and support of your 
family, and we thank them for that. We will now stand in recess 
subject to the call of the chair. We do not expect we are going 
to need another hearing, but I do not want to preclude that 
possibility because we do not know what events may transpire. 
We will, therefore, stand in recess subject to the call of the 
chair.
    We want to thank you for your testimony today. Again I 
think you feel that there is broad support to move this 
nomination quickly out of this committee as soon as that can 
legally happen, after receipt of all the materials and after 
the President-elect formally sends in your nomination after he 
is inaugurated.
    Senator Warner, I do not think you were here at that 
moment, but I am sure that you, as our chairman-to-be, will 
move expeditiously, within moments after receipt of that 
official nomination on the 20th, to convene this committee. 
That is going to be his call because it will be his gavel.
    Senator Warner. Let us elaborate, because a lot of people 
are quite interested in that. What we did last time was, 
President Clinton came off the dais after the inaugural 
ceremonies and went up and signed a series of documents. Among 
them were the nominations of several Cabinet members.
    The committees voted, and then the Senate voice-voted that 
day, and in discussion with our distinguished Majority and, 
indeed, Minority Leaders, I think that is their intention to do 
just that, so I think we will follow the protocols that we have 
had through the years, and the Good Lord willing, and your 
endurance and that of your family, things should be in place 
Monday afternoon.
    It is important we do that, that the security team, 
particularly of the President of the United States, 
irrespective of the President, be in place.
    I remember our old boss one time, President Nixon, I 
happened to be with him one day and he said that the order of 
the succession of the presidency should never be in doubt for a 
minute. I remember that very well, and the same way with the 
team in the National security.
    So I congratulate you, I join my colleagues in 
congratulating you for a very, very good hearing. Both of us 
have been through hearings now for 23 years, and we put this 
one at the very top. Again, you and your family have stood the 
test side by side.
    Chairman Levin. If this ideal process works as outlined, 
the Inaugural Ball you will be going to a week from next 
Saturday night will be at the Pentagon. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Rumsfeld. Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, thank you.
    Chairman Levin. We stand in recess.
    [The prepared statements of Senators Smith, Santorum, and 
Hutchinson follow:]
                Prepared Statement by Senator Bob Smith
    Secretary Rumsfeld, I thank you and your family for coming before 
the Senate Armed Services Committee today. I am very pleased with your 
nomination. President-elect Bush has made an excellent choice to bring 
you onto his national security team. I can think of no one more 
qualified. You bring to the office your great experience, having held 
the position of Secretary of Defense previously in the Ford 
Administration. As a former White House Chief of Staff, you bring to 
the office your knowledge of the challenges faced by our President. As 
a former Congressman, you bring to the office a knowledge of the Hill. 
You also bring to the office your experience as a highly successful 
businessman. When confirmed, you will be running an organization larger 
than any business in the world, an organization chartered to defend the 
United States of America. Most of all, you bring to the office a great 
appreciation for the two major threats this Nation will face in this 
new century which I have long fought to address on this Committee and 
in the Senate, namely the threat to our Nation's growing reliance on 
space and the threat from missile attack.
    Coincidentally, today also marks the release of the report from the 
Commission to Assess United States National Security and Space 
Management and Organization, more commonly known today as the Space 
Commission, which I worked to create in the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense 
Authorization Act. You chaired that bipartisan group composed of the 
Nation's leading military space experts. The Space Commission's 
findings confirmed my long-held view of the growing importance of space 
to the nation and my belief that space management and organization 
reforms are urgently needed as America's commercial, civil, and 
military reliance on space assets expands. The Commission's 
recommendations lay the foundations for what I have said may be 
necessary--the eventual creation of a separate Space Force. These near-
term management and organization reforms will begin to put in place the 
leadership and advocacy for space programs that have long been lacking.
    The United States has shown the world the value of space in 
providing information superiority on the modern battlefield. As we move 
into the new century, we need to defend our space-based information 
superiority, be able to deny our adversaries that same capability, and 
leverage the uniqueness of space to be able to rapidly project military 
force around the world. We need a strong advocate for space to fight 
for and justify new space programs needed for the 21st century in 
competition with many other pressing military investment requirements. 
I salute your leadership on the Space Commission, and I am grateful for 
the knowledge and appreciation of the issue you will bring to your new 
office.
    Another of your many recent activities serving the nation was your 
chairing the 1998 Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to 
the United States. The unanimous finding by that Commission served as a 
wake-up call to the nation and set us on a course that I hope will lead 
to a robust multilayered national missile defense capability in the 
near term.
    I thank you for your service to the nation and your willingness to 
take on the daunting task of Secretary of Defense again. I look forward 
to your testimony.
                                 ______
                                 
              Prepared Statement by Senator Rick Santorum
    Senator Levin and Senator Warner, thank you for scheduling this 
hearing today. I believe it is important that this committee do all 
that it can to assist the new administration on helping to address 
pressing issues facing our military forces. This confirmation hearing 
will help begin that process.
    Members of this committee are familiar with Secretary Rumsfeld from 
his service in the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch and as a 
private citizen. Based on Secretary Rumsfeld's past record of service 
to this country, President-elect Bush has made a wise choice in 
nominating him to be our next Secretary of Defense.
    There are significant issues that the next secretary will be forced 
to confront. For example, there is the issue of military readiness. 
Five times, under the leadership of both Senator Thurmond and Senator 
Warner, this committee has examined the status of U.S. military 
readiness. To fully examine reports concerning the decline of military 
readiness, the committee received the testimony of the Service Chiefs 
and asked for their views on these reports.
    As you are probably aware, the Department of Defense's most recent 
Quarterly Readiness Report indicates that risk factors for executing 
ongoing operations and responding to a Major Theater War (MTW) are 
moderate, while risk for a second MTW is high. The committee also 
learned that of the Army's 20 schools for critical military skills such 
as field artillery, land combat and helicopter aviation, 12 have 
received C-4 ratings. The most recent readiness hearing confirmed what 
members of this committee suspected--that non-forward deployed forces 
are being ``raided'' for resources needed to maintain the readiness 
levels of our forward deployed forces.
    One of the biggest challenges facing the next secretary concerns 
the need to adequately fund not only our readiness accounts but also 
our modernization accounts. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Airland, 
I pay close attention to the modernization needs of the Services. I am 
troubled by a recent CBO report which notes, at a minimum, a $50.0 
billion disparity between the funds appropriated for fiscal year 2000 
and the level of funding needed to sustain our defense forces in a 
steady state. The largest gap identified by CBO concerns the funds 
needed to modernize our military. Under a worst case scenario, CBO 
identifies a gap as large as $62 billion between current funding and 
the funding needed to modernize at a ``steady state.''
    It will also be necessary to review and scrutinize those programs 
and weapons systems currently under development. This will be 
particularly important with respect to the development and procurement 
costs associated with three tactical aviation programs being pursued by 
the military Services. The total costs associated with developing and 
procuring the F-22 Raptor, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and Joint Strike 
Fighter will total upwards of $350 billion. It will be important to 
view the affordability of these programs against the full range of 
requirements facing the Department of Defense.
    In addition to the financial burden associated with our TACAIR 
programs, the Army has recently unveiled a new transformation 
initiative. In late 1999, General Eric Shinseki announced that the Army 
intended to embark on an effort to transform the Army to better respond 
to today's conflicts. The transformation process includes three 
elements: modernization of the current legacy force, establishment of 
rapidly deployable Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs), and research 
and development investments in the Objective Force.
    The Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 
authorized $637 million for the fielding of the first IBCT, $300 
million to begin fielding the second IBCT and another $200 million for 
related equipment. The fiscal year 2001 NDAA also required an 
acceptable form of side-by-side test against the current inventory of 
armor vehicles as well as additional field trials to examine the IAV's 
conventional warfare capabilities against a conventional force.
    One of the concerns expressed by this committee has been a 
perceived reluctance on the part of the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense to support the Army's transformation effort with sufficient 
resources. In order to fund the effort for fiscal year 2001, the Army 
was required to terminate or restructure a number of important 
programs. Congress subsequently restored many of these cuts. It is 
unclear to this committee whether there are sufficient funds to support 
modernization of the legacy force, fielding IBCTs and R&D efforts on 
the Objective Force. It is essential that you review all aspects of the 
Army's plan--fielding schedule, resourcing, testing plan, threat 
assessment, acquisition plan and lift requirements--if you are 
confirmed by the Senate.
    An area of keen interest to this committee has been the need to 
protect our critical infrastructure from being attacked or compromised 
by enemies, terrorist organization or individuals.
    The committee has also been interested in seeing improved 
coordination between the public sector and private sector with respect 
to identifying threats to our critical infrastructure and in efforts to 
safeguard these important networks.
    As part of the fiscal year 2001 NDAA, the committee authorized 
funding for two important programs which will help address our current 
weakness in addressing ``cyber threats.'' First, the committee 
authorized $10.0 million for the creation of an Institute for Defense 
Computer Security and Information Protection to conduct research and 
technology development in the area of information assurance and to 
facilitate the exchange of information regarding cyber threats, 
technology, tools, and other relevant issues.
    Second, the committee authorized $15.0 million to support the 
establishment of a Information Security Scholarship Program. The 
program would authorize the Secretary of Defense to award grants to 
institutions of higher learning to establish or improve programs in 
information security and to provide financial assistance to persons 
pursuing a baccalaureate or advanced degree in information assurance. 
The Department's support for both these efforts is vital to address 
this critical problem.
    The Clinton administration elected to approach this problem with a 
government-sponsored entity, the Institute for Infrastructure 
Information Protection. Such an approach fails to capitalize on the 
abilities of our Nation's federally Funded Research and Development 
Centers (FFRDCs) to disseminate information on cyber threats, promote 
best practices to industry, and provide a safe meeting place for 
discussions about cyber threats. I hope that you will do all you can to 
tap the resources of these FFRDCs in helping to counter cyber threats.
    Again, Senators Levin and Warner, thank you for convening this 
hearing and I look forward to the testimony of Secretary Rumsfeld.
                                 ______
                                 
              Prepared Statement by Senator Tim Hutchinson
    Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, Mr. Secretary, I regret 
that I could not attend today's hearing. President-elect Bush's 
decision to designate an individual as experienced and as capable as 
Don Rumsfeld to serve as our Nation's 21st Secretary of Defense sends 
an unmistakable signal that this Administration is committed to 
tackling the tremendous challenge of transforming our military from the 
force that defended our Nation during the Cold War to a force capable 
of deterring and winning the wars of the 21st century.
    While I look forward to working with the Secretary on all of the 
national security-related challenges facing this great nation of ours, 
I am particularly anxious to begin addressing a number of critical 
personnel issues. Implementation of the Warner/Hutchinson ``TRICARE-
for-Life'' plan must proceed carefully and expeditiously. Equitable 
compensation for senior enlisted members of our Armed Forces must be 
restored. New programs must be developed so that the men and women who 
choose to make a career of the military are able to provide college 
educations to their dependents.
    I am equally committed to working with the Secretary on a number of 
Arkansas-specific matters. Enhancing the continuing missions of Little 
Rock Air Force Base and the Pine Bluff Arsenal are two of the main 
reasons that my constituents sent me to Washington, DC, and I intend to 
continue to work every day to exceed their expectations.
    Mr. Secretary, I have every confidence that you will be able to 
satisfactorily answer all of the questions put to you by my colleagues, 
and I look forward to casting my vote in favor of your nomination. Good 
luck, and thank you for your continued dedication to public service.

    [Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the committee adjourned.]

    [Prepared questions submitted to Donald H. Rumsfeld by 
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied 
follow:]

                                                    January 9, 2001
The Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the policy 
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
            Sincerely,
                                                Donald H. Rumsfeld.
cc: Hon. John Warner
                                 ______
                                 
                        Questions and Responses
                            defense reforms
    Question. More than 10 years have passed since the enactment of the 
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and 
the Special Operations reforms. From your close association with 
defense issues, you have had an opportunity to observe the 
implementation and impact of those reforms.
    Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
    Answer. The establishment of the unified and specified combatant 
commands, the delineation of responsibilities, and most importantly the 
focus on ``jointness'' outlined in the Defense Reorganization Act of 
1986 has enhanced the readiness and warfighting capabilities of the 
U.S. Armed Forces.
    Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense 
reforms have been implemented?
    Answer. I have had no personal experience with these reforms, but 
it is my understanding that these reforms have changed the way the 
Department of Defense works by strengthening the role of the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders, and 
significantly improving the ability of the Department to protect 
America's security and further its vital interests. It apparently has 
helped improve the interaction among the services in conducting 
military operations by making joint operations the norm.
    Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of 
these defense reforms?
    Answer. The goals of Congress in enacting these reforms, as 
reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense 
Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian 
control; improving military advice; placing a clear responsibility on 
the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; 
ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with 
their responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of 
strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use 
of defense resources; enhancing the effectiveness of military 
operations; and improving the management and administration of the 
Department of Defense.
    Question. Do you agree with these goals?
    Answer. Yes, I support the goals of Congress in enacting the 
reforms of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation. But it must be said that 
they represent a tall order.
    Question. Do you anticipate submitting legislative proposals to 
amend Goldwater-Nichols?
    Answer. If confirmed as Secretary of Defense, I will review the 
extent to which the reforms have been implemented to assess the extent 
to which they have achieved the stated goals. I would consult with 
Congress on any changes that might be appropriate.
    Question. If so, what areas do you plan to address in these 
proposals?
    Answer. It would be premature to offer any thoughts at this time.
                                 duties
    Question. Section 113 of Title 10, United States Code, provides 
that the Secretary of Defense is the principal assistant to the 
President in all matters relating to the Department of Defense. Subject 
to the direction of the President, and the law, he has authority, 
direction and control over the Department of Defense.
    Do you believe there are actions you need to take to enhance your 
ability to perform the duties of the Secretary of Defense?
    Answer. I suspect there are, but I am not in a position to comment 
today. If I determine that additional authorities are needed in this 
regard, I will propose such changes.
    Question. Do you believe that you can provide advice to the 
President, or the NSC, in disagreement with or in addition to the 
advice of the Chairman without jeopardizing your relationship with 
General Shelton?
    Answer. Yes without question. The relationship between the 
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is 
important. I have had highly constructive relationships in the past 
and, if confirmed, I believe we both will be able to effectively 
fulfill our responsibilities in support of the President.
                            chain of command
    Question. Section 162(b) of Title 10, United States Code, provides 
that the chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of 
Defense and from the Secretary of Defense to the combatant commands. 
Section 163(a) of Title 10 further provides that the President may 
direct communications to combatant commanders be transmitted through 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and may assign duties to the 
Chairman to assist the President and Secretary in performing their 
command function.
    Do you believe that these provisions facilitate a clear and 
effective chain of command?
    Answer. I do not know. I assume it does. I will be interested to 
see how it works in practice.
    Question. Do these provisions enhance or degrade civilian control 
of the military?
    Answer. I would have to work with them to know.
                               priorities
    Question. What broad priorities will you establish in terms of 
issues which must be addressed by the Department of Defense?
    Answer. Our responsibility will be to take the lead in fulfilling 
President-elect Bush's commitments as set forth in my opening statement 
to the committee. I will insist that the Department cooperate with 
Congress and with the defense oversight committees. To the American 
people, I pledge every effort to foster special concern for those who 
have volunteered to serve in uniform--including the guard and reserve 
as well as the active forces--and to achieve careful management of 
their tax dollars. For America's Armed Forces, I will do all in my 
power to give our military men and women every advantage in fulfilling 
their difficult missions.
    Regarding more specific priorities or objectives, I will work to:

        1. Fashion and sustain deterrence appropriate to the new 
        national security environment;
        2. Ensure the readiness and sustainability of deployed forces;
        3. Transform U.S. military forces from a Cold War-oriented 
        force to a 21st century force capable of deterring and 
        defeating new threats;
        4. Modernize the intelligence and command-control-
        communications-infrastructure and secure our space assets given 
        the growing dependence on those assets and their 
        vulnerabilities; and
        5. Reform DOD structures, processes, and organizations.
                         u.s. defense strategy
    Question. The essence of present U.S. defense strategy, as 
articulated in the Secretary of Defense's Annual Report to the 
President and Congress, is defined as consisting of three elements--
shaping, responding, and preparing.
    Do you agree with that defense strategy?
    Answer. See response below.
    Question. If not, what defense strategy would you substitute for 
it?
    Answer. Determining what an appropriate defense strategy should be 
is one of the most important issues that will need to be addressed by 
the Department. From defense strategy flows policies, programs, and 
resource requirements. The U.S. must have a national security strategy 
that seeks to advance U.S. national interests and to have a positive 
impact on world events without the need to resort to armed force. It is 
important that we shape and prepare the Armed Forces to respond to 
whatever national security challenges may confront us--this is the 
essence of deterrence. External events sometimes are outside our 
control. Therefore, we must ensure that the military has the tools it 
needs to fight and win, should that be necessary.
    If confirmed, the defense strategy would recognize that peace is 
best preserved when the U.S. remains strong. By providing for a 
military that is second-to-none and equipped to meet the newer 
challenges of the 21st century, I believe we can best ensure a peaceful 
strategic environment that advances U.S. national security interests 
and those of our friends and allies.
                       quadrennial defense review
    Question. The Quadrennial Defense Review is required to be 
submitted to Congress by September 30, 2001.
    Will that deadline provide sufficient time for the new 
administration to develop required changes to national security 
strategy on which the Quadrennial Defense Review will be based?
    Answer. No I do not believe it will. We intend to undertake a 
comprehensive review of strategy, forces, and capabilities as 
prescribed by law and will consult with Congress should the deadline 
prove to be overly burdensome.
    Question. How will you keep the committees of jurisdiction informed 
during the conduct of the QDR?
    Answer. I do not know precisely but I will consult with 
congressional leadership and request staff to keep the committees 
appropriately informed as the review progresses.
    Question. During the past decade, the military departments have 
been reduced significantly, both in terms of force structure and 
resources, in response to the perceived post-Cold War security 
environment. During the same period, the various Defense Agencies have 
grown considerably--a prudent investment in some eyes, but a 
questionable investment to others.
    How will you include the Defense Agencies in the overall QDR 
process?
    Answer. If confirmed, the Department will undertake a comprehensive 
review of our strategy, forces, and capabilities that addresses all 
elements of the Department.
    Question. Do you envision a separate process to review the Defense 
Agencies, apart from the review of the military departments?
    Answer. I have not considered the shape of the review process.
 hart-rudman commission. the 21st century national security study group
    Question. The Hart-Rudman Commission, the 21st Century National 
Security Study Group Phase 3 report is scheduled to be completed by 
February 2001 to recommend alternatives to the current national 
security apparatus and suggest ways to implement the proposed national 
security strategy.
    What process and organization do you intend to use to review the 
report and do you intend to use the results to influence the 
Quadrennial Defense Review?
    Answer. The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, 
commonly known as the Hart-Rudman Commission, is composed of a group of 
prominent Americans drawn from all sectors of society, well suited to 
examine American national security in the 21st century. I fully expect 
the commission's phase 3 report to stimulate significant thought and 
discussion inside and outside of government and contribute to the 
ongoing national security debate and the new administration's defense 
review.
                   two major theater wars requirement
    Question. The present requirement to have the capability to fight 
and win two major theater wars in overlapping time frames is extremely 
demanding. Some argue that as long as that requirement exists, our 
Armed Forces will have to be sized in such a way as to address the 
least likely contingency with short shrift given to any preparation for 
other lesser contingencies and for emerging threats.
    Do you believe the two major theater wars requirement should be 
maintained?
    Answer. Modern history suggests that the U.S. has often faced more 
than one security contingency at a time. With that history in mind, 
preparations are appropriate. The manner in which the U.S. responds to 
two near-simultaneous contingencies is an issue of military strategy 
and operations and the adequacy of available resources at the time. 
This issue should be examined in the upcoming strategy review.
    Question. If so, how do you respond to the above argument?
    Answer. The consequences of not being prepared to fulfill the 
military's primary mission of deterring war and winning war if 
deterrence fails would be devastating. The U.S. military must also be 
able to deal with emerging threats. If confirmed, I will work to 
restructure our military to meet 21st century threats.
                            strategic pause
    Question. Some have argued for taking a strategic pause now in 
modernization programs, accepting some modest risk in the near-term 
when we have no peer competitor, while making more fundamental shifts 
for dealing with challenges we will face in the future. During the 
campaign, President-elect Bush endorsed skipping procurement of a 
generation of weapons systems.
    What is your view on this issue and, if confirmed, how would you 
proceed in implementing your view?
    Answer. We cannot allow the effectiveness of our military forces to 
degrade while we are modernizing and transforming. The U.S. military 
needs to get on a new path that will permit the rapid introduction of 
advanced technology that can materially increase military effectiveness 
and decrease the cost of operating and maintaining those forces. The 
cost of maintaining Cold War era equipment and its associated 
infrastructure and the steep reduction in modernization funding since 
the end of the Cold War has produced long-term modernization problems 
that must be addressed. If confirmed, I will conduct a comprehensive 
review of our military structure, strategy and procurement priorities, 
as promised by President-elect Bush. This review should help to 
determine how best to modernize the U.S. military to deal with future 
challenges.
                       when to use military force
    Question. The question as to whether and when U.S. forces should 
participate in potentially dangerous situations, including peace 
enforcement operations, is one of the most important and difficult 
decisions that the national command authorities have to make. Prior 
Secretaries of Defense and Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have 
proposed criteria to guide decision making for such situations.
    What is your criteria for such situations?
    Answer. The use of military force is one of the most important 
decisions a President can take. If confirmed, I would work closely with 
the President and his senior advisors to develop appropriate policies 
to guide the use of our military forces in peacetime, crisis, and war.
    Question. If you have not developed such criteria, what are the 
factors that you believe are most important with regard to such 
decisions?
    Answer. My general views are these: A decision to use military 
force, whether unilaterally or in coalition with other nations, should 
reflect important U.S. national security interests. The U.S. structure 
of alliances and its diplomatic ability to build informal, but 
effective regional coalitions provides the President with a variety of 
options to bring military power to bear in a specific situation where 
U.S. interests are involved. U.S. military forces can best be used when 
the military mission is clear and achievable and when there is a 
reasonable exit strategy. I look forward to working the President and 
his national security team on the details of this important question in 
the weeks ahead.
                     participation in peacekeeping
    Question. Some have taken the position that the United States 
should not generally participate in peacekeeping in view of the 
negative impact that such activities have on certain warfighting 
skills, and the fact that the U.S. Armed Forces' primary mission is 
fighting and winning our Nation's wars. Others have taken the position 
that participation in peacekeeping operations is in our Nation's 
interest and strengthens U.S. leadership and that such actually 
improves certain warfighting skills, such as leadership skills.
    What is your view on the participation of U.S. forces in 
peacekeeping operations?
    Answer. Clear criteria for the use of U.S. military forces should 
be established prior to U.S. participation in specific peacekeeping 
operations. There should be clear objectives, a coherent strategy to 
achieve them, a reasonable chance of success, acceptable command and 
control arrangements, and an exit strategy. When the main burden of the 
U.S. presence shifts to infrastructure and nation-building, however, we 
are into missions that are not appropriate for the U.S. military.
                               jointness
    Question. It became apparent during this year's debate on defense 
needs that our military deployments have increased dramatically in the 
past decade at the same time our force structure and resources have 
declined, increasing the tempo on our military personnel and equipment. 
To the consternation of many, including members of this committee, we 
seem to encounter the same significant problems with meaningful joint 
operations and interoperability of our Armed Forces during each 
significant military operation. Most notably, the armed services 
continue to be hampered by communications systems, information 
management systems, and other capabilities that are often not 
interoperable and sometimes redundant. This committee has expended 
considerable time on these issues, but continues to observe problems in 
the development and fielding of interoperable systems and concepts.
    How do you propose to remedy these recurring shortcomings?
    Answer. Interoperability among our forces is an issue which I 
believe demands immediate attention. Interoperability should be 
addressed as new systems are conceived, not simply after they are 
fielded. I believe we should devote significant efforts to solving the 
warfighter's problems in the field as identified by the CINCs, 
including from experiences in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Desert Storm.
    Question. In your opinion, do our experimentation, requirements 
generation, and acquisition processes need significant reform? If so, 
how would you propose to reform these processes?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will undertake a review of these processes, 
with a special emphasis on innovation and streamlining, and will report 
the results of that review to Congress. My current impression is that 
the process is mired in unrealistic requirements that unnecessarily 
delay the time from concept to deployment at a time when technology is 
leaping ahead. Because of the lengthy acquisition process and the rapid 
advances in technology, we may have driven ourselves into a position 
that is guaranteed to produce technologically obsolete equipment the 
day it is deployed.
                           national security
    Question. Most agree the most significant near-term threat to our 
national security is not from a military peer competitor, but from 
transnational, ideological groups that may attempt to employ some type 
of weapon of mass destruction within the United States.
    How would you assess our preparedness to respond to such a 
situation?
    Answer. I am advised that the U.S. government is spending more than 
$11 billion to deal with terrorist threats that might be posed by 
transnational or ideological terrorists, including the use of weapons 
of mass destruction. While some impressive results have been achieved 
from this considerable effort, my preliminary impression is that more 
remains to be done, particularly with respect to the role of the 
Department in providing for homeland defense as well as for defense of 
U.S. facilities overseas.
    Question. What adjustments would you recommend, if confirmed, to 
our national security mechanisms to ensure the collective, accountable 
cooperation of all appropriate agencies?
    Answer. I am not prepared at this time to recommend adjustments. 
While the response to the transnational terrorist threat to the U.S. 
has been well supported the distribution of resources, programs, and 
leadership over numerous Federal agencies has posed significant 
coordination problems. Greater coordination and interagency leadership 
is needed to assure an effective U.S. government response to this 
threat.
    Two areas of particular interest to me are space and intelligence. 
Each would benefit from more senior level leadership and closer 
coordination between the Secretary of Defense and the DCI.
                             transformation
    Question. The December 1997 Report of the National Defense Panel, 
titled ``Transforming Defense: National Security in the 21st Century,'' 
contained the following statements: ``The Defense Department should 
accord the highest priority to executing a transformation strategy. 
Taking the wrong transformation course (or failing to transform) opens 
the nation to both strategic and technological surprise. Transformation 
will take dedication and commitment--and a willingness to put talented 
people, money, resources, and structure behind a process designed to 
foster change. Greater emphasis should be placed on experimenting with 
a variety of military systems, operational concepts, and force 
structures. The goal is to identify the means to meet the emerging 
challenges, exploit the opportunities, and terminate those approaches 
that do not succeed.'' And: ``At the core of the effort should be a 
much greater emphasis on jointness, building upon the legacy of 
Goldwater-Nichols.''
    Do you agree that there is a need to transform the U.S. Armed 
Forces into a very different kind of military from that which exists 
today?
    Answer. Yes. Our current force structure will be sorely challenged 
by asymmetric threats and the growing ability of both state and non-
state actors to deny access to critical forward bases and lines of 
communication. We have the opportunity now to critically evaluate both 
our force structure as well as how we organize and employ our forces. 
Lessons learned from previous operations suggest the need for 
improvement in the areas of intelligence, rapid deployment and 
employment, decisive operations across the spectrum of conflict, 
streamlining of logistics, and improvements in the C\4\ISR capabilities 
and architectures.
    Question. Do you agree that experimentation, particularly joint 
experimentation, is essential to successfully achieving such a 
transformation?
    Answer. Yes. Joint experimentation is essential in ensuring that 
operations, doctrine-related activities, and acquisition are more fully 
explored from inception to delivery/implementation. Our concept should 
be to field systems and develop capabilities that are ``born joint.'' 
An essential step in helping to ensure that new capabilities are ``born 
joint'' and work is through experimentation. We must avoid radios 
usable by only one service, service-specific software, and procedures 
that are peculiar to one community or service. Transformation involves 
more than merely new weapons systems. Rather, it is a process of 
reorganization and reform that can best be validated through joint 
experimentation.
    Question. Over the last year, we have seen the Army begin a process 
to transform the service into a force that will be able to deal with a 
wide range of anticipated 21st century national security challenges. 
The Navy and Air Force have also begun to explore opportunities to 
initiate transformation processes to keep current with evolving defense 
challenges. These efforts demonstrate a recognition that fundamental 
change is necessary if they are to remain viable over the next 20-30 
years.
    Are you at all concerned that these initiatives appear to be ``self 
defined'' by the services without direct participation of the Secretary 
of Defense or the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff?
    Answer. I am told that a structure is in place in which JFCOM was 
designated the lead for joint force integration and for joint force 
training. While I am not familiar with it, I intend to assess the 
effectiveness of the current arrangement.
    Question. Should the Department of Defense play a role in steering 
or guiding individual service efforts? If so, how?
    Answer. Yes. Service initiative is invaluable. However, if forces 
are to fight jointly in the field, transformation must be conducted as 
a joint endeavor. Only then can the Services' specific cultures and 
capabilities likely to be forged into a joint cooperative endeavor.
                          army transformation
    Question. The Army has begun a process for transforming itself into 
a lighter, more agile force that will be able to deal with the 
challenges posed by threats in an uncertain future.
    Do you believe that the Department should support the Army's 
current transformation plan even if it means diverting resources from 
other Services' investment programs to pay for it?
    Answer. I cannot answer this without an analysis of all the 
Services' investment programs. But I can say this: I believe that the 
Secretary of Defense should seek an allocation of resources that is 
best for the overall defense posture--that gives priority to funding 
the most pressing requirements. The transformation of our Armed Forces 
will be a high priority. But before recommending major changes in the 
allocation of investment funding--which Congress has recently 
approved--I intend to assess what new capabilities are being sought and 
the soundness of programs advancing those capabilities and their impact 
on deterrence and warfighting capabilities.
    Question. What is your view of the appropriate role that 
experimentation, including joint experimentation, should play in 
directing the Army's efforts in modernizing the legacy force, fielding 
an interim force, and developing the objective force?
    Answer. Army Transformation must be coherent with evolving joint 
operational doctrine, and that doctrine will only emerge through joint 
experimentation. I see experimentation playing an important role. But 
let me be clear: experimentation will yield changes in course, exhibit 
failures of expectations, or even reveal past mistakes. We must be 
careful to learn from experimentation, and acknowledge the risks it 
reveals.
    Question. Do you believe that the current Air Force and Navy 
strategic mobility programs will support the Army's transformation 
goals for strategic agility? If not, what changes do you believe should 
be made in those programs?
    Answer. My preliminary impression is that we need to make 
improvements in our strategic mobility capability. As we transform the 
forces, we will need an appropriate strategic sea/airlift fleet.
                           budget priorities
    Question. During the 106th Congress, both Congress and the 
administration placed the highest priority on increasing pay and 
compensation for military personnel and health care benefits for 
retirees, and on improving housing for military families.
    If you are confirmed, what will be your highest priorities for 
increased funding over and above financing the unfunded cost of these 
previously enacted benefit increases?
    Answer. First, preserving the high quality of our military 
personnel and restoring their morale. We need to spend what is needed 
to compensate military people fairly and ensure a competitive quality 
of life for them and their families. In this tight U.S. labor market 
for highly-skilled professionals, we must spend enough to attract and 
retain people with the skills required for the technically 
sophisticated Armed Forces. Also important is good military health 
care, housing, and other quality of life contributors. I would review 
the progress made in recent years and decide if further improvements 
are needed. President-elect Bush has signaled that taking care of our 
military people is a top priority with his pledge to increase pay for 
the Armed Forces. Second, readiness. I would look for areas where 
increased funding is needed for training, maintenance, and other 
readiness essentials--there are also important quality of life 
considerations. I also would consider actions to prevent indirect 
threats to readiness--that is, to prevent funding shortfalls that could 
result in funds being diverted from readiness accounts. Third, future 
capabilities--focused on ballistic missile defense and modernization of 
air, sea, land, intelligence, and space capabilities. These areas are 
complex, and I will likely not complete an assessment of where best to 
put added funding until the defense review is completed. I hope to have 
identified some immediate funding needs in time to include in the 
fiscal year 2002 budget submission, and possibly in a fiscal year 2001 
supplemental.
    Question. As Secretary you would be called on to make tough 
decisions in many areas, one of which would be funding priorities. What 
areas in the defense budget represent your highest priorities for 
additional resources?
    Answer. Again, the highest priorities would be people, readiness, 
and future capabilities. It is important to ensure that we are taking 
good care of our people, both now and for the future; and to seek the 
proper balance between current readiness and investment in the high-
tech capabilities to ensure our future superiority in all security 
realms--with special attention to the threats of this post-Cold War 
period. Over the past few years I have been focused on the issues of 
ballistic missile defense, America's security posture in space, and 
intelligence. If confirmed, these would certainly be high priorities.
    Question. There are an increasing number of studies from outside 
the administration, in addition to the Joint Chiefs, which indicate 
that current and projected levels of defense spending will be 
inadequate to meet U.S. national security requirements as they are 
currently stated.
    What is your view of these and other studies, and will you seek 
additional funding for defense?
    Answer. I agree with the conclusion that projected defense spending 
levels are inadequate to meet U.S. national security requirements as 
they are currently stated. President-elect Bush has expressed the same 
conclusion. If confirmed I would direct a study to specify exactly 
where inadequacies lie, where savings could be achieved to help address 
those inadequacies, and what additional funding may be required.
             readiness for most likely military operations
    Question. The Army has been exploring changes to the way readiness 
is measured due in part to confusion in some recent deployments where 
units were assessing themselves and reporting against one set of 
requirements while they were undertaking a different mission at the 
time.
    Do you believe the readiness reporting system should be made more 
comprehensive so that it measures our units not only against the most 
demanding requirements contained in the national military strategy but 
also assesses the performance of those units in the real world missions 
directed by the national command authorities?
    Answer. The question ``ready to do what?'' is a good one. The 
current system centers on our readiness for high intensity combat 
operations, such as a major theater war, and provides broad indicators 
of readiness status ranging from personnel to equipment. I understand 
that planning is underway for a number of improvements to the existing 
reporting system, in both the near and longer term.
    Question. Over the last few years many have agreed that we have 
seen increasing evidence that the readiness of the U.S. Armed Forces 
has begun to deteriorate as a result of the over-commitment of an 
under-resourced Department of Defense.
    What do you view as the major readiness challenges that will have 
to be addressed by the Bush administration, and, if confirmed, how will 
you approach these issues?
    Answer. There are a number of readiness challenges that must be 
addressed. These include the classic ``unit readiness'' concerns of 
robust manning, functioning equipment, and realistic training. 
Warfighting commanders have to have the assets to synchronize and use 
their units in effective joint and coalition forces. National Guard and 
Reserves have a number of unique challenges in meeting their mission 
requirements upon deployment that require immediate address.
    Some of the more pressing concerns lie in the condition of 
equipment, or more broadly, the materiel readiness of the forces. 
Problems include higher-than-planned use, inadequate spare parts 
inventories, and recruiting and retaining highly skilled personnel.
    Joint readiness requires effective command, control, 
communications, and computer (C\4\) systems; robust intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems; sufficient lift to 
mobilize forces and equipment; and healthy logistics practices and 
sustainment stocks. The U.S. needs to be better prepared for the 
growing threats posed by terrorism, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), 
threats to critical information and other infrastructure systems, and 
vulnerable space assets. As we review our National Military Strategy in 
the Quadrennial Defense Review, these concerns must be addressed.
                              encroachment
    Question. Some of the most significant issues that will impact the 
readiness of the Armed Forces as we enter the 21st century could be 
categorized as outside encroachment upon military resources. This 
encroachment includes environmental constraints on military training 
ranges, local community efforts to obtain military property, airspace 
restrictions to accommodate civilian airlines, transfer of radio 
frequency spectrum from the Department of Defense to the wireless 
communications industry, and many others. Unless these issues are 
effectively addressed our military forces will find it increasingly 
difficult to train and operate at home and abroad.
    In your opinion, how serious are these problems?
    Answer. This is an important issue. The myriad forms of 
encroachment ranges face threaten to complicate and in some cases 
severely restrict the ability to conduct critical training. The number 
of external pressures is increasing and the readiness impacts are 
growing. We need to address these issues in a more comprehensive and 
systematic fashion. It will be important to work with regulators, 
special interests, other federal agencies, and communities to more 
clearly define the issues from all viewpoints. We must anticipate 
pressures and reach acceptable, timely solutions, whenever possible. We 
will also need to address the issues raised by the transfer of radio 
frequency spectrum from DOD to the wireless communications industry.
    Question. If confirmed, what efforts will you take to ensure that 
military access to these specific, and other required resources, will 
be preserved?
    Answer. The Department's approach should be comprehensive and 
balanced, supporting test and training and operational requirements, 
while seeking to protect the natural environment and operating within a 
balanced regulatory framework. Modernizing instrumentation is central 
to efforts to make DOD ranges sustainable. Live training is expensive. 
Improved range instrumentation can increase the return on investment 
by: expanding the battle space and creating a more realistic warfare 
environment; providing improved learning by better feedback; and 
reducing the impact on the environment by substituting simulated 
engagements. All Services are experiencing deterioration of training 
range infrastructure, which will require recapitalization. I am advised 
that the Senior Readiness Oversight Council recently directed a broad-
based effort to counter encroachment and protect the future capability 
of ranges to support required training and testing. The goal is to 
maintain fully sustainable ranges. A comprehensive approach is needed 
to satisfy both readiness needs and the legal and moral 
responsibilities as stewards of public lands.
                  outsourcing of commercial activities
    Question. Over the past several years the Department of Defense has 
increased its reliance upon the private sector to perform certain 
activities including equipment maintenance and facility operations. 
Some have supported this effort while others have expressed concern 
that core activities are being jeopardized by reducing our reliance 
upon military personnel and civilian employees of the Federal 
Government.
    What approach would you recommend to balance maintaining military 
necessary capabilities and outsourcing?
    Answer. The size and composition of DOD's facilities to perform 
equipment maintenance is an important aspect of the overall readiness 
of the Armed Forces. The appropriate balance between government and 
private sector facilities must be struck in a manner that assures the 
equipment employed by the Armed Forces will be ready for use when 
needed. This balance in turn will be affected over time by the nature 
of the technology used in military equipment. A balance will be 
reviewed to assure that capabilities essential to national defense that 
cannot reliably be provided by the private sector will be provided by 
the government sector. Moreover, critical capabilities will be 
maintained in the government sector.
                           counter-narcotics
    Question. The U.S. Government has initiated a massive assistance 
program to the Government of Colombia to regain control of its 
territory in an effort to stem the production of cocaine and other 
narcotics that are sent to the United States. The Department of Defense 
is playing a particularly significant role in this program by training 
and providing resources to the Colombian Armed Forces. This program, 
Plan Colombia, has come under criticism as expensive and misdirected 
and, some allege, will contribute to the abuse of human rights and lead 
the U.S. military into ``another Vietnam.''
    What is your view with regard to Plan Colombia--its potential for 
success and the appropriate role of the U.S. Armed Forces?
    Answer. I have less than well-informed personal views which I 
prefer to discuss with the appropriate officials before taking a public 
position.
                          combating terrorism
    Question. The Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2001 (sec. 901) requires the Secretary of Defense to 
designate an Assistant Secretary as the individual responsible for 
providing ``overall direction and supervision for policy, program 
planning and execution, and allocation and use of resources for the 
activities of the Department of Defense for combating terrorism.''
    If confirmed, what are your plans for implementing this legislation 
and any other plans you have for streamlining and providing more focus 
on the Department's combating terrorism programs?
    Answer. I am aware of the Section 901 language requiring the 
designation of an Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Department's 
combating terrorism activities. I share the committee's concerns with 
providing an appropriate focus for combating terrorism. If confirmed, I 
would hope to review the current organizational structure. I would of 
course inform Congress as implementing decisions are made.
    Question. In recent years, there have been numerous congressional 
proposals to establish a National Coordinator for Combating Domestic 
Terrorism. The proposals have ranged from establishing a position 
similar to the current ``Drug Czar'' to creating a Deputy Attorney 
General for Combating Domestic Terrorism.
    Would you have concerns with such an individual having budgetary 
and policy responsibilities over certain Department of Defense 
combating terrorism programs?
    Answer. The many activities associated with combating terrorism, 
domestically and internationally, need to be coordinated. Combating 
terrorism is a complex issue involving the expertise and statutory 
authorities of many departments and agencies. I would be concerned with 
proposals that could limit the Department's ability to fulfill its 
responsibilities. I would need to know more than I do now to have 
conclusions about such proposals and provide the committee with my 
appraisal.
    Question. Do you have any suggestions as to what type of a 
position, and its responsibilities, should be established to better 
coordinate our Nation's combating domestic terrorism efforts?
    Answer. I would need some time to be prepared to make a 
recommendation.
                       tactical fighter programs
    Question. Perhaps the largest modernization effort that we will 
face over the next several years is the set of programs to modernize 
our tactical aviation forces, including the F-22, the F/A-18E/F, and 
the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The Congressional Budget Office has 
estimated that these three programs will consume over $300 billion of 
our investment resources over the next 20 years. Some have said that we 
need to cancel or truncate one or more of these programs in order to 
afford other high priority modernization efforts, such as Army 
transformation, or recapitalizing the Navy's fleet.
    What are your views on the requirements for and timing of these 
three programs?
    Answer. The modernization of U.S. tactical fighter programs is of 
immense importance to the maintenance of U.S. military superiority. It 
is costly, and deserves a careful review. The requirements and timing 
of the tactical fighter programs will be a subject in the defense 
review.
                              b-2 bombers
    Question. Do you favor restarting production of B-2 bombers?
    Answer. Long-range bombers are a crucial national military 
capability providing timely worldwide reach to American military power. 
As is the case with tactical fighters, the bomber modernization 
requirement needs to be reviewed in the forthcoming defense review. 
Before such a decision could be made, one would have to look at the 
overall cost and the impact on other programs, and how that cost would 
compare to fielding other weapon delivery systems, including stand-off 
missiles that could perform or contribute to the same or similar 
missions. One would also likely look at whether more B-2s would be more 
effective than additional upgrades and improvements to the current 
bomber force structure of B-2, B-1, and B-52 aircraft.
                              v-22 program
    Question. Do you believe that the V-22 program should move to full 
rate production now, should substantial additional operational testing 
be conducted, or is the Department pursuing a flawed program for which 
another alternative should be adopted?
    Answer. The two recent crashes of the V-22 which have resulted in 
loss of life are disturbing. I have read that the Department is 
reviewing the program in light of these incidents. I have no 
conclusions at this time.
                             strateic lift
    Question. One of the shortfalls most consistently identified by 
Commanders-in-Chief in written and oral testimony has been in the area 
of the required strategic lift to support the National Military 
Strategy. Study after study has confirmed this shortfall, yet the 
shortfall remains.
    What steps would you propose to address this deficiency?
    Answer. Strategic lift is a key element of U.S. military power 
because of our dependence on the ability to conduct expeditionary 
campaigns to defend U.S. interests and those of our friends and allies. 
Depending on the airlift requirement established, there are several 
options to be considered. The question of strategic lift will need to 
be addressed in the defense review.
                             nato expansion
    Question. The United States will face a decision on the addition of 
new members to the NATO Alliance by the 2002 NATO summit meeting.
    What are your views on continued NATO expansion?
    Answer. As former Ambassador to NATO, I have great respect for the 
value of the NATO Alliance. It has been the key instrument in keeping 
the peace in Europe for over 50 years. The key factor in considering 
future NATO expansion is whether or not expansion will enhance U.S. and 
NATO security. I believe it is important that the broadening of NATO 
membership preserve the alliance's capacity for effective collective 
action. This suggests that new members should share the democratic 
values of the alliance and be prepared to make the necessary 
investments in the creation and maintenance of effective and 
interoperable military forces.
    It is my understanding that Allied leaders agreed to ``review'' the 
issue of enlargement at their next summit, to be held no later than 
2002. This is an issue that will need to be addressed by the President 
and his national security team.
                review of overseas military deployments
    Question. In an address to the Citadel in September 1999, then-
Governor Bush said that he would order an immediate review of U.S. 
overseas military deployments worldwide. According to the Governor, 
``the problem comes with open-ended deployments and unclear military 
missions.''
    In conducting this review, what factors will you use to determine 
continued U.S. military participation in on going overseas deployments?
    Answer. A decision to employ U.S. military forces in support of our 
national interests is one that should never be taken lightly. Likewise 
the decision to sustain, reduce, or end the commitment of U.S. forces 
to on-going operations must be informed by careful assessment and 
deliberation. If confirmed, I will assist the President and his senior 
advisors in reviewing these matters, preferably in a way that does not 
create unnecessary uncertainties and difficulties for those responsible 
for managing such operations.
                  european security and defense policy
    Question. The European Union (EU) is working to implement its 
European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) to enable the EU to take 
decisions and, where NATO as a whole is not engaged, to launch and 
conduct EU-led military operations in response to international crises. 
Secretary Cohen recently warned our European allies that NATO could 
become ``a relic of the past'' if ESDP is not implemented in a way that 
will strengthen the NATO Alliance. Members of Congress have expressed 
similar concerns.
    What are your views on the EU's ESDP?
    Answer. I share these concerns. A free and democratic Europe is a 
vital security interest for the United States. The transatlantic 
alliance has proven to be the most effective instrument of collective 
military action in history. Coming at a time of historically low levels 
of investment and public interest in defense matters in Europe, the 
ESDP could pose a resource-diversion risk to NATO, and in doing so, 
undermine the ability of NATO to undertake effective collective 
defense. The U.S. and our NATO allies need to assure that any ESDP 
would not diminish the effectiveness of the NATO alliance.
    Question. What actions do you believe the EU should take in 
implementing ESDP to address the concerns expressed by Secretary Cohen 
and others?
    Answer. The task is to preserve the integrity of NATO as the 
primary instrument of transatlantic security. It will take active U.S. 
leadership at both the bilateral and multilateral levels to ensure that 
any ESDP does not diminish the effectiveness of the NATO alliance.
    Question. Do you believe that ESDP is, or could be, a threat to the 
NATO Alliance?
    Answer. It could, potentially. But we need to work with our allies 
to make sure that it does not.
                      international criminal court
    Question. The United States signed the Rome Treaty on the 
International Criminal Court on December 31, 2000, the deadline 
established in the Treaty. The decision to sign, despite concerns about 
significant flaws in the Treaty, was to put the United States in a 
position to influence the evolution of the Court.
    What are your views on the Rome Treaty?
    Answer. I oppose the Treaty. The Rome Statute has deficiencies that 
expose U.S. personnel to certain risks. We must be concerned about the 
exposure of U.S. personnel to politically motivated prosecution. I 
favor rejecting the assertion of the ICC's purported jurisdiction over 
non-party states.
    Question. The Pentagon has been very concerned that the court could 
claim jurisdiction over American service members and officials, even if 
the U.S. has not ratified the treaty.
    Do you share those concerns with regards to the ICC?
    Answer. Yes. See my comments above.
                        national missile defense
    Question. President-elect Bush has stated his support for deploying 
a robust National Missile Defense (NMD) system ``at the earliest 
possible date'' to protect the United States and its allies.
    Will you only consider deploying the NMD system currently under 
development, or will you consider alternative systems and architectures 
for deployment?
    Answer. I believe it would be good to examine alternative and 
complementary architectures to the NMD system currently under 
development. In doing so, a number of factors would need to be 
considered, including the urgency of the ballistic missile threat to 
the United States, U.S. forces deployed overseas, and our friends and 
allies, as well as the technical feasibility, cost, and deployment 
schedule for potential alternatives.
    Question. If you consider alternatives, they are likely to take 
longer to develop, test, and deploy than the system currently under 
development, perhaps considerably longer.
    Are you willing to wait until after 2010 to deploy a system if its 
development takes that long, or will you only consider systems that can 
be deployed during this decade?
    Answer. President-elect Bush is committed to deployment of an 
effective NMD at the earliest possible date. This commitment is based 
on the need to protect the American people against long-range missile 
threats that can evolve rapidly and with little or no warning. I agree. 
However, this does not mean we will foreclose alternatives that could 
be deployed after 2010, particularly if they can provide increased 
effectiveness or would address uncertainties in the evolution of the 
long range missile threat
    Question. The Bush administration and the Clinton administration 
both pursued development of a limited NMD system to defend against 
limited attacks. Then-Governor Bush wrote in May 2000, of the need for 
missile defense against ``missile attacks by rogue nations or 
accidental launches.''
    Will you pursue an NMD system designed to defend against such 
limited attacks, or will you pursue an NMD system designed to defend 
against all Russian and Chinese ballistic missile systems?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would plan to review the various 
alternatives to defend us and our allies against ballistic missile 
attacks by rogue nations as well as accidental or unauthorized 
launches.
    Question. The Clinton administration adopted four criteria for 
determining whether to deploy an NMD system: (1) the existence of a 
threat that warrants deployment; (2) an NMD system that is 
operationally effective; (3) an NMD system that is affordable and cost-
effective; and (4) an assessment of the impact of deployment on our 
relations with other nations and on nuclear arms control and non-
proliferation efforts. The overall focus of these criteria was to 
determine whether deployment would make the United States more or less 
secure.
    What will be your criteria for determining whether deploying an NMD 
system will make us more or less secure?
    Answer. The incoming administration has not issued a specific set 
of criteria. However, the President-elect has stated his support of the 
deployment of an NMD system as soon as possible. This is founded in a 
belief that an effective NMD systems will make us more secure.
    Question. Since you chaired the Commission to Assess the Ballistic 
Missile Threat to the United States in 1998, have your judgments 
changed regarding the nature and scope of the ballistic missile threat?
    Answer. No. The threat to the U.S. posed by emerging ballistic 
missile capabilities is broader, more mature, and evolving more rapidly 
than had been previously estimated.
    Question. The current NMD program being developed by DOD is focused 
on the deployment of a single ground-based site in Alaska in the 2005-
2007 timeframe. Some have advocated either substituting a sea-based NMD 
system for the ground-based program or adding sea-based systems as 
adjuncts to the ground-based system.
    What role do you believe sea-based systems might have in a future 
NMD architecture?
    Answer. I am aware that sea-based systems could play an important 
role in defending against ballistic missile threats. I further 
understand that the Department has prepared a classified study of the 
possible contributions of sea-based systems to National Missile 
Defense. If confirmed I will review that study and make recommendations 
to the President, as appropriate.
                        theater missile defense
    Question. Theater ballistic missile threats exist today and are 
growing. There are currently five U.S. theater missile defense (TMD) 
systems under development for deployment against these existing and 
growing threats.
    What priority will you give to theater missile defense and how will 
it compare to National Missile Defense?
    Answer. In light of the widespread deployment of ballistic missiles 
today, I believe it is imperative that the Department develop, test, 
procure, and deploy TMD systems. Given the simultaneous emergence of 
the long-range ballistic missile threat to the United States, it is 
essential that the Department give equal priority to developing and 
procuring an effective NMD as well.
    Question. Will you continue the ``family of systems'' approach of 
layered and complementary TMD systems currently being developed, or 
will you change the approach to TMD? If you would change the approach, 
what manner of change would you propose?
    Answer. It is my understanding that the concept of layered defense 
has been adopted because a single TMD system cannot defeat the range of 
theater ballistic missiles U.S. forces could face. It also provides 
greater confidence in the overall effectiveness of the system. I 
currently know of no reason to move away from the ``family-of-systems'' 
approach currently under development.
    Question. Several of DOD's theater missile defense programs are 
currently funding-constrained, resulting in either inefficient 
production rates or development delays.
    What sort of priority would you attach to ensuring that we develop 
and field TMD systems in a timely and efficient manner?
    Answer. Given the widespread deployment of theater-range ballistic 
missiles and the threat those missiles pose to deployed U.S. forces as 
well as our friends and allies, I would attach a high priority to the 
development and deployment of effective TMD systems in a timely and 
efficient manner.
                       missile defense technology
    Question. Congress has repeatedly expressed concerns over the 
declining level of funding available for ballistic missile defense 
science and technology and follow-on technology development.
    Do you believe that it should be a priority to reinvigorate the 
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's support technology efforts?
    Answer. Yes. Effective ballistic missile defense relies on the 
application of some of the most advanced technologies available. In 
assessing the scope of science and technology work in this area, it is 
also important to look beyond the specific dedicated investments in 
BMDO programs.
                  anti-ballistic missile (abm) treaty
    Question. Then-Governor Bush stated in September 1999, that his 
administration would ``offer Russia the necessary amendments to the 
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty'' to make possible the deployment of a 
U.S. NMD system. ``If Russia refuses the changes we propose, we will 
give prompt notice, under the provisions of the Treaty, that we can no 
longer be a party to it.''
    What amendments to the ABM Treaty would you propose to the 
Russians?
    Answer. The issue of how to handle the ABM Treaty will be part of 
the overall review of NMD to be directed by the President.
    Question. The ABM Treaty gives each party the right to withdraw 
from the treaty if it decides that ``extraordinary events related to 
the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized its supreme 
interests.''
    If the U.S. makes a unilateral decision to withdraw from the ABM 
Treaty in order to deploy an NMD system, what possible negative 
consequences do you foresee from the reaction of our allies, from 
Russia, or from China?
    Answer. I am aware that concerns have been expressed by some of our 
allies about NMD and the prospect of U.S. withdrawal from the ABM 
Treaty. I believe these concerns can be addressed through close 
consultations. In the longer run, I believe that deployment of an 
effective NMD system can strengthen U.S. and allied security. For 
example, the failure to deploy appropriate defensive systems could also 
have adverse effects, including:

         Paralyzing our ability to act in a crisis or deterring 
        other countries from assisting us;
         Providing incentives to U.S. friends and allies to 
        develop nuclear capabilities;
         Putting the U.S. in a position where its only option 
        may be preemption; and
         Moving the U.S. to a more isolationist position 
        because of an inability to defend against ballistic missiles.

    To date, the Russians have rejected amendments to the treaty to 
permit deployment of any U.S. NMD system, and have raised the 
possibility of withdrawing from existing arms control regimes and on-
going efforts to reduce strategic offensive arms. The task is to 
persuade the world of the truth that deployment of a NMD system will 
strengthen global security and stability. As President-elect Bush has 
stated, ``America's development of missile defenses is a search for 
security, not a search for advantage.''
    Question. Could these consequences, possibly including Russia 
ending its nuclear weapon reductions, have the effect of reducing our 
security or increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation?
    Answer. I don't believe that is the case. These are issues the 
President-elect and his senior officials will need to address.
                    nuclear force levels and posture
    Question. Then-Governor Bush wrote in May 2000 of the need for a 
new approach to nuclear security, saying that ``the premises of Cold 
War targeting should no longer dictate the size of our arsenal.'' 
Concerning the number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. stockpile, 
Governor Bush wrote that he would ``pursue the lowest possible number 
consistent with our national security.'' He also stated that, ``It 
should be possible to reduce the number of American nuclear warheads 
significantly beyond what has already been agreed to under START II, 
without compromising our security in any way.''
    Under what circumstances do you believe it would be possible to 
achieve such reductions?
    Answer. President-elect Bush has stated that he will direct his 
Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of the nuclear force 
posture and determine how best to meet U.S. security needs. At the same 
time, he has stated he will pursue the lowest possible number of 
weapons consistent with our national security. I prefer to wait until 
that review is completed before speculating on the circumstances under 
which reductions might be advisable.
    Question. Do you believe we should pursue such reductions through 
negotiated agreement with Russia (and possibly other nations)?
    Answer. The President's advisers plan to undertake a review of how 
best to pursue President-elect Bush's goal of further reductions. 
Logically, this could involve traditional arms control tools, 
innovative unilateral initiatives, or some combination. In any case, an 
approach to any nuclear reductions would need to be developed in the 
context of a number of interrelated factors. These include decisions on 
the ABM Treaty and National Missile Defense, as well as measures 
relating to tactical nuclear weapons, the evolution in Russia's 
unilateral strategic force posture, and the outcome of the planned 
Nuclear Posture Review.
    Question. Governor Bush also wrote that ``the United States should 
remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger 
status,'' because ``keeping so many weapons on high alert may create 
unacceptable risks of accidental or unauthorized launch.''
    Do you intend to carry out an assessment of ``what we can safely do 
to lower the alert status of our forces?''
    Answer. This is one of the questions that would be considered as 
part of the nuclear posture review.
               u.s.-north korean nuclear agreed framework
    Question. The United States and North Korea signed an agreement in 
1994 that calls for North Korea to end and dismantle its plutonium 
production capacity, and for the United States to lead a coalition with 
South Korea and Japan to provide North Korea with proliferation-
resistant light water reactors if it complies with each step of the 
agreement. To date, both sides have complied with the Agreed Framework, 
which has prevented North Korea from producing enough plutonium for 
dozens of nuclear weapons.
    Assuming both sides continue to comply with its terms, do you 
believe this Agreed Framework serves our national security interests?
    Answer. It is in U.S. interest to ensure that the North Korean 
nuclear weapons program is terminated. I assume that the new 
administration will pursue that objective through means it deems most 
effective. Those precise means would likely be determined following a 
review of U.S. policy towards North Korea and U.S. nonproliferation 
policies.
        comprehensive test ban treaty (ctbt) and nuclear testing
    Question. You have expressed opposition to a permanent, zero-yield 
CTBT.
    If U.S. ratification were conditioned on a robust Stockpile 
Stewardship Program; a firm commitment to preserve the option to test a 
nuclear weapon (by withdrawing from the treaty) if necessary to fix a 
critical problem with the stockpile; and there were a review of the 
treaty after 10 years, would that address some of your concerns about 
the treaty?
    Answer. I am not convinced that that approach would adequately 
protect U.S. national security. The President-elect has opposed CTBT, 
but has stated that he would continue the current testing moratorium. 
That being said, I believe the new administration is likely to 
undertake a review of this matter.
    Question. Do you agree that we should maintain our current 
moratorium on nuclear testing?
    Answer. The President-elect has stated that he will continue the 
current moratorium on nuclear testing. The President will review 
annually the size, composition, and status of the U.S. nuclear weapons 
stockpile. This will include a detailed assessment of the safety, 
reliability, and effectiveness of the weapons in the stockpile. 
Developments in this area need to be monitored closely.
    Question. Do you believe that a CTBT would make it more difficult 
for such nations to develop and stockpile advanced thermonuclear 
nuclear weapons?
    Answer. Not necessarily. History teaches that nations that are 
determined to cheat do so and I do not see how the CTBT can be 
effectively verified.
    Question. As Secretary of Defense, what measures do you believe 
must be taken to ensure that the U.S. stockpile is reliable and safe?
    Answer. I am not an expert, but one point is important. The U.S. 
cannot afford to lose too many of its key design and manufacturing 
personnel who have had senior-level experience in the nuclear weapons 
program when testing was undertaken. The DOD will work closely with the 
new Secretary of Energy and the Director of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration to ensure a safe, effective, and reliable U.S. 
nuclear stockpile and complex.
               cooperative threat reduction (ctr) program
    Question. The U.S. Defense Department has a Cooperative Threat 
Reduction (CTR) program initiated by Senators Nunn and Lugar that is 
designed to reduce the threat of insecure nuclear stockpiles and excess 
weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union.
    Do you agree that this Cooperative Threat Reduction program serves 
U.S. national security interests by reducing the threat from former 
Soviet weapons of mass destruction?
    Answer. Certainly, the elimination of former Soviet strategic 
nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles that the CTR program has 
funded has benefited U.S. national security. But, we need to be aware 
of the fact that Russia, in particular, claims to lack the financial 
resources to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, but continues to 
invest scarce resources in the development of newer, more sophisticated 
ICBMs and other weapons. We would not want the U.S. investment in the 
CTR program to become the means by which Russia frees up resources to 
finance its military modernization programs. A review of ongoing CTR 
projects and their respective national security benefits would be 
appropriate.
    Question. Are you concerned about continuing this $1 billion 
program at the same time that Russia is increasing its military 
spending and arms exports?
    Answer. Yes. See answer above.
                              space policy
    Question. You have recently served as chairman of a commission to 
examine U.S. space policy.
    Do you believe that protecting our space assets requires the United 
States to develop and deploy offensive means of disabling or destroying 
other nations' space assets, either from the ground or from space?
    Answer. The United States is increasingly dependent on its civil, 
commercial, and defense and intelligence space assets. With that 
dependence comes vulnerability to hostile acts. The Nation needs a 
capability to deter attack on space assets, and systems to defend 
satellites in orbit, the ground stations that control them, and the 
electronic links between them.
    Question. If the United States were to develop and deploy offensive 
means of disabling or destroying foreign satellites, do you believe it 
could lead other nations to acquire such means to threaten U.S. space 
systems? If so, do you believe that would be contrary to our security 
interests?
    Answer. The U.S. and other nations that make use of space face real 
threats to the operation of their satellites. We know that other 
nations have jammed telecommunications from on-orbit satellites, that 
Russian entities market devices that can jam GPS signals, and that 
foreign satellite manufacturers market so-called ``micro satellites'' 
to other foreign countries that can be used for offensive actions 
against satellites. In light of U.S. dependence on space assets, the 
vulnerability of the assets to attack or disruption and the fact that 
others have the means of doing harm to U.S. interests in space, it 
would be contrary to U.S. security interests not to develop, test, and 
deploy the means of deterring attack on and defending space systems.
    Question. In light of this experience, what types of management and 
organizational changes do you believe are needed in DOD to improve 
space management?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will give careful attention to the 
recommendations of the several recent studies and commissions on space 
systems and other matters. There are three areas of particular 
interest. First is the relationship between the Secretary of Defense 
and the DCI, who together have the greatest responsibility for the 
operation of national security space systems. Second, is to assess 
whether the existing organizational structure is adequate for 
developing space policy, working with the military commanders in chief 
(CINCs), and overseeing the development and acquisition of capabilities 
by the Services. Third, is to assess whether changes are necessary 
within the Air Force so as to facilitate more efficient acquisition and 
operation of space systems and to create a dedicated cadre of space 
professionals.
    Question. The Department of Defense is currently reevaluating the 
military requirement for a space-based infrared system to support 
ballistic missile defense.
    Do you believe that the SBIRS-Low Program is a necessary element in 
an overall space and missile defense architecture?
    Answer. I am informed that a number of DOD reviews have concluded 
that a SBIRS Low capability is a necessary element of an effective 
missile defense architecture.
                             space programs
    Question. The Department of Defense has sought to establish a 
space-based radar program for surveillance and moving target tracking.
    How do you rank such a program in terms of the various new 
technologies being developed by the DOD?
    Answer. We use space extensively today to support military 
operations. A radar in space to provide tracking of moving targets is 
an attractive concept. Demonstrating the feasibility of that concept is 
important. I understand there are concerns about the cost associated 
with space demonstration projects. However, without such demonstrations 
it is not possible to know if those systems will help to transform our 
military and provide the means for deterring adversaries and defending 
the United States, our forces, and our friends and allies.
                              the balkans
    Question. U.S. troops are deployed to Bosnia and Kosovo as part of 
NATO-led peacekeeping forces.
    Do you support the continued participation of U.S. forces in the 
NATO-led peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo?
    Answer. President-elect Bush has indicated that a review will be 
conducted of U.S. peacekeeping deployments. His national security team 
will participate in this review. In the meantime, the deployed forces 
have an important job to do and should not be distracted by the fact of 
a new administration.
    Question. If so, under what circumstances and for what timeframe?
    Answer. See previous response.
    Question. Do you believe that our European allies should eventually 
assume full responsibility for these missions?
    Answer. See previous response.
                                  iraq
    Question. Since the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the United 
States has been working to ensure Iraqi compliance with the obligations 
Iraq accepted at the end of the war--particularly those obligations 
related to disarmament. Unfortunately, since 1991 we have witnessed the 
fragmentation of the coalition that liberated Kuwait; the end of UN 
weapons inspections in Iraq; disagreement in the UN Security Council on 
how to proceed; and the re-establishment of diplomatic ties with Iraq 
by many nations in the Gulf region. At the same time, the United States 
continues to deploy thousands of troops to the Gulf region and spends 
approximately $1 billion per year for military operations to contain 
Iraq.
    What are your views on the current U.S. policy toward Iraq?
    Answer. See response below.
    Question. Are you concerned about the weakening in support for 
United Nations economic sanctions?
    Answer. See response below.
    Question. Do you believe that the benefits relating to enforcement 
of the no-fly zones justify the risk to U.S. and British airmen?
    Answer. See response below.
    Question. What additional or different steps, if any, do you 
believe the United States and its allies should take to ensure that 
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the means of their 
delivery are permanently ended?
    Answer. Saddam Hussein it still in power. The UN weapons inspection 
program established to ensure Iraqi fulfillment of its commitment to 
destroy all of its WMD programs has been suspended for more than 2 
years. Baghdad continues to pose a military threat to its neighbors as 
well as its own people, and Iraqi planes continue to challenge U.S. 
pilots enforcing the northern and southern no-fly zones. In addition, 
political support for Iraq's position seems to be solidifying among 
some Arab states, the economic embargo seems to be collapsing, and the 
coalition that successfully prosecuted the war with Iraq seems to be 
coming undone. The United States continues to maintain a presence in 
the region to deter Iraqi aggression, and daily no-fly zone patrols 
expose U.S. pilots to continuous risk. If confirmed, I will work 
closely with the national security team to help craft a policy that is 
effective and merits the support of Congress and the American people.
                            iraqi opposition
    Question. There is a continuing debate about the implementation of 
the Iraq Liberation Act, which provides authority to provide up to $97 
million worth of defense articles and services to support the Iraqi 
opposition.
    What is your view as to how the Iraq Liberation Act should be 
implemented?
    Answer. In the past I have favored it. However, this is an issue 
that the President-elect and his new administration's national security 
team will need to address. The Iraq Liberation Act established a policy 
of regime-change for Iraq and provides the authority for the Department 
of Defense to draw down $97 million worth of goods and services to 
support the efforts of the Iraqi opposition to bring about a change in 
the regime. I understand that the Department of Defense to date has 
utilized this authority only sparingly, primarily with the provision of 
training and other forms of non-lethal assistance aimed at improving 
the opposition's effectiveness as a political force.
    Helping the Iraqi opposition become a more credible alternative 
voice for the Iraqi people is useful, but may not, in itself, bring 
about a regime change in Baghdad. It could, however, make a useful 
contribution toward achieving that aim.
                              north korea
    Question. Please outline your views with regard to the situation on 
the Korean peninsula, in particular the talks between North and South 
Korea and ongoing missile proliferation talks between the U.S. and 
North Korea.
    Answer. This is a matter the new administration will need to 
address. My personal impression, which is not well-informed, is that 
the on-going political discussions between North and South Korea are 
encouraging. The summit meeting between the Presidents of North and 
South Korea was a dramatic development. Obviously, tensions on the 
Peninsula cannot be reduced unless the two principal parties involved 
are committed to that effort.
    For over 2 years, the Clinton administration has sought to convince 
the North Koreans to limit their missile and missile export programs. 
In September 1999 the DPRK stated that it would refrain from testing 
long-range ballistic missiles (No Dong or greater) while talks to 
improve U.S.-DPRK relations were underway. That decision could be 
reversed at any time. At the same time, I believe that North Korean 
missile exports have continued apace.
    Question. In light of developments on the peninsula, what are your 
views on U.S. troop levels in South Korea? 
    Answer. Neither the North Korean military threat nor its forces and 
posture along the DMZ have changed. Thus, although the in-coming 
administration will undertake a review of our overall military 
deployments, I have seen nothing thus far that persuades me that a 
change in U.S. troop levels in South Korea should be considered.
                            russia and iran
    Question. In early December Secretary Cohen met with Russian 
defense minister Igor Sergeyev to discuss U.S. concern over Moscow's 
continued arms sales and proliferation activities with Iran. While this 
meeting and subsequent State Department meetings later in December were 
considered upbeat, the United States did not receive concrete 
assurances from Russia that these activities would cease.
    As Secretary of Defense, what policy options would you propose to 
President-elect Bush to address and minimize the continued 
proliferation activities of Russia with Iran?
    Answer. This is a matter for the President-elect and his national 
security team. However I would recommend to the President that senior 
officials of the new administration who meet with Russian counterparts 
bring up the serious U.S. concern on proliferation activities that 
strengthen Iran militarily. We must remind Russian policy makers that 
they are dealing with a new administration and they have the 
opportunity to start the relationship in a productive direction if they 
take concrete steps to address our concerns in this area.
                                vieques
    Question. Last fall, Congress enacted legislation that essentially 
followed the agreement reached between President Clinton and the 
outgoing Governor of Puerto Rico, in particular by calling for a 
referendum to decide on whether training will continue there. That 
referendum is currently scheduled for November 2001, but recent 
comments by the incoming Governor of Puerto Rico suggest that she may 
attempt to reopen this deal.
    Do you believe there is a requirement to continue live fire 
training at Vieques?
    Answer. While simulation and non-live fire training certainly have 
value and are integral to the Navy and Marine Corps basic training 
programs, they do not provide an adequate substitute for live-fire 
training. Live-fire training contains an element of realism that is 
absent from simulators and non-live fire training. If U.S. forces 
cannot train under this realism, Sailors and Marines, when placed in a 
combat situation, will not only face the certain chaos that comes with 
combat but also the uncertainty which comes from handling and expending 
live ordnance for the first time in a highly complex, time synchronized 
combat operation. Failing to provide for adequate live-fire training 
prior to combat will place our Nation in the position of risking 
needless casualties through unpreparedness.
    Question. Do you agree with the Chief of Naval Operations and the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps that Vieques is essential to the 
readiness of East Coast naval forces?
    Answer. I am advised that Vieques is a superior site for rehearsing 
amphibious operations, the only site currently used for aerial mine 
warfare training, and is the only location currently available on the 
east coast where aircraft, naval surface ships, and ground forces can 
employ combined arms training with live ammunition under realistic 
conditions. It is the only range currently available on the east coast 
that allows sailors and marines to conduct naval gunfire training. So 
it is a very important site.
    Question. Do you intend to look for alternative sites?
    Answer. I understand that to date no alternative sites, providing 
the ability to conduct combined arms training with live ammunition 
under realistic conditions, have been located.
    Question. Do you believe the existing agreement should be adhered 
to, or is there some alternative solution you believe would be more 
agreeable to all the parties involved that you intend to propose?
    Answer. I have not had an opportunity to study it.
                              base closure
    Question. Secretary Cohen requested two additional rounds of base 
closures in each of his budget proposals to Congress, but so far 
Congress has not agreed to authorize any additional base closures.
    Do you believe we still have excess military infrastructure that 
can and should be reduced?
    Answer. See response below.
    Question. Do you believe it is in the best interest of the Defense 
Department to authorize additional military base closures and 
realignments and that such closures and realignments could better align 
our military base structure to meet the requirements of the new century 
and free up resources for higher priority military needs, while still 
protecting key training areas for which we have enduring requirements?
    Answer. See response below.
    Question. Should any future base closures follow the same basic 
procedures as the past four rounds?
    Answer. I will withhold an assessment of this issue until after the 
completion of the defense review.
                         crisis in the military
    Question. Recent articles and op-eds by James Schlesinger and 
Harold Brown forecast that one of the first ``nightmares'' the new 
president will inherit is the threat of a ``defense train wreck'' 
looming in the next 5 to 10 years as the result of a decade of massive 
under-funding of the true costs of maintaining the current size and 
structure of the U.S. military.
    What are your views regarding these assessments of the future of 
our Armed Forces?
    Answer. Given President-elect Bush's commitment to rebuilding and 
reforming the U.S. military, and the commitment of many members of 
Congress, I believe we can ensure a strong future for U.S. Armed 
Forces. We do face major funding and technological challenges. 
Overcoming these challenges is necessarily a multi-year undertaking. 
The American people clearly support keeping our Nation secure, and our 
economy certainly makes that affordable. I believe my predecessors, Jim 
Schlesinger and Harold Brown, are correct in noting that many years of 
carefully targeted investment will be needed to guarantee the future 
superiority of those forces.
                        recruiting and retention
    Question. The Armed Forces are experiencing significant problems in 
retaining company- and field-grade officers (O-3, O-4) who would, if 
retained, be contenders for intermediate service schools and command. 
The Armed Forces are experiencing similar problems in retaining mid-
grade noncommissioned officers (E-5, E-6). These personnel are the 
backbone of the enlisted force, both as workers and as trainers and 
role models for younger enlisted personnel.
    In your view what are the primary factors associated with this 
attrition?
    Answer. See response below.
    Question. What would you propose to mitigate this attrition?
    Answer. It is my understanding that a number of factors have 
contributed to recruiting and retention challenges. A robust domestic 
economy has made it more difficult for recruiters to compete with the 
private sector job market; a heavy operations tempo has placed 
significant burdens on family life; and perceptions about a changing 
mission for the military have all contributed to stresses on military 
recruiting and retention efforts.
    President-elect Bush has spoken often about this issue during the 
campaign. As he stated, ``the military should be a magnet for the best 
and brightest in America.'' I share this view. We will examine a range 
of measures to try to make this goal a reality, including an increase 
in military pay, improved military housing, and a review of overseas 
deployments.
                            force structure
    Question. Force structure has been reduced about 35 percent since 
1989. Evidence, both anecdotal and analytical, increasingly indicates 
that the force structure of the Armed Forces may not be adequate to 
carry out the national security strategy of the United States including 
the current range of contingency operations. If this is so, the 
alternatives would seem to be a less ambitious strategy, a bolstering 
of force structure, or some combination of those alternatives.
    In your opinion, is the existing force structure of the Armed 
Forces adequate?
    Answer. See response below.
    Question. If not, what measures would you recommend, if confirmed, 
to deal with the problem?
    Answer. U.S. forces are stretched thin. This committee has heard 
testimony from the service chiefs to that effect. In accordance with 
law, the incoming administration will work to develop a national 
security strategy within 150 days after inauguration. That is a very 
short period. Also in accordance with law, the Department of Defense 
will review the overall defense strategy and produce a report to 
Congress in the fall. If confirmed, I expect to be fully engaged in 
those efforts. Once we have a new national security strategy, and we 
have had the opportunity to review our defense strategy, we can make 
decisions about the appropriate size and nature of the force.
                       homosexual conduct policy
    Question. The current Department of Defense Homosexual Conduct 
Policy went into effect in February 1994 after months of congressional 
hearings and debate resulting in the enactment of a Federal statute. 
Although there have been some changes in how this policy has been 
implemented, the basic policy has not been changed.
    Do you believe that the current policy is effective? If confirmed, 
do you plan to make any changes to the basic policy or its 
implementation? If so, what changes will you propose?
    Answer. I am not yet knowledgeable as to how the current policy is 
working. Consistent with what President-elect Bush said during the 
campaign, and if confirmed, I have no plans to recommend changes either 
to current law or policy.
                       gender integrated training
    Question. Basic training for new recruits is structured and defined 
differently by each Service. Men training for direct ground combat 
positions in the Army and Marine Corps train in all-male units. Men and 
women training to serve in positions that are open to women in the 
Army, Navy, and Air Force train in gender-integrated units. Men and 
women in the Marine Corps are segregated at boot camp, then integrated 
during subsequent training.
    Do you believe the current DOD policy of allowing each of the 
Services to establish its own policy for gender integration in Basic 
Training is effective? If confirmed, will you propose changes to the 
DOD or Service policies? If so, what changes will you propose?
    Answer. Basic training should have one purpose: to transform the 
recruit from civilian into a disciplined, physically fit soldier, 
sailor, airmen/women, and marine. If and when that goal is not being 
met, then changes should be made. Each service has the responsibility 
to design and implement the system of basic training that best 
accomplishes the goal for that service, and it should do just that. At 
present the services have varying policies with regard to gender 
integration in basic training. I do not have sufficient information as 
yet to comment further.
                        army corps of engineers
    Question. The Army Inspector General recently released a report 
criticizing the Army Corps of Engineers for ``institutional bias'' and 
``an atmosphere where objectivity in its analyses [has been] placed in 
jeopardy.''
    Do you agree that the Army Corps of Engineers should institute a 
system of independent peer review of studies supporting major projects 
by experts from outside the agency before such projects are approved? 
Why or why not?
    Answer. I am not aware of this matter. I am advised that the 
Secretary of the Army and the new Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers 
recently developed working arrangements aimed at ensuring open lines of 
communication, necessary oversight, and, at the same time, the 
application of independent technical judgment by the Corps. 
Additionally, the Chief of the Corps has been directed to respond to 
the Army Inspector General's findings regarding the objectivity of its 
analyses and bring forward improvements aimed at ensuring sound, 
unbiased decision making. Those responses will have to be reviewed 
before making any recommendations.
                       u.s.s. cole investigations
    Question. When Secretary Cohen took office, one of his first 
actions was to review the multiple Defense Department and Air Force 
inquiries into the terrorist attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi 
Arabia. These investigations were initiated under his predecessor, 
then-Secretary William Perry. The attack on Khobar Towers on June 25, 
1996, killed 19 military personnel and left hundreds injured. Following 
his review, Secretary Cohen directed actions that were opposed by many 
in the Air Force and that resulted in the voluntary retirement of the 
then-Air Force Chief of Staff. You will begin your term as Defense 
Secretary under strikingly similar circumstances. Several 
investigations into the October 12, 2000, bombing of the U.S.S. Cole 
are being concluded.
    Will you make one of your first priorities in office to review the 
findings of the multiple Defense Department and Navy investigations 
into the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Will you transmit to the President and to Congress your 
assessment of the findings and recommendations of the U.S.S. Cole-
related investigations as soon as possible?
    Answer. I will transit any findings and recommendations that may 
result from the investigations.
    Question. If you find that the investigation initiated by your 
predecessor or the Navy were deficient in any areas, will you direct 
additional inquiries?
    Answer. It is important that the findings of the current 
investigations be reviewed without prejudgment.
                             modernization
    Question. For the last several years, the Department of Defense 
modernization budget has fallen short of critical requirements 
identified by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and each of the 
military services while the operational tempo of our forces is 
extremely high. As a result, near term readiness requirements have 
often been met at the expense of the long-term readiness, or 
modernization arena. We recognize that President-elect Bush has called 
for an overall review of military modernization programs and that this 
will be an area of great interest to you as the Secretary of Defense.
    How will you establish this modernization review process, what will 
be considered, and how will you incorporate the conclusions of this 
process into Department of Defense modernization budget requests?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will undertake congressionally-mandated 
review of the U.S. national security strategy and examine the 
modernization plans to carry it out in the conduct of the Quadrennial 
Defense Review (QDR). Considering which weapons to modernize and which 
to replace with new technology should be a major part of the QDR 
process.
                   exports of sensitive technologies
    Question. In his October 1999 speech on high tech issues, then-
Governor Bush stated that, as President, he would safeguard sensitive 
high technology exports, while letting Americans sell what is already 
widely available elsewhere. He stated that wherever there is no 
security interest at stake, exports would be permitted. Wherever 
security is truly at stake, exports would be barred, with serious 
penalties for violations. Governor Bush stated further that his 
administration would work to renew the cooperation of U.S. allies in 
this effort.
    As Secretary of Defense, what policies and procedures would you 
consider changing to reflect these criteria as the basis for 
determining the exports of sensitive high technology?
    Answer. Exports of sensitive high technology affect U.S. national 
security interests in many ways. First, we must protect our military 
personnel and our security interests by ensuring that sensitive 
technologies are not exported to potential adversaries or to foreign 
entities that represent a significant diversion risk. Second, we must 
have sensible and effective policies and procedures to ensure that 
appropriate transfers of military and commercial systems and 
technologies that support our coalition warfighting objectives through 
greater interoperability with our allies and friends are permitted. 
Finally, we must be mindful that the U.S. is not the only country with 
advanced military and commercial technology. Thus, we need to work 
aggressively with our allies and friends to ensure that our policies 
and approaches toward the export of such technologies meet our mutual 
security interests. The Department of Defense has an essential role to 
play in implementing these principles, and I will ensure that 
appropriate resources and senior level attention are devoted to this 
area.
                          information security
    Question. Information superiority is widely recognized as an 
enabler of U.S. military superiority, and information security is a key 
to achieving information superiority.
    How do you plan on ensuring the security and integrity of the 
defense information infrastructure in the face of ever-expanding cyber 
threats?
    Answer. Information security poses important challenges and 
opportunities for Defense. We must prevent unauthorized access to 
information and information systems. We must work with other government 
organizations--the FBI, Department of Justice, and the Intelligence 
Community--in a collaborative environment to anticipate and counter 
such threats. I will ensure that the department devotes considerable 
time and attention to information security and information superiority.
                              intelligence
    Question. What would be your top intelligence priority if you are 
confirmed as Secretary of Defense?
    Answer. We are in a new national security environment. 
Characteristics of this new environment include:

        - A relaxed attitude with the end of the Cold War.
        - The proliferation of powerful weapons and technologies 
        throughout the world.
        - As a result of the Gulf War, a set of threats less likely to 
        be deterred by the threat of U.S. nuclear retaliation.
        - Considerably more complex intelligence challenges given the 
        larger number of targets, and the proliferation of deception 
        and denial capabilities.
        - Increasing dependence on space assets and therefore increased 
        vulnerability.

    The intelligence community, just as the Department of Defense, 
needs to be rearranged to deal with the new security environment. The 
national command authorities need information more than simply numbers 
of things--ships, missiles, tanks, and planes--they need better 
information on intentions and motives as well.
    Certainly the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical 
weapons and the means to deliver them pose a threat to the security of 
the United States, its allies, and friends. We must ensure that we are 
devoting the appropriate resources to identify these newer threats, 
including cyber attack.
    Question. What organizational and management changes do you believe 
are necessary in the Department of Defense to ensure that the best 
possible intelligence support is provided to the warfighter?
    Answer. This is an area that I intend to review if confirmed. Most 
important is senior level leadership, and a close working relationship 
between the SECDEF and the DCI is critical to the challenges ahead.
    Question. What specific actions would you pursue to ensure that the 
Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence are able 
to cooperate and coordinate on national and military intelligence 
matters?
    Answer. One of the highest priorities should be to establish a real 
partnership with the DCI to ensure cooperation and coordination on 
intelligence matters. Reform of the Intelligence Community will require 
close collaboration.
                         science and technology
    Question. The Department of Defense Science and Technology program 
is at a 20-year low. The Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization 
Bill for Fiscal Year 1999 established the goal of increasing the budget 
for the defense science and technology program by at least 2 percent 
over inflation for each of the fiscal years 2000 to 2008. This goal has 
not been met in the fiscal year 2000 nor the fiscal year 2001 budget 
request.
    Do you believe that a substantial increase in science and 
technology funding is needed?
    Answer. Determining a sufficient level of science and technology 
(S&T) investment is not a precise science. A downsized military needs a 
technological edge more now than ever. President-elect Bush has 
committed to increasing defense R&D by at least $20 billion between 
fiscal year 2002-2006. The S&T accounts should receive a substantial 
share of this increase.
                            major challenges
    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting 
the next Secretary of Defense?
    Answer. The new administration will need to consider all of these 
aspects in evaluating the National Security Strategy and National 
Military Strategy. The goal is to assure that our country has the new 
capabilities necessary to deter and defend in our new national security 
environment so we are able to contribute to the peace and stability. 
This will entail transforming U.S. military forces to a 21st century 
force, modernizing the intelligence and command, control and 
communications infrastructure, and reforming DOD structures, processes, 
and organizations. Further, the new capabilities and readiness must be 
sustainable.
    Balancing limited resources--even in an atmosphere of projected 
budget surpluses--is always a challenge. Properly outfitting our forces 
today, while at the same time ensuring we sustain robust modernization 
for the future, will be a key challenge for the new administration.
    Specific issues--such as morale, recruiting and retention, health 
care and benefits--will also be important.
    Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these 
challenges?
    Answer. These issues and others should be components of the 
upcoming defense review and Quadrennial Defense Review. Through those 
reviews, the new administration can examine priorities and weigh the 
fiscal implications associated with those priorities.
                         most serious problems
    Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in 
the performance of the functions of Secretary of Defense?
    Answer. Institutional resistance to change across the board--
executive branch, legislative branch, the private sector, as well as 
our allies. Change is difficult for institutions, but change we must.
    Question. What management actions and time lines would you 
establish to address these problems?
    Answer. It is too soon to establish time lines. If confirmed I 
would need to know a lot more than I do now to respond. It will require 
close consultation with Congress and this committee.
                        congressional oversight
    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information.
    Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before 
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. Yes. I consider that to be one of the most important parts 
of the job.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as the Secretary of Defense?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
            Questions Submitted by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
    1. Senator Kennedy. Secretary Rumsfeld, while the F-18E/F has 
significantly modernized our carrier aircraft fleet, many Navy and 
Marine Corps aircraft still need to be modernized. The AV-8B Harrier 
and EA-6B Prowler are some of the oldest aircraft in our inventory.
    Do you see the Joint Strike Fighter as a possible solution to these 
aircraft modernization needs?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. The Joint Strike Fighter, along with other 
tactical aircraft programs, will be assessed as part of the planned 
review of defense policy and programs.

    2a. Senator Kennedy. The risk in being ready to fight the first war 
is ``moderate'' and that of the second is ``high.'' As the Department 
of Defense prepares to conduct the next Quadrennial Defense Review, 
will you consider alternative strategies to the two war scenario as you 
prepare to conduct the next review?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I anticipate that a wide range of strategy 
options will be considered as part of the upcoming QDR.

    2b. Senator Kennedy. If the two war scenario continues to be our 
strategy, how can we reduce the risk of each? President-elect Bush has 
said that he wants to increase defense spending by $20 billion.
    How much of this amount will be dedicated to non-national missile 
defense related research and development programs?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. No decision has been made on the appropriate 
level of resources for defense or how any additional funds would be 
distributed.

    3a. Senator Kennedy. The Defense Science Board released ``The 
Technology Capabilities of Non-DOD Providers'' report in June 2000. In 
this report the Board recommends substantially increasing the defense 
science and technology base and, in particular, a 30 percent increase 
in defense basic research over 3 years. The concern over the eroding 
defense science and technology program was addressed by Congress in the 
Fiscal Year 1999 National Defense Authorization Act, which stated it 
should be an objective of the Secretary of Defense to increase the 
budget for the science and technology program by at least 2 percent a 
year over inflation each year through 2008.
    How do you propose to address this urgent national priority?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I agree that the defense science and technology 
program needs to be strengthened. However, until I have had an 
opportunity to review the program in detail, I am not in a position to 
comment on the appropriate funding level for the program.

    3b. Senator Kennedy. Many believe that stability will never be 
restored in the Balkans as long as indicted war criminals remain at 
large. Do you believe that the military should be involved in the 
arrest of war criminals?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I would like to review the recent history and 
discuss this with my associates in the new administration before 
commenting.

    4a. Senator Kennedy. For years now, Iraq has refused to accept an 
independent monitoring team to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not 
rebuilding his arsenal of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of 
mass destruction. In addition, the economic and diplomat sanctions 
placed on his regime have been weakened by our allies in the region and 
in Europe. Some nations are even setting up offices in Iraq, in hopes 
of contracting Iraqi oil fields in the future in anticipation of these 
weakened sanctions collapsing.
    Regarding Iraq and Hussein, the President-elect's choice to be 
Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has said, ``I think it is possible to 
re-energize those sanctions and to continue to contain him and then 
confront him, should that become necessary again.''
    Under what circumstances could you envision such a confrontation?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. U.S. policy towards Iraq will no doubt be the 
subject of review by the new national security team. If confirmed, I 
will look forward to participating in that review. That being said, it 
is important to keep in mind that Saddam Hussein has miscalculated 
before and therefore any confrontation that takes place might be as a 
result of his actions.

    4b. Senator Kennedy. What do you think sanctions on Iraq should 
accomplish? Are they accomplishing this goal? Are we targeting the 
right behavior? Are the objectives of halting chemical, biological, and 
nuclear weapons production attainable in your view?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. Because of the erosion of the sanctions regime, 
it is reasonable to assume that weapons of mass destruction and missile 
programs are continuing in Iraq. How best to deal with the threat posed 
by Saddam will be the subject of review by the new administration.

    5. Senator Kennedy. In September 1999, President Clinton issued an 
executive order severing all U.S. military ties with Indonesia 
following the violence perpetrated against the East Timorese people in 
the aftermath of their vote for independence.
    Will you support a continuation of the current military cut-off? 
What signs or indications within the Indonesian military and government 
will you be watching for before you consider re-establishing full 
military relations?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. Although I am aware of the general state of 
U.S.-Indonesian military-to-military relations, I have not had an 
opportunity to review this matter in detail. If confirmed, I will 
undertake to review those relations.

    6. Senator Kennedy. There have been substantial changes in the role 
of women in our Nation's Armed Forces in the years since you were 
Secretary of Defense. Women now serve in a wide range of military 
occupations and there are more women generals and admirals than ever 
before. Women serve on combat ships and fly combat aircraft; women and 
men train together in all services at advanced levels--and in three of 
the services at the basic training level.
    What is your view of the role of women in today's military? 
Specifically, do you have any objection to the ways in which women and 
men train together today, or to opening any particular military 
occupational specialties to women?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. As I stated in answer to one of the committee's 
questions, basic training should have one purpose: to transform the 
recruit from civilian into a disciplined, physically fit soldier, 
sailor, airman/woman, or marine. If and when that goal is not being 
met, then changes should be made. Each service has the responsibility 
to design and implement the system of basic and other training that 
best accomplishes the goal for that service. At present the services 
have varying policies with regard to gender integration in basic 
training. I do not have sufficient information as yet to comment 
further.

    7. Senator Kennedy. The Pentagon Inspector General conducted a 
survey of 75,000 service members last year and found that 80 percent 
reported hearing, witnessing, or experiencing anti-gay harassment. 
Based on those findings, Secretary of Defense Cohen asked a Department 
working group to review the current rules and training to prevent such 
harassment. The working group produced a 13-point action plan for a new 
regulations by the Department on this issue.
    Will you ensure that these new regulations are fully implemented 
and enforced?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I have not had an opportunity to review the 
current rules or the working group's findings and recommendations.

    8. Senator Kennedy. The lack of good housing for our service 
members and their families is an area where I think we really need 
improvement. At Hanscom AFB, there is currently a 6-month wait for on-
base housing. The number of families on this list today stands at 106. 
I venture that the wait is similar at bases across the country.
    What can be done to limit or eliminate this wait? How can we ease 
the burden on a service member and his or her family when they've been 
assigned to a new base, but have to find short-term living arrangements 
while waiting for affordable base housing?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I agree that military housing can and should be 
improved. Substandard housing and long delays undermine morale and 
ultimately affect job performance. If the Department can effectively 
tap into the prodigious resources and methodologies of the private 
sector to improve this situation, then we should do so. If confirmed, 
improving the quality and availability of military housing will be a 
priority.

    9. Senator Kennedy. You noted in your answers to the advance policy 
questions that, ``(t)he Department's approach should be comprehensive 
and balanced, supporting test and training and operational 
requirements, while seeking to protect the natural environment and 
operating within a balanced regulatory framework'' and that ``(t)he 
goal is to maintain fully sustainable ranges.''
    Last week, three of my colleagues on this committee and I wrote to 
Secretary Cohen urging that he consider establishing a Defense 
Environmental Restoration Account to begin to deal with the large 
amount of unexploded ordnance left at many of our military facilities.
    Would you please take a look at this idea? The more quickly the 
Department can get a handle on this issue, the more sustainable 
training will be at many military bases.
    Secretary Rumsfeld. If confirmed, I will task a review of this 
suggestion and report back on the results.

    10. Senator Kennedy. Several years ago, President Clinton, the 
Joint Chiefs, and Congress agreed that the United States would search 
aggressively for alternatives to land mines, and that if suitable 
alternatives are fielded the United States will join the Ottawa 
Convention. The Pentagon has made progress, but more needs to be done. 
Later this year we will also have the benefit of recommendations on 
mine alternatives by the Los Alamos/Livermore Laboratories and the 
National Academy of Sciences. There is bipartisan support in Congress 
for the United States to join our NATO allies and others, and set an 
example to rid the world of land mines. We also want to ensure the 
safety of our Armed Forces, which includes improving their counter-mine 
capabilities.
    Will you, as Secretary of Defense, strongly support the effort to 
field alternatives to land mines, so we can join the Ottawa Convention?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I am not familiar with the obligations imposed 
under the Ottawa Convention and have not yet been briefed on the 
efforts to develop alternatives to land mines. If confirmed, I will 
review this issue, keeping foremost in mind the need to protect 
American servicemen and women.
                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
    11. Senator Byrd. I am very concerned about the threat of homeland 
terrorism. I believe that Senator Levin mentioned in his opening 
remarks how easy it would be for a terrorist to poison our public water 
systems. As best I can tell, all it would take is a single vial of some 
type of chemical or biological agent and you could wipe out the water 
supply for an entire city. Frankly, I believe that this threat is a 
more likely scenario under current world circumstances than that of the 
conventional ballistic missile threat posed by rogue nations.
    Do you believe that the threat of chemical and biological 
terrorism, as well as the threat posed by simple suitcase or truck 
bombs, deserve the same emphasis as a national missile defense system?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. Defending the American people against all types 
of unconventional or terrorist attacks must be a top priority of the 
new administration. If confirmed, I will devote time and attention to 
strategies and programs that can address this growing threat. In 
addition, because of the sometimes overlapping or conflicting 
obligations of the various federal and state governmental departments 
and agencies, inter-agency coordination is important. If confirmed, I 
will do my best to ensure proper coordination is achieved.

    12. Senator Byrd. Turning to terrorism overseas--a Pentagon 
Commission reviewing the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole released 
its report earlier this week. The Commission determined that the 
military lacks coordination with other government agencies to fight 
terrorist threats. It recommended that training against terrorism be 
made as high a priority as training for combat.
    Do you agree with that conclusion?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. If confirmed, I will review the Crouch-Gehman 
report carefully, along with the other reports commissioned on aspects 
of the U.S.S. Cole terrorist incident. That being said, I agree that 
realistic training against a wide range of terrorist and other threats, 
including operating in a nuclear, chemical, biological, or radiological 
environment, is imperative.

    13. Senator Byrd. I understand that there was a good deal of 
discussion about Colombia at the morning session of this hearing. I 
commend Chairman Levin and Senator Warner for recommending that this 
committee get more involved in future decisions surrounding our 
involvement in Colombia. This is a dangerous mission, and I am deeply 
concerned that the United States should not be drawn into Colombia's 
civil war.
    As you and I discussed earlier, it was my proposal that capped the 
number of military and civilian personnel who could be involved in Plan 
Colombia in country. The reason that I proposed these caps was to 
ensure that mission creep would not inflate the number of American 
citizens in Colombia on what is a potentially deadly mission.
    Mr. Secretary, you've seen the results of American troops being 
drawn into civil conflicts overseas with no exit strategy. I understand 
that you want to wait until you can have a full briefing on the 
situation in Colombia before recommending a specific course of future 
action. However, this is not the first time that the U.S. has run up 
against the possibility of being drawn into another nation's civil war. 
How do we guard against that happening with this mission? Will you re-
evaluate our presence in Colombia?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. As I stated during the hearing, I am not 
sufficiently informed about the situation in Colombia. I understand the 
nature of your concern, however, and if confirmed will review the U.S. 
military involvement carefully.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator Max Cleland
    14a. Senator Cleland. As you may know, language was included in the 
Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization bill directing the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report no later than February 2000 describing the 
airlift requirements necessary to carry out the various missions of our 
Armed Forces. It is my understanding that this report is finally 
complete and is awaiting release by the Secretary of Defense.
    Preliminary information contained in this report outlines our 
current mobility challenges. Our current requirement is 49.7 million 
ton miles. The Mobility Requirements Study estimates that the 
requirement may rise to around 54.4 million ton miles. This indicates 
we are woefully short on meeting the future requirements.
    With the move away from more forward-deployed forces, airlift and 
air mobility will continue to be the key ingredient in our responding 
to future military missions and crises. However, there is uncertainty 
on how best to address this challenge. Certainly, the C-130J is 
integral in our rapid deployment within the theater of operations. 
However, the Air Force has been reluctant to put C-130s in their budget 
or in placing the aircraft on their unfunded requirements list--instead 
relying on congressional add-ons during the budget process. How would 
you rectify the inconsistencies of the C-130J program over the past 
several years?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I am aware of and appreciate the keen interest 
in the C-130J program shown by you and several of your colleagues. 
However, I have not had an opportunity to review the program in detail, 
nor have I seen the results of the Mobility Requirements Study you 
mention. If confirmed, I will review the study and the program.

    14b. Senator Cleland. Given your plans to review and revise our 
military strategy in the context of President-elect Bush's desire to 
review all military operations and the Quadrennial Defense Review 
(QDR), would you consider submitting a new mobility requirements 
report?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. Until I have had the opportunity to review the 
above-mentioned study, it would be premature to suggest that an 
additional study is needed.

    15. Senator Cleland. Military health care is a matter of great 
importance to our service members and to this committee. Last year, in 
response to concerns raised by the Secretary of Defense and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, we enacted legislation that eliminates 
deductibles and copayments under TRICARE Prime for families of Active 
Duty service members; provides lifetime health care for military 
retirees and their families through the TRICARE program; and provides a 
comprehensive pharmacy benefit for military retirees. We still hear 
concerns from our constituents about lack of timely access to health 
care, portability of benefits as our service members move around, and 
poor claims processing.
    What are your priorities for maintaining a working, accessible, 
properly funded health care system?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I agree that the provision of effective, 
affordable health care to our servicemen and women and their families 
is a high-priority objective I have not had an opportunity to review 
the Defense Health Program, however, and therefore I am unable to 
comment on how best to ensure such coverage and treatment. If 
confirmed, I will devote time to this important program.

    16. Senator Cleland. Almost all new service members enroll in and 
contribute to the Montgomery GI Bill. Only about half of these use 
their benefits, and many who use the benefit do not use all of their 
entitlement. Many of these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines say 
they would like to stay in the service, but feel they have to leave so 
that they can provide for the education of their spouses and children.
    I believe that many of these service members would stay in the 
service if they could transfer all or a part of their unused 
entitlement to GI Bill benefits to family members in return for a 
service commitment. Service Secretaries could use this retention tool 
selectively, just as they use reenlistment bonuses.
    Will you give serious consideration to how the Department of 
Defense could use the transfer of GI Bill benefits to family members as 
a retention tool and give me your thoughts on how we best do this?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I was interested in this suggestion when you 
mentioned it during the confirmation hearing. If confirmed, I will give 
consideration to this suggestion.

    17. Senator Cleland. From what we have heard in today's session and 
from what has occurred on Capitol Hill in the past few years, it seems 
obvious that one of the most contentious national security issues--
which too often has broken down along party lines--is the subject of 
National Missile Defense. I would add, however, that I believe this 
important question cannot be viewed in isolation from our overall 
national strategic policy. For example, how will NMD be related by the 
new administration to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which 
unfortunately also broke down along partisan lines in the last 
Congress. I believe we must try to achieve a bipartisan consensus on 
this whole collection of issues and do so in a fashion which is 
comprehensive and coordinated. Therefore, I have proposed that we 
consider creating a bipartisan Commission on National Security Policy 
composed of respected leaders from both parties which seeks to develop 
such a consensus and encompasses both NMD and CTBT as well as related 
issues. I fear, Mr. Secretary, that absent a comprehensive, consensus 
approach that we may face more partisan wrangling and more internal 
division, which will serve our military, our country, and indeed the 
entire world.
    Would you care to react to any of these points?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I agree that it is vital to consider issues 
such as NMD and CTBT in a broader context, and certainly bipartisan 
consensus is desirable. That being said, I am not persuaded that 
establishment of a commission, as you describe, is needed. The 
President-elect has stated that he does not favor ratification of the 
CTBT. He has indicated that he plans to continue the moratorium on 
underground nuclear testing so long as the safety, reliability, and 
effectiveness of the nuclear stockpile can be certified. If confirmed, 
I will do what I can to contribute to the achievement of bipartisan 
support on topics such as these.

    18. Senator Cleland. This committee has expressed its full support 
for upgrading and modernizing the C-5 fleet, both A and B models. 
Airlift is absolutely vital to America's ability to project military 
force. This will continue to be true for the foreseeable future. In 
last year's report accompanying S. 2549 (The Fiscal Year 2001 Defense 
Authorization Act), this committee expressed concern that the Air Force 
appears to have budgeted for just modernizing the B-models first and 
yet has not provided any form of explanation for deviating from the 
committee's belief that the A and B models both need to be re-engined 
as soon as possible. In addition, the Air Force has not explained how 
it could arrive at this plan without doing the initial EMD testing on 
at least one A and one B model to factually determine the potential for 
improving the performance and reliability of the each model. The 
committee requested that the Air Force address these concerns by 
February 15, 2001.
    In the meantime, despite the support of this committee and the 
House defense committees, the contracting for the C-5 RERP has been 
inexplicably delayed. The contract was supposed to be let in November 
and yet still is not complete. For a program as vital to national 
security as the improvement of outsized/oversized airlift capability, 
this sort of unnecessary and unexplained delay is unacceptable.
    What commitment can you give this committee that the C-5 RERP will 
proceed as directed? What will you do to get the C-5 RERP back on 
schedule? Will you ensure that both A and B models are included in the 
initial testing so that any future program decisions are based on real 
facts?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I have not yet had the opportunity to review 
the C-5 program. I expect that the C-5 program will be reviewed in the 
context of mobility requirements as part of the overall defense policy 
review I plan to undertake, if confirmed.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
    19. Senator Landrieu. Our nuclear posture is essentially frozen by 
a law that we not fall below Start I levels. Furthermore, we are coming 
upon several crucial and costly decision points with respect to some of 
our nuclear systems. I believe that this nation would be well-advised 
to establish an appropriate and cost-effective deterrent independent of 
anything Russia does.
    Do you believe that we need to hold to some artificially mandated 
level of nuclear weapons, or is it wise for the Pentagon to evaluate 
these questions from the bottom up?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. The President has stated that we want to go to 
the lowest level of nuclear weapons commensurate with the national 
security of the United States and our allies. Upon completion of the 
Nuclear Posture Review, we will review this requirement as well as 
which criteria to use in determining an appropriate strategic nuclear 
force level for the foreseeable future. I do hope that Congress would 
provide for the ability to get to the appropriate number of nuclear 
weapons, likely to be below today's level.

    20. Senator Landrieu. We all understand that the Single Integrated 
Operation Plan or SIOP, is, of necessity, one of the most closely 
guarded secrets that our Nation possesses. However, one of our esteemed 
Senate colleagues, Bob Kerrey, the ranking member of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee, shared with us the fact that he had been stone-
walled by his every effort to have some opportunity to review these 
plans. While the SIOP is obviously one of our most import secrets, it 
is also one of our most fundamental defense policy decisions.
    Can you assure this committee that you will at least assist the 
committee leadership in gaining access to the SIOP for their review and 
consideration?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I understand that there are certain procedures 
in place at this time whereby Congress has access to data regarding the 
nuclear war plan. I also understand that there are concerns that these 
procedures may not be sufficient. I will look into this matter and work 
with Congress to reach an acceptable balance between the requirement 
for security and the congressional need for information on this highly 
sensitive plan.

    21. Senator Landrieu. You very cogently argued for the need to 
better integrate commercial off-the-shelf technology into our military 
force. It is important for us to do, and an important piece of that 
work is being done at our Navy Technology Center in New Orleans. 
However, I'd like you to consider a slightly different application of 
that same principle. I believe that we need to consider the utilization 
of commercial off-the-shelf personnel. What I mean by that term is this 
nation is creating a vast community of highly intelligent, highly 
skilled, and highly sought-after workers in the computer and 
communications fields. We also know that with the onset of NET-CENTRIC, 
and so-called ``cyber'' warfare, our Nation's military is going to 
desperately need more of these minds. Unfortunately, I believe that 
there is something of a disconnect between this need for talent, and an 
institutional culture that would attract this sort of talent. I have 
commended Rudy de Leon for taking the initiative of focusing the 
Reserve components on this question.
    Would you endorse a new strategy to solicit service from this core 
of talented individuals and introduce new standards which may be 
outside the box in order to employ them fight this new threat?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I agree that the Department can do a better job 
of recruiting and retaining individuals with skills in the computer and 
communications fields. If confirmed, I will seek to develop strategies 
for securing the availability of such individuals and look forward to 
working with Congress to implement appropriate strategies.

    22. Senator Landrieu. Do you believe that adding funds to the 
defense budget alone will solve the problems we face? Do you have an 
estimate of an increase that you would desire?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. The challenges facing the Department are many. 
Certainly, a shortage of resources is evident, and priorities are 
needed. There are numerous other challenges as well, as I laid out in 
my testimony before the committee. If confirmed, I look forward to 
working with the committee and Congress as a whole to address these 
challenges.

    23. Senator Landrieu. I would like to know your opinion with the 
approach of decreasing some of our existing infrastructure and 
transferring those assets to the operational forces in order to provide 
some relief to our deployed forces. Do you have any specific approaches 
you could provide us with today?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I do not, as of today.

    24. Senator Landrieu. One of the most exciting projects that we 
have underway in Louisiana is the Navy Information Technology Center in 
New Orleans. I would like to invite you to see this operation first-
hand at your earliest opportunity. This center is really a model for 
the sort of innovation required by the Clinger-Cohen Act.
    Would you please comment on your views of this act, and what steps 
we might take to increase the pace of reform?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. First, thank you for the kind invitation. I 
have not reviewed the Clinger-Cohen Act, although I understand it 
allows for certain innovative ``pilot projects'' associated with 
acquisition reform. Given the fact that the existing acquisition system 
is in need of substantial reform, it may be that additional use of the 
authorities to conduct ``pilot projects'' aimed at that reform is 
warranted.

    25. Senator Landrieu. As you may know, recent studies estimate that 
it will take $30 billion and more than 30 years just to fix the current 
backlog of military housing deficiencies. On the bright side, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 included a 
series of new authorities that allow the Department of Defense to work 
with the private sector to build and renovate military housing by 
obtaining private capital to leverage government dollars, and use a 
variety of private sector approaches to construct and refurbish 
military housing faster and at a lower cost to American taxpayers. This 
legislation was recently extended to December 2004.
    What is your opinion concerning this approach? Do you support a 
broader expansion of this initiative to include permanent authority?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. Although I have not been briefed on the law to 
which you refer, I support efforts to ensure that our servicemen and 
women have access to quality, affordable military housing. Measures to 
harness the productive potential of private industry are important to 
this end.
                                 ______
                                 
             Questions submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
    26. Senator Thurmond. Due to the leaner Active Duty military and 
greater number of operational commitments, the DOD has increasingly 
called on the Reserves and National Guard. In 1989, Reservists and 
members of the Guard recorded one million days of duty. In each of the 
past 3 years, that figure has averaged 13 million days. This increased 
workload has had an impact on retention and recruiting. In extreme 
cases, the relationship between the reservist and his employer is 
adversely affected.
    What are your general views on the use of the Reserve components 
and, specifically, in peacekeeping operations?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. The Guard and Reserve perform admirably in the 
defense of our Nation, including deployments in peacekeeping 
operations. Although I have not had the opportunity to study this issue 
carefully, the quality of training, the status of equipment, and 
national support for the missions of the Guard and Reserve are keys to 
recruitment and retention of these essential forces. If confirmed, I 
will give priority consideration to this situation including the impact 
on civilian employment of deployed individuals.

    27. Senator Thurmond. Since your last tour in the Department of 
Defense, there has been a concerted effort to privatize many of the 
services necessary to support our Armed Forces. Among the most recent 
are the efforts to privatize military family housing and the 
installation utility systems.
    What are your views in regard to the privatization of essential 
services within the Department of Defense?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. The size and composition of DOD's facilities to 
perform equipment maintenance is an important aspect of the overall 
readiness of the Armed Forces. An appropriate balance between 
government and private sector facilities must be struck in a manner 
that assures the equipment employed by the Armed Forces will be ready 
for use when needed. This balance in turn will be affected over time by 
the nature of the technology used in military equipment. A balance will 
be reviewed to assure that capabilities essential to national defense 
that cannot reliably be provided by the private sector will be provided 
by the government sector. Moreover, critical capabilities will be 
maintained in the government sector. As noted above, private sector 
support for military housing appears to have potential for accelerated 
improvement of that housing.

    28. Senator Thurmond. With the end of the Cold War, some of the 
leading figures from the nuclear weapons programs and strategic policy 
advocated that the existing nuclear states dismantle their nuclear 
stockpile, which they considered as pointless and morally dubious 
arsenals.
    What are your views on the role of nuclear weapons in the future 
threat environment?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. Nuclear weapons remain an important element of 
U.S. and allied defense policy. That being said, President-elect Bush 
has stated that he will direct the next Secretary of Defense to 
undertake a review of the U.S. nuclear posture and associated force 
levels. If confirmed, I look forward to conducting that review.

    29. Senator Thurmond. The Nation has made the decision not to 
produce new nuclear weapons. More importantly, we no longer have the 
capability to manufacture plutonium pits on a large scale to modernize 
the existing stockpile.
    Since you have historically advocated a strong nuclear TRIAD, what 
are your concerns regarding this lack of capability to modernize our 
nuclear stockpile?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. There are real challenges associated with 
maintaining a safe, reliable, and effective nuclear weapons stockpile 
in the absence of underground nuclear testing. If confirmed, I will 
work with the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the National 
Nuclear Security Administration to ensure U.S. nuclear weapons are 
capable of fulfilling the missions to which they have been assigned.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
                             base closures
    30a. Senator McCain. Mr. Secretary, in your answers to the advance 
questions for today's hearing, I noticed your response with regard to 
additional base closure rounds. As you are aware, Secretary Cohen has 
requested two additional rounds of base closures in each of his budget 
proposals to Congress, but so far Congress has not agreed to authorize 
any additional closures--failing to authorize 40-60 and 36-63 in the 
last 2 years--an experience not dissimilar to your experience as the 
Secretary of Defense to President Ford.
    The National Defense Panel, Secretary Cohen, nearly all the Service 
Chiefs and other respected defense experts have been consistent in 
their plea that the Pentagon be permitted to divest themselves of 
excess infrastructure beyond what was eliminated during the prior four 
rounds of base closings. Through the end of 1998, the Pentagon had 
closed 97 major bases in the United States. Since then, it has closed 
none. Moreover, the savings attained would ostensibly be used for force 
modernization purposes.
    According to our senior military leaders, the facts are the 
Department of Defense still has nearly 23 percent more base facilities 
than necessary to support our Nation's military forces.
    I say this for my colleagues' benefit: the facts are--billions of 
dollars are at stake. Department of Defense figures suggest previous 
base closures will save, after one-time closing costs, $15 billion 
through fiscal year 2001, $25 billion through fiscal year 2003, and 
$6.1 billion a year thereafter. Additional needed closures can save $20 
billion by 2015, and $3 billion a year thereafter. Sooner or later 
these surplus bases will be closed anyway. The sooner the issue is 
addressed, the greater will be the savings, that will ultimately go 
toward defense modernization and greater pay raises for 
servicemembers--two areas where President-elect Bush and I strongly 
agree.
    Previous base closure rounds have had many success stories. For 
example, after England Air Force Base closed in 1992, Alexandria, 
Louisiana, benefitted from the creation of over 1,400 jobs--nearly 
double the number of jobs lost. Across the U.S. about 60,000 new jobs 
have been created at closing military bases. At bases closed more than 
2 years, nearly 75 percent of the civilian jobs have been replaced.
    In Charleston, South Carolina, where the number of defense job 
losses, as a percentage of the work force, was greater than at any 
other base closure location, 23 major entities are reusing the former 
Navy facilities and providing more than 3,300 jobs and another 13 more 
applications are pending--adding soon even more newly created jobs to 
that number. Additionally, roughly 75 percent of the 6 million square 
feet of leasable space on the base is occupied. This is comparable to 
the successes in my home State of Arizona with the closure of Williams 
Air Force Base in the Phoenix East Valley.
    Mr. Secretary, I will again propose the questions that you 
previously addressed in the advance questions to the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. Do you believe we still have excess military 
infrastructure that can and should be reduced?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. Our base structure should fit our force 
structure requirements. As the President has noted, it appears that we 
have 23 percent in estimated excess infrastructure. We are looking at 
the issue, and will make a decision on how best to address as soon as 
we can in the review process.

    30b. Senator McCain. Do you believe it is in the best interest of 
the Defense Department to authorize additional military base closures 
and realignments could better align our military base structure to meet 
the requirements of the new century and free up resources for higher 
priority needs?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. As noted previously, our base structure should 
fit our force structure requirements. We are reviewing the current 
force structure, and will make a decision on how best to address 
mismatches as soon as we can in the review process.

    30c. Senator McCain. Should any future base closures follow the 
same basic procedures as the past four rounds?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. It is too early to determine a process, but 
when we have had the chance to review the proper force structure-
infrastructure alignment in greater detail, we will engage the 
committee and others in Congress as appropriate.

    31a. Senator McCain. Mr. Secretary, congressional legislation 
authorizing the Pentagon to close bases expired in 1995. Since then, 
Defense Secretary Cohen has repeatedly asked for new authority to 
conduct two more rounds of base closures. Ostensibly because of a 
widespread belief that the 1995 round was politicized by the Clinton 
administration, Congress repeatedly rejected efforts to authorize 
additional rounds. Last year, for instance, the Senate voted against 
legislation mandating base closures by a vote of 36-63.
    Mr. Secretary, what actions will you take to ensure that there is 
no repetition of the politicization of the base closing process as was 
evident in the cases of Kelly and McClellan Air Force Bases, 
recommended for closure in the 1995 BRAC?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. When we have established the proper 
relationship between the force structure needed to execute our national 
security strategy and the infrastructure needed to support that force, 
we will work closely with Congress to develop a process that is fair 
and true to that objective.

    31b. Senator McCain. Mr. Secretary, from your previous experience 
as Secretary of Defense, will you recommend to the President additional 
base closing rounds and what advice can you lend to some of my more 
skeptical colleagues in the House and the Senate?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. Our base structure should fit our force 
structure requirements. We are reviewing the current force structure, 
and prefer to wait until the review is further along before we decide 
to go forward with a legislative proposal seeking authority to conduct 
future base closures.
                         congressional add-ons
    32a. Senator McCain. During the last major drawdown following the 
Vietnam War, there were instances of pork-barrel spending--a phenomenon 
no doubt as old as the Republic--totaling 0.1 to 0.3 percent of the 
President's budget request or roughly about $100 to $300 million, but 
it is miniscule compared with the rampant abuse of the process today. 
During the post-Cold War drawdown, in contrast to the 1970s, spending 
for parochial purposes expanded to 2.2 percent of the President's 
defense budget request--which doesn't seem like that much money but 
represents about $5.5 to $6.0 billion annually. Now that the budget is 
on an upswing, that expansion has grown even more. Last year, for 
example, Congress added over $4 billion to the President's budget 
request. Similarly, the Defense Appropriations Bill contained over $7 
billion in unrequested and non-defense add-ons that is a net loss to 
national security of at least $3 billion. Moreover, each year during 
markup of the defense bill, this committee receives requests from 
Senators for parochial projects produced in their home state, last year 
those requests totaled $30 billion, a 25 percent increase over the 
prior year.
    Mr. Secretary, that is the state of the defense budget that you are 
inheriting, could you comment on your intended approach to dealing with 
the hundreds of member-adds that will most assuredly come your way?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. When presenting my budget plan, I will urge 
Congress to give it strong support. President Bush has emphasized that 
strategy should drive our resource decisions--I support his position.

    32b. Senator McCain. Mr. Secretary, do you see this type of 
congressional behavior of congressional add-ons at cross purposes to 
President Bush's modernization plan, which I support, that skips a 
generation of weapon systems for ``programs that propel America 
generations ahead in military technology'' and what will you try to do 
to curb these excesses?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. Our on-going reviews across a wide array of 
matters will yield information that can be developed into operational 
concepts and, from these, program decisions. I will work closely with 
Congress to seek its support for these decisions.

    33. Senator McCain. Mr. Secretary, a process evolved during the 
post-Cold War drawdown wherein the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Service 
Secretaries were asked to produce so-called Unfunded Priority Lists or 
``wish lists'' detailing where they would allocate additional funds if 
provided by Congress. These wish lists, over time, grew from several 
pages to lengthy binders. This was understandable given the degree to 
which the Armed Forces were under-funded by the Clinton administration. 
My concern, however, has to do with the degree to which the Department 
of Defense has been pressured by Members of Congress to include items 
too numerous to list here on the Unfunded Priority Lists.
    What will you do to resist such pressure and minimize pork-barrel 
spending when pressing modernization, long-term research and 
development, and readiness problems remain?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I feel it is important that the Department 
speak with a unified voice, across the Services, in seeking to fund our 
Defense programs to achieve the President's objectives. That is the 
principle that will guide our interactions with Congress, in budgetary 
and other matters.

                    use of force: kosovo and others
    34. Senator McCain. Mr. Secretary, one of the fundamental 
unresolved questions that must be faced by every President and 
Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense is ``when to use military 
force.'' Beyond that is the equally important question of ``how to 
apply that force once the decision is made to use it.'' You are on the 
record, I believe, as having been reluctant to become militarily 
engaged in the Balkans, but once President Clinton initiated air 
strikes, as having opposed his announced decision not to use ground 
forces.
    Mr. Secretary, could you articulate for the committee your sense of 
the criteria that should guide the use of military force and, once 
force is used, how it would be employed?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. This is an issue for the President and his 
national security team, not the Secretary of Defense alone. Each case 
is unique. Some of the questions that should be discussed when 
considering the use of force include: Are the goals achievable? Do we 
have the resources? What interests are at stake? Are there constraints, 
such as the command structure, that will impact how we can carry out 
the operation? How would we characterize success? In the end, the 
President, following careful consultation with his national security 
team, must decide each case.

    35a. Senator McCain. Those of us who assailed the administration 
and NATO's conduct of gradual escalation during the Balkans campaign 
took heart in your comments of that time, particularly your reflections 
on CNN on April 4, 1999, with respect to comparisons of Kosovo to 
Vietnam, which went as follows: ``There is always a risk in gradualism. 
It pacifies the hesitant and the tentative. What it didn't do is shock 
and awe, and alter the calculations of the people you're dealing 
with.'' Similarly, during an interview with Chris Matthews, you noted 
that ``. . . it was a mistake to say that we should not use ground 
forces, because it simplifies the problem for Milosevic. . . It seems 
to me we ought to stop saying things to appease and placate our 
domestic political audiences and we ought to start behaving in a way 
that suggests to Milosevic that it's . . . in his interest to end this 
and stop ethnic cleansing and come to the negotiating table. . .''
    Mr. Secretary, do you anticipate adopting this approach as one of 
the key figures in the chain of command?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. We must approach each potential use of military 
force mindful of the unique circumstances at play. Our decisions must 
be made with an understanding of the goals we seek to achieve and our 
readiness to honestly evaluate the resources needed to achieve those 
goals.

    35b. Senator McCain. Mr. Secretary, could you offer some insight on 
the philosophical approach you intend to bring to the job of Secretary 
of Defense when the question of military deployments arise? How do you 
approach the issue of moral imperative when no compelling national 
interest is involved?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I fundamentally believe that America has 
compelling interests as a global leader and that our interests will 
continue to be challenged in ways that will threaten this Nation's 
security. Deciding when and where to employ military forces to protect 
our interests is a matter for the President in consultation with his 
national security team. We must be a reliable ally, but resist hasty 
decisions to use force. I also believe that, by remaining strong and 
capable, we can dissuade potential adversaries from taking actions that 
will ultimately lead to far more costly consequences for both of us.

    36. Senator McCain. During the early phase of fighting in Bosnia-
Herzegovina, there existed a decision-making process, chain of command, 
and rules of engagement that virtually guaranteed failure. Our pilots 
found themselves having to receive the personal okay of the U.N. 
Secretary General and his deputy for the Balkans prior to retaliating 
against Bosnian Serb forces. In Kosovo, during Operation Allied Force, 
we witnessed the spectacle of military commanders vetting their 
tactical targeting plans through a 19-nation alliance built on 
unanimity that also limited the effectiveness of the military 
operation.
    Mr. Secretary, what policies would you propose be implemented in 
order to avoid a recurrence of such situations?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. The key to avoiding such awkward command and 
control situations in the future is to carefully review our procedures 
and come to agreements with our allies before we ever have to put those 
procedures into practice. This would entail several steps. First, we 
need to refine and update our regional contingency plans where we are 
likely to engage in combined operations within established alliances. 
For different wartime scenarios, we must define what our mission would 
be, and what would constitute success. We must also define appropriate 
target sets that support the mission. Together with our allies, we 
should define what military targets would contribute to the success of 
operations described under the various scenarios, and define rules of 
engagement for each type of target under each scenario. We must 
establish operational guidelines within the framework of each alliance. 
In addition, it is essential that we wargame each scenario, using 
realistic command and control procedures, at the highest staff levels. 
Finally, it is important to review agreements within the alliance on a 
periodic basis to ensure currency.
                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Senator Bob Smith
    37. Senator Smith. You understandably resigned from the Space 
Commission which you chaired to focus on your nomination. However, you 
left before signing onto the report and the unanimous conclusions of 
the remaining 12 Commissioners. Do you in fact agree with the findings 
and recommendations of the Space Commission?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I agree that the United States is increasingly 
dependent on its civil, commercial, and defense and intelligence space 
assets. With that dependence comes vulnerability to hostile acts. The 
Nation needs a capability to deter and defend against attack on space 
assets and systems.

    38. Senator Smith. The Space Commission report recommends several 
actions for the Secretary of Defense. If confirmed, will you implement 
those changes?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. If confirmed, I will give careful attention to 
these recommendations and the recommendations of several other recent 
studies and commissions on space systems.

    39. Senator Smith. There are several recommendations for the 
President and other agencies of the administration. Some are even 
suggestions for Congress.
    If confirmed, will you encourage the President, other agencies of 
the administration, and Congress to implement the changes recommended 
by the Space Commission?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. See answer above.

    40. Senator Smith. The Commission's report stated that we have not 
adequately funded a number of space activities. In particular, it noted 
that we need space control and satellite negation capability.
    Do you believe the U.S. should have an anti-satellite capability?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. The U.S. and other nations that make use of 
space face threats to the operation of their satellites. We know that 
other nations have jammed telecommunications from on-orbit satellites, 
that Russian entities market devices that can jam GPS signals, and that 
foreign satellite manufacturers market so-called ``micro satellites'' 
to other foreign countries that can be used for offensive actions 
against satellites. In light of U.S. dependence on space assets, the 
vulnerability of these assets to attack or disruption and the fact that 
others have the means of doing harm to U.S. interests in space, it 
would be contrary to U.S. security interests not to develop, test, and 
deploy the appropriate means of deterring attack on and defending space 
systems.

    41a. Senator Smith. The Commission had concerns about the Air Force 
not doing a good job of growing space experts from within the space 
community for senior leadership positions. Rather, they tend to bring 
in rated officers with little or no space experience to fill key space 
leadership positions.
    If confirmed, will you encourage the Air Force to promote more 
career space experts to senior leadership positions rather than drawing 
so heavily from the pilot community while space officers stagnate?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. Yes.

    41b. Senator Smith. Based on what you know of the emerging missile 
threat and the current administration's planned National Missile 
Defense concept, do you believe the planned concept by itself is 
sufficiently robust and capable of providing the defense you and the 
President-elect have described to the nation? When do you anticipate 
completing your review of the critical missile defense mission and 
bringing forward to Congress the robust missile defense architecture to 
protect America and our friends and allies?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I believe it would be good to examine alternate 
and complementary architectures to the NMD system currently under 
development. I cannot now predict when that review will be completed or 
the architectures that will be found to be appropriate.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Olympia J. Snowe
    42. Senator Snowe. In its review of the fiscal year 2001 budget 
request, the Seapower Subcommittee took testimony from Congressional 
Research Service that indicated a $10 to $12 billion annual investment, 
depending on the actual ship mix, and an average build rate of 8.7 
ships per year is required to maintain 308 ships. However, in its 
budget request for fiscal year 2001, the administration in its Future 
Years Defense Program included only 7.5 ships per year and over the 
last 8 years of the Clinton administration requested only 4.75 ships 
per year. Congress helped raise that average to 5.5 ships per year.
    Given that the CNO has testified that 34 percent of the Navy is 
deployed at any given time and that he is hard-pressed to meet that 
requirement with the current fleet, are you committed to review the 
shipbuilding account for adequacy?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. Yes.

    43. Senator Snowe. In a New York Times article dated January 8, 
2001, the authors questioned the DOD's ability to pursue leap-ahead 
technologies while modernizing the military. The article specifically 
mentioned three programs that might be candidates for cancellation or 
postponement to pay for pursuit of leap-ahead technologies: the F-22, 
the MV-22, and the DD-21. Witnesses testified before the Seapower 
Subcommittee that the Marines have been at considerable risk in naval 
surface fire support since the retirement of the Iowa-class battleship 
and will remain so until the DD-21 joins the fleet in strength. 
Slippage of the DD-21 would increase risk to the Navy team's capability 
for forced entry operations and its ability to conduct Operational 
Maneuver From The Sea.
    Do you plan to review the resources necessary to meet naval surface 
fire support requirements of the United States Marine Corps to perform 
the missions we expect of them?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. Yes.

    44. Senator Snowe. The safety and efficacy of the Department of 
Defense Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP) continues to be of 
great concern to our men and women in uniform and their families. In 
light of the divisive nature of the DOD anthrax policy, do you plan to 
review this policy, and what actions might you plan to take to regain 
the trust of our service members and their families lost due to AVIP?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I am not familiar with the details of the AVIP 
program. However, the trust of our service members and their families 
is essential to the effectiveness, morale, and welfare of the U.S. 
Armed Forces. If confirmed, I will get briefed on the program. In the 
interim, it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail.

    45. Senator Snowe. In your 1998 commission report you highlighted 
the missile threat faced by not only our own forces, but America's 
allies like Israel as well. U.S.-Israeli cooperation on the Arrow 
missile system has been a critical component to Israel's defensive 
capabilities as well as a centerpiece for our strategic relationship. 
Also, during your service in the Ford administration you were 
supportive of Israeli security requirements.
    As Secretary, do you foresee this joint initiative continuing? Will 
you continue to facilitate Israel's qualitative military edge, 
including the provision of advanced U.S. defense technologies?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I support continued cooperative efforts in the 
area of ballistic missile defense. I have not been briefed on the ARROW 
program in detail, however, and therefore do not believe it appropriate 
to comment on possible future directions or funding for that program.

    46. Senator Snowe. The Taiwan Relations Act declares America's 
intention to provide for the defensive capabilities of Taiwan with no 
veto by China. The Taiwan Relations Act also states that ``the 
President and Congress'' shall determine Taiwan's defense requirements.
    What recommendations to the President will you make based on the 
needs of Taiwan in order to defend itself as required by the Taiwan 
Relations Act?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. Any recommendations regarding arms sales to 
Taiwan will be made to the President. However, I understand the 
requirements of the Taiwan Relations Act and support a strong 
relationship between Taiwan and the United States, in support of 
Taiwan's need for effective self-defense capability against the threats 
posed to it.

    47. Senator Snowe. In addition to U.S. military aid to present 
recipients, as Secretary would you recommend to President Bush that 
there is a need to expand this aid? If so, do you have any regions or 
countries that you foresee need this assistance?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I have not had an opportunity to review U.S. 
arms sales policy. If confirmed, I will assess U.S. arms sales policy, 
in conjunction with the other members of the President's national 
security team.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
    48. Senator Allard. As a member of the NRO Commission, we found 
that there is a valuable role to be played by commercial space systems 
in order to allow our defense and intelligence assets to be available 
for critical tasks.
    Do you see a role for commercial systems and will you advocate a 
clear national strategy and a commitment of funding for acquisition of 
imagery in order to take full advantage of commercial satellite 
capabilities?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. As I stated in the confirmation hearing, my 
impression is that the United States government, including the 
military, will and should increase the use of commercially available 
satellite capabilities, especially in the area of communications and 
imagery. There are a number of instances where the government might 
take advantage of commercial off-the-shelf type products and services, 
and use those products and services to good effect.

    49. Senator Allard. A concern for me is the adequate funding for 
our long lead space research and development programs--such as the 
space based radar.
    What key areas and needs do you see as a focus for technological 
development in order to move our systems to the next generation?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I agree that there needs to be considerable 
investment in ``leading edge'' technologies. The United States cannot 
afford to lose its preeminence in science and technology.
                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Hutchinson
    50. Senator Hutchinson. I am concerned that the military's basic 
pay table has become compressed over the last decade--that senior 
enlisted members of our Armed Forces are no longer receiving 
compensation commensurate with the great responsibilities placed upon 
their shoulders.
    If confirmed, will you thoroughly examine the area of compensation 
for senior enlisted members of our Armed Forces before President Bush 
sends an amended fiscal year 2002 budget request to Congress?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. Yes.

    51. Senator Hutchinson. Nearly every soldier, sailor, airman, or 
marine that I have spoken to has told me that the need to provide a 
college education for a spouse or child has become a major factor in 
most re-enlistment decisions. While I have, in the past, supported 
efforts to make Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits portable, I am not 
convinced that this would provide the best solution.
    If confirmed, will you commit yourself to working with Congress to 
explore new methods by which those who make a career of the Armed 
Forces will be able to provide college educations for their dependents?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. If confirmed, I will be pleased to work with 
you and your colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives 
to identify options for improving the overall morale and welfare of our 
servicemen and women, including the dependent's education option you 
have suggested.

    52. Senator Hutchinson. One of the many programmatic challenges 
facing the Department of Defense is the modernization of our Nation's 
fleet of C-130 transport aircraft.
    If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure a modern and 
viable mission-ready C-130 force for today and for the future?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I am aware of and appreciate the keen interest 
in the C-130J program shown by you and several of your colleagues. 
However, I have not had an opportunity to review the program, nor have 
I seen the results of the mobility requirements study you mention. If 
confirmed, I will review the study and the program.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions
    53. Senator Sessions. The U.S. government is faced with the 
enormous task of destroying unexploded ordnance at munitions sites that 
have been found across the United States, most notably recently at 
Massachusetts Military Range on Cape Cod, in Massachusetts and Rocky 
Mountain Arsenal in Denver, Colorado. There are hundreds of U.S. sites 
with similar problems. These munitions and their toxic explosives can 
pose serious environmental problems both in terms of their storage or 
if they are destroyed by open burn or open detonation.
    What plans would your Department have to destroy munitions found in 
current and former U.S. bases? Will you focus on closed disposal 
technologies rather than continuation of open burn/open detonations as 
a solution to this problem? What priority would you give to the funding 
of new methods of destroying these hazardous materials, including 
finding private sector solutions to this problem that would not require 
the hazardous transport of conventional unexploded ordnance?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I appreciate your concern about unexploded 
ordnance. However, I have not been briefed on the Department's plans 
and programs in this area, and am unable to comment at this time. If 
confirmed, these activities will be reviewed and assessed.

    54. Senator Sessions. Areas of the former Soviet Union, Central and 
Eastern Europe, and Asia have numerous outdated and hazardous munitions 
sites that could pose a proliferation problem if those munitions and 
explosives are not properly destroyed. The U.S. government currently 
funds this program in the former Soviet Union.
    Would you support the continuation of this non-proliferation 
program and an increase in budgetary allocations to help stem this 
proliferation concern? Would you support the extension of this program 
to include Central and Eastern Europe and Asia? Which areas pose a 
particular concern? Would your administration support the extension of 
non-proliferation programs to China that would help American companies 
enter this market, destroying munitions that pose an environmental 
hazard? Would you support the use of Foreign Ministry Financing Funds 
for the destruction of unexploded ordnance and chemical weapons if 
requested by an eligible country?
    Secretary Rumsfeld. I am unaware of the program to which you refer. 
If confirmed, I will undertake to have this program reviewed in light 
of your questions.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of Donald H. Rumsfeld follows:]
                          Nomination Reference
    [On January 20, 2001, the Senate received the Donald H. 
Rumsfeld nomination. It was not referred to the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, but was signed by the President, placed on 
the Senate Executive Calendar, and then confirmed by the full 
Senate by voice vote all on the same day. A confirmation 
hearing was held by the Senate Armed Services Committee on 
January 11, 2001.]
                                ------                                

    [The biographical sketch of Donald H. Rumsfeld follows:]

               Biographical Sketch of Donald H. Rumsfeld

    Donald Rumsfeld was born in 1932 in Chicago, Illinois, 
attended Princeton University on scholarship, served in the 
U.S. Navy (1954-1957) as an aviator, and was All Navy Wrestling 
Champion. Married in 1954, he and his wife Joyce have three 
children and five grandchildren.
    Mr. Rumsfeld is in private business and is Chairman of the 
Board of Directors of Gilead Sciences, Inc. He serves as a 
member of the boards of directors of ABB (Asea Brown Boveri) 
Ltd. (Zurich, Switzerland), Amylin Pharmaceuticals, and Tribune 
Company. He is also Chairman of the Salomon Smith Barney 
International Advisory Board and an advisor to a number of 
companies, including Investor AB of Sweden. He is currently 
Chairman of the U.S. Commission to Assess National Security 
Space Management and Organization.
    In 1962, at the age of 30, he was elected to his first of 
four terms in the U.S. Congress. In 1969, he resigned from 
Congress to join the President's Cabinet. He served as Director 
of the Office of Economic Opportunity and Assistant to the 
President, and later as Director of the Economic Stabilization 
Program and Counselor to the President. In January 1973 he was 
posted to Brussels, Belgium, as U.S. Ambassador to North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
    In August 1974, Mr. Rumsfeld was called back to Washington, 
DC, to serve as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of 
Gerald R. Ford. He served as Chief of Staff of the White House 
and as a member of the President's Cabinet, 1974-1975, and as 
the 13th U.S. Secretary of Defense, 1975-1977, the youngest in 
history.
    In 1977, Mr. Rumsfeld left Washington, DC, after some 20 
years of public service and lectured at Princeton University's 
Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs and at 
Northwestern University's Kellogg Graduate School of Management 
prior to entering business.
    In June 1977, he became Chief Executive Officer of G.D. 
Searle & Co., a worldwide pharmaceutical company, where he 
served until 1985. The turnaround there earned him awards as 
the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical 
Industry in 1980 and 1981. He was in private business from 1985 
to 1990. From 1990 to 1993, Mr. Rumsfeld served as Chairman and 
Chief Executive Officer of General Instrument Corporation, a 
leader in broadband and digital high-definition television 
technology. After taking the company public, Mr. Rumsfeld 
returned to private business.
    During his years in business, he has continued public 
service in a variety of federal posts including service as 
President Reagan's Special Envoy for the Middle East, and as a 
Member of the President's General Advisory Committee on Arms 
Control, and the National Economic Commission. His current 
civic activities include service on the Boards of Trustees of 
the Chicago Historical Society, Eisenhower Exchange 
Fellowships, the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, the 
Rand Corporation and the National Park Foundation. He is also a 
member of the U.S.-Russia Business Forum, and recently 
completed service as Chairman of the U.S. Government Commission 
to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States.
    Honors include: Distinguished Eagle Scout Award (1975), 
George Catlett Marshall Award (1984), Woodrow Wilson Award 
(1985), Dwight Eisenhower Medal (1993), and eleven honorary 
degrees. In 1977, Mr. Rumsfeld was awarded the nation's highest 
civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
                                ------                                

    [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals 
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a 
form that details the biographical, financial, and other 
information of the nominee. The form executed by Donald H. 
Rumsfeld in connection with his nomination follows:]
                          UNITED STATES SENATE
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              Room SR-228
                       Washington, DC 20510-6050
                             (202) 224-3871
                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
      BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
    Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If 
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the 
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation 
of your answer applies.
                    Part A--Biographical Information
    Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in 
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for 
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in 
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.

    1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
    Donald Henry Rumsfeld.

    2. Position to which nominated:
    U.S. Secretary of Defense.

    3. Date of nomination:
    Expected to be on January 20, 2001. Date of announcement by 
President-elect December 28, 2000.

    4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
    [Nominee responded and the information is contained in the 
committee's executive files.]

    5. Date and place of birth:
    July 9, 1932; Chicago, Illinois.

    6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
    Married to Marion Joyce Pierson; December 27, 1954.

    7. Names and ages of children:
    Valerie Jeanne Rumsfeld, age 44 (born March 3, 1956)
    Marcy Kay Rumsfeld, age 40 (born March 28, 1960)
    Donald Nicholas Rumsfeld, age 33 (born June 26, 1967).

    8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              From                        To            Name of School          Address             Degree
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/46............................  6/50..............  New Trier High      Winnetka, IL......  H.S. Diploma
                                                       School.
9/50............................  6/54..............  Princeton           Princeton, NJ.....  B.A.
                                                       University.
10/54...........................  1/56..............  U.S. Naval Flight   Pensacola, FL.....  Naval Aviator
                                                       School.
1956............................  1956..............  Instructors Basic   Pensacola, FL.....  Naval Flight
                                                       Training School                         Instructor
                                                       (IBTU).
1959............................  1959..............  Georgetown Law      Washington, DC....  None
                                                       Center.
1959............................  1960..............  Western Reserve     Cleveland, OH.....  None
                                                       Law School.
1963............................  1963..............  National War        Washington, DC....  N/A
                                                       College.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the 
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of 
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Dates                    Position             Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
08/93-Present...................  Private Business..  400 N. Michigan,
                                                       #405, Chicago, IL
                                                       60611
10/90-08/93.....................  Chairman and Chief  General Instrument
                                   Executive Officer.  Corp., 181 W.
                                                       Madison St.,
                                                       Chicago, IL 60602
10/85-10/90.....................  Senior Advisor      William Blair &
                                   (part time) and     Co., 135 S.
                                   private business.   LaSalle St.,
                                                       Chicago, IL 60603
08/85-09/30/85..................  Chairman of the     G.D. Searle & Co.,
                                   Board, President    4711 Golf Road,
                                   & CEO.              Skokie, IL 60076
06/77-08/85.....................  President, CEO &    G.D. Searle & Co.,
                                   Director.           4711 Golf Road,
                                                       Skokie, IL 60076
11/3/83-04/84...................  Presidential Envoy  U.S. Government,
                                   for the Middle      Washington, DC
                                   East (part-time,
                                   temporary W.O.C.--
                                   on leave of
                                   absence from G.D.
                                   Searle & Co.).
10/82-02/83.....................  Presidential Envoy  U.S. Government,
                                   for the Law of      Washington, DC
                                   the Sea (part
                                   time--on leave of
                                   absence from G.D.
                                   Searle & Co.).
01/77-06/77.....................  Lecturer (part      Northwestern
                                   time).              Graduate School
                                                       of Mgmt. and
                                                       Princeton
                                                       University,
                                                       Woodrow Wilson
                                                       School of
                                                       International
                                                       Affairs
01/77-06/77.....................  Consultant........  G.D. Searle Co
11/18/75-01/20/77...............  Secretary of        U.S. Dept. of
                                   Defense.            Defense,
                                                       Washington, DC
08/74...........................  Chairman of Gerald  The White House,
                                   R. Ford's           Washington, DC
                                   Transition to the
                                   Presidency.
09/27/74-11/18/75...............  White House Chief   The White House,
                                   of Staff; Asst.     Washington, DC
                                   to the President;
                                   Cabinet Member.
02/02/73-12/05/74...............  U.S. Ambassador to  U.S. Dept. of
                                   NATO.               State,
                                                       Washington, DC
1971-1973.......................  Member of the       The White House,
                                   Cabinet.            Washington, DC
12/10/70-02/02/73...............  Counsellor to the
                                   President.
10/07/71-02/02/73...............  Director, Economic
                                   Stabilization
                                   Program (Cost of
                                   Living Council).
1969-1973.......................  Member of the       The White House,
                                   Cabinet.            Washington, DC
05/26/69-2/2/73.................  Asst. to the
                                   President.
05/26/69-12/10/70...............  Director, Office
                                   of Economic
                                   Opportunity.
1963-1969.......................  Member, U.S. House  U.S. Congress,
                                   of                  Washington, DC
                                   Representatives
                                   (R-IL).
1960-1962.......................  Registered          A.G. Becker & Co.
                                   Representative.     (investment
                                                       banking) Chicago,
                                                       IL
1959-1960.......................  Campaign Manager..  Hon. David
                                                       Dennison, Warren,
                                                       Ohio
1959............................  Staff Assistant,    Congressman Robert
                                   U.S. House of       Griffin (R-
                                   Representatives.    Michigan)
                                                       Washington, DC
1957-1959.......................  Administrative      Honorable David
                                   Asst., U.S. House   Dennison, Warren,
                                   of                  Ohio.
                                   Representatives.
1954-1957.......................  Naval Aviator,      U.S. Navy and then
                                   then Flight         U.S.N.R.
                                   Instructor, then
                                   Instructor of
                                   Flight
                                   Instructors.
1950-1954.......................  Midshipman........  N.R.O.T.C.
                                                       (Regular).
1949 (Summer)...................  Counselor.........  Camp Owakanze, Ft.
                                                       Williams, Canada
1949 (Xmas).....................  Mailman (part       U.S. Post Office,
                                   time).              Winnetka, IL
1948 (Summer)...................  Counselor.........  Philmont Scout
                                                       Ranch.
  (Xmas)........................  Mailman (part       U.S. Post Office,
                                   time).              Winnetka, IL
1947 (Summer)...................  Laborer,            Skokie Country
                                   construction and    Club.
                                   gardening.
  (Xmas)........................  Mailman (part       U.S. Post Office,
                                   time).              Winnetka, IL.
 
  OTHER:
1948............................  Janitor (part       Dress shop,
                                   time).              Winnetka, IL
1947............................  Rug Cleaner.......  Lewis Mothproof,
                                                       Northbrook, IL
1946............................  Gardening and snow  Winnetka, IL.
                                   shoveling.
1945............................  Newsboy, gardening  Coronado, CA.
1944............................  Newsboy, chopped    Port Orchard,
                                   wood, delivered     Washington;
                                   ice, dug clams.     Seaside, Oregon.
1943............................  Newsboy, shop boy   Elizabeth City,
                                   (fish market),      NC.
                                   raised and sold
                                   watermelons,
                                   cantaloupe and
                                   chickens.
1942............................  Newsboy, magazine   Winnetka, IL.
                                   salesman,
                                   delivery boy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, 
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, 
or local governments, other than those listed above.
    This attachment represents my best recollections. It is complete to 
the best of my ability, but I suspect there may be some unintentional 
omissions.

                   APPOINTMENT DATES--DONALD RUMSFELD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           President                     Date                Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nixon..........................    5/26/69 to 2/2/73  Assistant to the
                                                       President
Nixon..........................  5/26/69 to 12/10/70  Director of the
                                                       Office of
                                                       Economic
                                                       Opportunity
Nixon..........................    4/20/70 to 2/2/73  Property Review
                                                       Board (member 4/
                                                       20/70; chairman 9/
                                                       11/71)
Nixon..........................   12/10/70 to 2/2/73  Counselor to the
                                                       President
Nixon..........................    1/20/71 to 2/2/73  Member of Domestic
                                                       Council
Nixon..........................    10/7/71 to 2/2/73  Director of the
                                                       Cost of Living
                                                       Council
Nixon..........................    2/2/73 to 12/5/74  U.S. Permanent
                                                       Representative on
                                                       the Council of
                                                       North Atlantic
                                                       Treaty
                                                       Organization with
                                                       the Rank and
                                                       Status of
                                                       Ambassador
                                                       Extraordinary and
                                                       Plenipotentiary
Ford...........................  9/27/74 to 11/18/75  Assistant to the
                                                       President
Ford...........................  11/18/75 to 1/20/77  Secretary of
                                                       Defense
Ford...........................   2/24/76 to 1/20/77  Governor of Board
                                                       of Governors,
                                                       American National
                                                       Red Cross
Reagan.........................  9/23/82 to 10/29/86  Member of the
                                                       General Advisory
                                                       Committee of the
                                                       U.S. Arms Control
                                                       & Disarmament
                                                       Agency
Reagan.........................   5/17/83 to 9/17/84  Member of the
                                                       Presidents
                                                       Council on the
                                                       Conduct of U.S.-
                                                       Japan Relations
Reagan.........................      11/3/83 (no end  Personal
                                               date)   Representative of
                                                       the President of
                                                       the U.S.A. in the
                                                       Middle East
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT RELATED--CURRENT:

    Director of Central Intelligence--Washington, DC--Consultant (WOC) 
(7/98-)
    Congressional Policy Advisory Board, Republican Policy Committee, 
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC--Member, Advisory Board 
(1/98- )
    Congressional Leadership National Security Advisory Group, 
Washington, DC--Chairman (6/22/00- )
    Senator Peter Fitzgerald Business Advisory Committee, Chicago, IL--
Member (12/98- )
    National Park Foundation, Washington, DC--Member, Board of Trustees 
(8/90-8/96) (1/93-7/94) (11/97- ); Selection Committee for Theodore 
Roosevelt Medal (3/95- ); Selection Committee for Board (6/95-4/96); 
Development Committee (1/98- ); Executive Committee (10/92-4/96)(1/98- 
); Finance Committee (10/92-4/96); New Initiatives Task Force (1/93-7/
94); Government Relations Committee (7/94-4/96); Governance Committee 
(1/98-9/98)(11/98- ); Chairman, Governance Committee (11/98-7/00).
    Lt. Governor Corinne Wood Business Advisory Committee, Chicago, 
IL--Member (3/99- )

                       FORMER ACTIVITIES (PARTIAL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Approximate Dates                        Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1967-1969.................................  THE JAPANESE-AMERICAN INTER-
                                             PARLIAMENTARY COUNCIL--Co-
                                             Founder, Washington, DC
1968-1968.................................  COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE
                                             ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS
                                             FOR THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN
                                             CONFERENCE, Washington, DC--
                                             Member.
1968-?....................................  THE NAVAL ACADEMY ATHLETIC
                                             ASSOCIATION, Annapolis,
                                             Maryland--Honorary Member
1968-1969.................................  NAVAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION--
                                             Member, Chicago, IL.
1968-1969.................................  RESERVE OFFICERS
                                             ASSOCIATION--Member,
                                             Washington, DC
1977-?....................................  U.S. DEPT. OF DEFENSE,
                                             Washington, DC--Advisor
                                             (W.O.C.)
02/81-1981................................  INTERIM FOREIGN POLICY
                                             ADVISORY BOARD FOR
                                             PRESIDENT REAGAN--Member
09/82-11/86...............................  PRESIDENT REAGAN'S GENERAL
                                             ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ARMS
                                             CONTROL (GAC), Washington,
                                             DC--Member
10/82-2/83................................  PRESIDENT REAGAN'S SPECIAL
                                             ENVOY FOR THE LAW OF THE
                                             SEA TREATY--(W.O.C.),
                                             Washington, DC
11/82-06/85...............................  PRESIDENT REAGAN'S COUNCIL
                                             FOR INTERNATIONAL YOUTH
                                             EXCHANGE, Washington, DC--
                                             Member
12/82-09/85...............................  PRESIDENT REAGAN'S COUNCIL
                                             FOR PHYSICAL FITNESS &
                                             SPORTS, Washington, DC--
                                             Special Advisor
12/82-10/90...............................  NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY
                                             FOUNDATION, Washington, DC--
                                             Honorary Member, Board of
                                             Directors
01/83-1984................................  PRESIDENT REAGAN'S PANEL ON
                                             STRATEGIC SYSTEMS--(MX
                                             Panel)--(W.O.C.),
                                             Washington, DC--Senior
                                             Advisor.
06/83-10/84...............................  U.S. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION
                                             ON THE CONDUCT OF U.S./
                                             JAPAN RELATIONS (U.S.),
                                             Washington, DC--Member; and
                                             THE JOINT ADVISORY
                                             COMMISSION ON U.S./JAPAN
                                             RELATIONS (Bi-National)--
                                             (W.O.C.), Washington, DC--
                                             Member
10/83-1/89(?).............................  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
                                             Washington, DC--Advisor/
                                             Expert (W.O.C.) (Dates are
                                             uncertain.)
11/83-4/84................................  PRESIDENT REAGAN'S SPECIAL
                                             ENVOY TO THE MIDDLE EAST--
                                             (W.O.C.), Washington, DC
03/87-06/88...............................  ASSOCIATION OF NAVAL
                                             AVIATION, Washington, DC--
                                             Member.
10/87-08/90...............................  NATIONAL (Paul Volker)
                                             COMMISSION ON PUBLIC
                                             SERVICE, Washington, DC--
                                             Member
02/88-03/89...............................  NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMISSION
                                             (Reagan Administration),
                                             Washington, DC--Member
02/88-08/92...............................  NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY,
                                             Washington, DC--Member,
                                             Board of Advisors
05/89-08/91...............................  COMMISSION ON U.S.-JAPAN
                                             RELATIONS (U.S.-Japan
                                             2000)--Member
08/89-2/90................................  NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE,
                                             Washington, DC--Member,
                                             Panel on the Future Design
                                             and Implementation of U.S.
                                             National Security Export
                                             Controls
1992-1994.................................  INTERNATIONAL REPUBLICAN
                                             INSTITUTE, Washington, DC--
                                             Member
03/92-10/93...............................  U.S. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
                                             COMMISSION--HIGH DEFINITION
                                             TELEVISION ADVISORY
                                             COMMITTEE
12/97-7/98................................  COMMISSION TO ASSESS THE
                                             BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT TO
                                             THE UNITED STATES,
                                             Washington, DC--Chairman
2/99-6/99.................................  PANEL TO ASSESS THE
                                             CAPABILITIES FOR DOMESTIC
                                             RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ACTS
                                             INVOLVING WEAPONS OF MASS
                                             DESTRUCTION (RAND)--
                                             Washington, DC
1/99-11/00................................  U.S. TRADE DEFICIT REVIEW
                                             COMMISSION--Washington, DC--
                                             Commissioner
6/00-12/00................................  U.S. COMMISSION TO ASSESS
                                             NATIONAL SECURITY SPACE
                                             MANAGEMENT AND
                                             ORGANIZATION, Washington,
                                             DC--Chairman
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                   SELECTED U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Approx. Dates
-----------------------------------------------------      Activity
              From                        To
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep-50..........................  Jun-54............  Midshipman,
                                                       N.R.O.T.C.
Jan-54..........................  Jan-57............  Naval Officer,
                                                       Ensign/LTJG
Nov-57..........................                      Honorable
                                                       discharge from
                                                       the U.S. Navy
Nov-57..........................  1989..............  Naval Reserves,
                                                       Captain/USNR-
                                                       Retired
Dec-57..........................  Jan-59............  Administrative
                                                       Assistant to
                                                       Congressman David
                                                       Dennison (R-OH)
1959............................  1959..............  Staff Assistant to
                                                       Congressman
                                                       Robert Griffin (R-
                                                       MI)
Jan-63..........................  Apr-69............  Member (R-IL),
                                                       U.S.House of
                                                       Representatives,
                                                       88th Congress
Jan-63..........................  Apr-69............  Member, House
                                                       Committee on
                                                       Science &
                                                       Astronautics
Jan-63..........................  Jan-65............  Member,
                                                       Subcommittee on
                                                       Advanced Research
                                                       & Technology
Jan-63..........................  Jan-65............  Member,
                                                       Subcommittee on
                                                       Tracking & Data
                                                       Acquisition
Jan-65..........................  Apr-69............  Member,
                                                       Subcommittee on
                                                       Manned Space
                                                       Flight
1965............................  2000..............  Member, 88th
                                                       Congressional
                                                       Club
Jan-65..........................  Jan-67............  Member, House
                                                       Committee on
                                                       Foreign
                                                       Operations &
                                                       Government
                                                       Information
Jan-65..........................  Jan-67............  Member, Government
                                                       Operations
                                                       Subcommittee on
                                                       Legal & Monetary
                                                       Affairs
Jan-67..........................  Apr-69............  Member, Government
                                                       Operations
                                                       Subcommittee on
                                                       Military
                                                       Operations
Jan-67..........................  Apr-69............  Member, Joint
                                                       Economic
                                                       Committee
Jan-67..........................  Apr-69............  Member, Joint
                                                       Economic
                                                       Committee
                                                       Subcommittee on
                                                       Economy in
                                                       Government
Jan-67..........................  Apr-69............  Member, Joint
                                                       Economic
                                                       Committee
                                                       Subcommittee on
                                                       Economic
                                                       Statistics
Jan-67..........................  Apr-69............  Member, Joint
                                                       Economic
                                                       Committee
                                                       Subcommittee on
                                                       Fiscal Policy
Jan-67..........................  Apr-69............  Member, Joint
                                                       Economic
                                                       Committee
                                                       Subcommittee on
                                                       Inter-American
                                                       Economic
                                                       Relationships
1967............................                      President of
                                                       Republican
                                                       Members, 88th
                                                       Congress, U.S.
                                                       House of
                                                       Representatives
1968............................  1969..............  Member,
                                                       Presidential
                                                       Transition Team
                                                       for President-
                                                       Elect Richard
                                                       Nixon
Apr-69..........................  Jan-73............  Member,
                                                       President's
                                                       Cabinet (Nixon)
May-69..........................  Feb-73............  Assistant to the
                                                       President (Nixon)
May-69..........................  Dec-70............  Director, Office
                                                       of Economic
                                                       Opportunity
Apr-70..........................  Feb-73............  Member, Property
                                                       Review Board.
                                                       Chairman (9/11/71-
                                                       2/73)
Dec-70..........................  Feb-73............  Counselor to the
                                                       President (Nixon)
Jan-71..........................  Feb-73............  Member, Domestic
                                                       Council
Oct-71..........................  Feb-73............  Director, Economic
                                                       Stabilization
                                                       Program (Cost of
                                                       Living Council)
Feb-73..........................  Dec-74............  U.S. Ambassador to
                                                       NATO, Brussels,
                                                       Belgium
1974............................    ................  Chairman of the
                                                       Presidential
                                                       Transition Team
                                                       for Gerald Ford
1974............................  1975..............  Member,
                                                       President's
                                                       Cabinet (Ford)
1974............................  1975..............  White House Chief
                                                       of Staff
Sep-74..........................  Nov-75............  Assistant to the
                                                       President (Ford)
Nov-75..........................  Jan-77............  U.S. Secretary of
                                                       Defense
Feb-76..........................  Jan-77............  Governor, American
                                                       National Red
                                                       Cross Board of
                                                       Governors
1977............................  1980..............  Consultant, U.S.
                                                       Department of
                                                       Defense (W.O.C)
1980............................                      Member of Ronald
                                                       Reagan's Foreign
                                                       and Defense
                                                       Policy Advisory
                                                       Committee
1981............................                      Member, Interim
                                                       Foreign Policy
                                                       Advisory Board
                                                       for President
                                                       Reagan
1982............................  1983..............  Senior Advisor to
                                                       Commission on
                                                       Strategic Systems
                                                       (Scowcroft MX
                                                       Panel), (W.O.C)
Sep-82..........................  (?)...............  Member, U.S.
                                                       General Advisory
                                                       Committee on Arms
                                                       Control (W.O.C.)
Oct-82..........................  Feb-83............  Presidential Envoy
                                                       for the Law of
                                                       the Sea Treaty
May-83..........................  Sep-84............  Member, U.S.
                                                       Presidential
                                                       Commission on
                                                       U.S.-Japan
                                                       Relations
                                                       (W.O.C.)
May-83..........................  Sep-84............  Member, U.S. the
                                                       Joint Advisory
                                                       Commission on
                                                       U.S.-Japan
                                                       Relations
                                                       (W.O.C.)
Nov-83..........................  Jan-89............  Consultant/Expert
                                                       Advisor, U.S.
                                                       Department of
                                                       State (W.O.C.)
                                                       (dates uncertain)
Nov-83..........................  Apr-84............  President Reagan's
                                                       Personal
                                                       Representative to
                                                       the Middle East
Feb-88..........................  Mar-89............  Member, National
                                                       Economic
                                                       Commission,
                                                       Washington, DC
Aug-90..........................  Aug-96............  Member, Board of
                                                       Trustees,
                                                       National Park
                                                       Foundation,
                                                       Washington, DC
Nov-97..........................  Dec-00............  Member, Board of
                                                       Trustees,
                                                       National Park
                                                       Foundation,
                                                       Washington, DC
Oct-92..........................  Apr-96............  Member, Executive
                                                       Committee,
                                                       National Park
                                                       Foundation,
                                                       Washington, DC
Oct-92..........................  Apr-96............  Member, Finance
                                                       Committee,
                                                       National Park
                                                       Foundation,
                                                       Washington, DC
Mar-95..........................  Jan-01............  Member, Selection
                                                       Committee for
                                                       Theodore
                                                       Roosevelt Medal,
                                                       National Park
                                                       Foundation,
                                                       Washington, DC
Jan-93..........................  Ju1-94............  Member, New
                                                       Initiatives Task
                                                       Force, National
                                                       Park Foundation,
                                                       Washington, DC
Ju1-94..........................  Apr-96............  Member, Government
                                                       Relations
                                                       Committee
                                                       National Park
                                                       Foundation,
                                                       Washington, DC
Jun-95..........................  Apr-96............  Member, Selection
                                                       Committee for
                                                       Board, National
                                                       Park Foundation,
                                                       Washington, DC
Jan-98..........................  Sep-98............  Member, Governance
                                                       Committee,
                                                       National Park
                                                       Foundation,
                                                       Washington, DC
Jan-98..........................  Jan-01............  Member,
                                                       Development
                                                       Committee,
                                                       National Park
                                                       Foundation,
                                                       Washington, DC
Jan-98..........................  Jan-01............  Member, Executive
                                                       Committee,
                                                       National Park
                                                       Foundation,
                                                       Washington, DC
Ju1-98..........................  Jul-00............  Chairman,
                                                       Governance
                                                       Committee,
                                                       National Park
                                                       Foundation,
                                                       Washington, DC
Nov-98..........................  Jan-01 ...........  Member, Governance
                                                       Committee,
                                                       National Park
                                                       Foundation,
                                                       Washington, DC
Jan-98..........................  Jan-01............  Member,
                                                       Congressional
                                                       Policy Advisory
                                                       Board, Republican
                                                       Policy Committee,
                                                       House of
                                                       Representatives,
                                                       Washington, DC
Ju1-98..........................  Jan-01............  Consultant to the
                                                       Director of
                                                       Central
                                                       Intelligence,
                                                       Washington, DC
Jan-99..........................  Nov-00............  Member, U.S. Trade
                                                       Deficit Review
                                                       Commission,
                                                       Washington, DC
Jun-00..........................  Jan-01............  Chairman,
                                                       Congressional
                                                       Leadership
                                                       National Security
                                                       Advisory Group,
                                                       Washington, DC
Jun-00..........................  Dec-00............  Chairman, U.S.
                                                       Commission to
                                                       Assess National
                                                       Security Space
                                                       Management and
                                                       Organization,
                                                       Washington, DC
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an 
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, 
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other 
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
    This attachment represents my best recollections. It is complete to 
the best of my ability, but I suspect there may be some unintentional 
omissions.
                           current activities
    *Organizational affiliations which I might wish to continue during 
the term of my appointment
    **Investments in entities which I might wish to continue during the 
term of my appointment.

    BUSINESS:
    BOARDS OF DIRECTORS: PUBLIC COMPANIES

    ABB Asea Brown Boveri, Ltd., Zurich, Switzerland--Member, Board of 
Directors (6/99- ); Nominating Committee (12/99- )
    AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS, La Jolla, California--Member, Board of 
Directors (11/91-9/96), (9/99- ), Advisor (9/96-10/99)
    GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., Foster City, California--Chairman, Board of 
Directors (1/97- ); Member, Board of Directors (7/88- ); Audit 
Committee (4/89-97); Compensation Committee (4/91-97)
    TRIBUNE COMPANY, Chicago, Illinois--Member, Board of Directors (7/
92- ); Executive Committee (5/96- ); Audit Committee (7/92-5/95); 
Governance and Compensation Committee (5/95- ); Incentive Compensation 
Subcommittee of the Governance and Compensation Committee (5/96-5/99); 
Finance Committee (7/92-5/95); Technical Advisory Committee (9/92-2/
00)--Chairman (5/95-2/00); [Leave of Absence from 7/8/96 to 11/6/96].

    BOARDS OF DIRECTORS: PRIVATE COMPANIES

    OVERX, INC., Chicago, IL--Member, Board of Directors (7/99- ); 
Compensation Committee (10/99-12/99)
    *,**SHOTPUT HOLDINGS, INC. (Owned 100 percent by Donald Rumsfeld to 
hold fractional interest in aircraft that are operated and maintained 
by a third-party), Chicago, IL--Member, Board of Directors and 
President (11/95- ).

    ADVISORY RELATIONSHIPS: PUBLIC COMPANIES

    INVESTOR AB, Stockholm, Sweden--Advisor (1/94- )
    METRICOM, INC., Los Gatos, California--Member, Advisory Board (1/
94- )
    NVIDIA, Sunnyvale, California--Business Advisor (2/98- )
    SALOMON SMITH BARNEY, New York, New York--Chairman, International 
Advisory Board (11/98- ).

    ADVISORY BOARDS: PRIVATE COMPANIES

    THE HAMILTON GROUP, Washington, DC.--Member, Advisory Board (2/97- 
)
    TRANSACTION INFORMATION SYSTEMS (TIS), New York. NY--Advisory Board 
(4/99- )
    THESCIENCE.COM--Menlo Park, CA--Advisory Board (4/00- ).

    U.S. GOVERNMENT RELATED

    DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE--Washington, DC--Consultant 
(WOC)(7/98- ).
    CONGRESSIONAL POLICY ADVISORY BOARD, Republican Policy Committee, 
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC--Member, Advisory Board 
(1/98- ).
    CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISORY GROUP, 
Washington, DC--Chairman (6/22/00- )
    SENATOR PETER FITZGERALD BUSINESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chicago, IL--
Member (12/98- )
    NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION, Washington, DC--Member, Board of Trustees 
(8/90-8/96) (1/93-7/94) (11/97- ); Selection Committee for Theodore 
Roosevelt Medal (3/95- ); Selection Committee for Board (6/95-4/96); 
Development Committee (1/98- ); Executive Committee (10/92-4/96)(1/98- 
); Finance Committee (10/92-4/96); New Initiatives Task Force (1/93-7/
94); Government Relations Committee (7/94-4/96); Governance Committee 
(1/98-9/98)(11/98- ); Chairman, Governance Committee (11/98-7/00)
    U.S. COMMISSION TO ASSESS NATIONAL SECURITY SPACE MANAGEMENT AND 
ORGANIZATION, Washington, DC--Chairman (6/00-12/00).
    LT. GOVERNOR CORINNE WOOD BUSINESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chicago, 
IL--Member (3/99- ).

    BOARDS OF DIRECTORS: NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

    CHICAGO HISTORICAL SOCIETY, Chicago, Illinois--Member, Board of 
Trustees (7/97- ); Exhibitions Committee (10/97-11/99); Finance 
Committee (10/97-4/00)
    *DHR FOUNDATION, Chicago, Illinois--President (12/85- ). (Possibly 
without investment control)
    EISENHOWER EXCHANGE FELLOWSHIPS, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania--
Chairman Emeritus (5/93- ); Chairman, Board of Trustees (5/86-5/93); 
Executive Committee (5/93-5/95)
    EMPOWER AMERICA, New York, New York--Member, Board of Directors (1/
93- )
    *GERALD R. FORD FOUNDATION, Grand Rapids, Michigan--Member, Board 
of Trustees (9/81- ); Awards and Grants Committee (3/82-7/90); Program 
Committee (7/90-7/92); Endowment/Development Committee (7/92- )
    HOOVER INSTITUTION ON WAR, REVOLUTION AND PEACE, Stanford, 
California--Member, Board of Overseers (8/83-2/87, 7/88-6/94 & 7/97- ); 
Finance Committee (7/97-3/98); Nominating Committee (7/97- ); Executive 
Committee (4/98- )
    JAPAN CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE, Japan--Member, Board of 
Trustees (1990- ).
    RAND CORPORATION, Santa Monica, California--Chairman, Board of 
Trustees (4/81-4/86)(4/95-12/96); Member, Board of Trustees (4/77-4/
87)(4/88-4/98)(4/99- ); Executive Committee (4/77-4/87) (4/88-4/98)(4/
99- ); Member, Audit Committee (4/95-4/98)(4/99-4/00); Endowment Fund 
Subcommittee (4/95-12/96); Corporate Development Advisory Committee (7/
904/98- ); Chairman, Nominating Committee (4/97-4/98); Member, 
Nominating Committee (4/78-4/87 & 4/95-4/98); and Ad Hoc Committee for 
the National Defense Research Institute (4/94-11/94); Member, Corporate 
Development Advisory Committee (7/90-4/98); President's Council (9/93-
4/98); RAND Graduate School Committee (4/95-4/98); Member, Advisory 
Committee of the Center for Asia-Pacific Policy (5/96-4/98); Member, 
Long-Term Investment Fund Subcommittee (4/99- ); Member, Ad Hoc Venture 
Advisory Committee (7/99- ). RAND Transition 2001, Washington, DC--
Panel Member (1/00-12/00). [Took leave of absence as Chairman/Member of 
the Board of Trustees of RAND from 6/96-12/96.]
    RAND Russian-American Business Leaders Forum, Santa Monica, 
California--Member (11/97- )
    SMITH RICHARDSON FOUNDATION, New York, New York--Member, Grant 
Advisory Committees--Domestic (6/98-12/99); Foreign Policy (6/98- )
    THE NATIONAL SECURITY FUNDERS INSTITUTE, New York, New York--
Advisory Board (3/00- ).
    UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, Chicago, Illinois--Member, Department of 
Economics Chairman's Council (6/97- )
    *AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DIPLOMACY, Washington, DC--Member (10/83- )
    BRETTON WOODS COMMITTEE, Washington, DC--Member (7/96- )
    CHICAGO COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Chicago, Illinois--Member (6/
93- ). (Member, Board of Directors, 5/85-6/92)
    *COUNCIL OF AMERICAN AMBASSADORS, Washington, DC--Member (8/83- )
    FIRST FLIGHT CENTENNIAL FOUNDATION, Raleigh-Durham Airport, NC (6/
99- )
    *FORMER MEMBERS OF THE U.S. CONGRESS, Washington, DC.--Member 
(1975- )
    INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES (IISS), London, 
England--Member (6/78- )
    THE MARSH INSTITUTE (former Congressman John Marsh; D-VA), 
Shenandoah University, Winchester, Virginia--Member, Honorary Committee 
(11/98- )
    *NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (NAPA), Washington, 
DC.--Member (9/81- )
    NATIONAL STRATEGY FORUM, Chicago, Illinois--Member (9/83- ).

    ADVISORY:

    ALEXIS de TOCQUEVILLE INSTITUTION--NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM, 
Arlington, VA--Member, Senior Advisory Board (9/93- )
    CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES--The Global 
Organization on Crime, Washington, DC.--Member, Steering Committee (11/
97- )
    COMMITTEE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, Arlington, Virginia--Senior 
Advisory Board member (9/93- )
    GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, Washington, DC.--Member, Committee 
for Democracy in Russia (4/96- )
    INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE, New York, New York--Member, 
International Advisory Board (6/88- ); Member Board of Trustees (6/86-
6/88)
    THE JAMESTOWN FOUNDATION, Washington, DC.--Member, Advisory Board 
(10/85- )
    JAPAN CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE, INC. (JCIE/USA), New York, 
New York--Board of Trustees (10/92- )
    JOHN E. MOSS (former Congressman John Moss; D-CA) FOUNDATION 
CONGRESSIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chicago, IL--Member (1/99- )
    THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE STUDY GROUP ON U.S. MIDDLE EAST POLICY 
STEERING COMMITTEE, Washington, DC--Member (2/00- ).

    POLITICAL ACTIVITIES:

    42ND WARD REPUBLICAN ORGANIZATION, Chicago, Illinois--Member (9/85- 
).

    OTHER:

    *ALFALFA CLUB, Washington, DC--Member (1976- )
    *BOHEMIAN CLUB, San Francisco, California--Member (12/86- ); H.B. 
Camp (8/87- )
    *CAPITOL HILL CLUB, Washington, DC--Member (5/85- )
    *CASTLE PARK PLATFORM TENNIS ASSOCIATION, Castle Park, Michigan--
Member (1980- )
    *COMMERCIAL CLUB, Chicago, IL--Member (3/79- ). Executive Committee 
(5/92-5/93)
    *88TH CONGRESSIONAL CLUB, Washington, DC--Member (1965- )
    *THE FEBRUARY GROUP (President Nixon Administration Alumni), 
Alexandria, Virginia--Member (4/91- )
    THE 410 CLUB, Chicago, Illinois--Member (12/93- )
    *FOURTH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, Chicago, Illinois--Member (9/90- )
    *FRIENDS OF PRINCETON WATER POLO, Princeton, New Jersey--Member
    *FRIENDS OF PRINCETON WRESTLING COMMITTEE, Princeton, New Jersey--
Member (7/96- )
    OUTSTANDING AMERICANS SELECTION COMMITTEE, National Wrestling Hall 
of Fame, Stillwater, Oklahoma--Member (10/97- )
    *PRINCETON CLUB OF CHICAGO, Chicago, Illinois--Member (10/91- ). 
Honorary member, Board of Directors. Awards Committee (06/93-06/94)
    *PRINCETON CLUB OF NEW YORK, New York, New York--Member (4/79-10/
91, reinstated 4/93- )
    *RACQUET CLUB OF CHICAGO, Chicago, Illinois--Member (1/86- )
    *REAGAN ALUMNI ASSOCIATION, Alexandria, Virginia--Member (1990- )
    *SOS CLUB, Washington, DC.--Member (1964- ).

    FIDUCIARY:

    *DONALD H. RUMSFELD REVOCABLE TRUST u/a/d October 6, 1978, as 
amended (1978- )
    *DONALD H. RUMSFELD 1998 GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUITY TRUST (1998- ).

    INVESTMENT RELATIONSHIPS:

    The entities listed under this heading overwhelmingly represent 
investments in which I have no active role. My participation is 
predominately that of a passive investor
    **BIOTECHNOLOGY VENTURE PARTNERS, L.P., San Francisco, CA--Limited 
Partner (1995- )
    **BRENTWOOD ASSOCIATES VII, L.P., Los Angeles, CA--Limited Partner 
(1995- )
    **BRENTWOOD ASSOCIATES VIII, L.P., Los Angeles, CA--Limited Partner 
(1997- )
    **BRENTWOOD ASSOCIATES IX, L.P., Los Angeles, CA--Limited Partner 
(1998- )
    **CERBERUS INSTITUTIONAL PARTNERS, L.P., New York, NY--Limited 
Partner (1999- )
    **CHENGWEI VENTURES FUND I, L.P., Shanghai, China--Limited Partner 
(2000- )
    **COMPASS I, L.P., Chicago, IL--Limited Partner (1997- ).
    **CONVERGENCE CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., San Francisco, CA--Limited 
Partner (2000- )
    **DEERFIELD PARTNERS, L.P., New York, NY--Limited Partner (1994- ).
    **FLAG GROWTH CAPITAL, L.P., Stamford, CT--Limited Partner (2000- )
    **FLAG VENTURE PARTNERS IV, L.P., Stamford, CT--Limited Partner 
(2000- )
    **FLC XXX PARTNERSHIP, New York, NY--General Partner (1998- )
    **HAMILTON TECHNOLOGY VENTURES, L.P., San Diego, CA--Limited 
Partner (2000- ). 
    **JORD PARTNERSHIP, Schaumburg, IL--General Partner (1990- )
    **KINGSBURY CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P. III, San Diego, CA--Limited 
Partner (1998- )
    **LASALLE RECOVERY VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Chicago, IL--
Limited Partner (1994- )
    **LAZY O RANCH LTD. PARTNERSHIP, Schaumburg, IL--Limited Partner 
(1988- )
    **LCOR, INC., Schaumburg, IL--50 percent shareholder (1996- )
    **LLANO HOT SPRINGS PARTNERSHIP, Taos, NM--General Partner (1992- )
    **MAVERICK CAPITAL, Dallas, TX--Limited Partner (1997- )
    **MUTUALFUNDS.COM, Boston, MA--Limited Liability Company Member 
(1999- )
    **OCM OPPORTUNITIES FUND III, L.P., Los Angeles, CA--Limited 
Partner (1999- )
    **OCM OPPORTUNITIES FUND, L.P., Los Angeles, CA--Limited Partner 
(1995- )
    **OPTION ADVANTAGE PARTNERS, L.P., San Francisco, CA--Limited 
Partner (2000 )
    **POLARIS VENTURE PARTNERS III, L.P., Waltham, MA--Limited Partner 
(2000- )
    **R. CHANEY & PARTNERS III L.P., Houston, TX--Limited Partner 
(1997- )
    **R. CHANEY & PARTNERS IV, L.P., Houston, TX--Limited Partner 
(1998- )
    **ROBERTSON STEPHENS RESIDENTIAL FUND, L.P., San Francisco, CA--
Limited Partner (1994- )
    **SCF PARTNERS III, L.P., Houston, TX--Limited Partner (1995- )
    **SCF PARTNERS IV, L.P., Houston, TX--Limited Partner (1998- )
    **SILVER LAKE SPECIAL TRUST, New York, NY--Limited Partner (1999- )
    **STINSON CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P., San Francisco, CA--Limited 
Partner (1998- )
    **SUMMIT VENTURES IV, L.P., Boston, MA--Limited Partner (1995- )
    **TECOLOTE LAND LLC, Schaumburg, IL--Limited Liability Company 
Member (2000- )
    **THOMAS H. LEE FUND V, L.P., Boston, MA--Limited Partner (2000- )
    **TIGER MANAGEMENT L.L.C., New York, NY--Limited Partner (1993- )
    **TRANSPAC CAPITAL 1996 INVESTMENT TRUST, Tortola, British Virgin 
Islands--Limited Partner (1997- )
    **TWP CEO FOUNDERS' CIRCLE (QP), L.P., San Francisco, CA--Limited 
Partner (1999- ).
    **VECTOR LATER STAGE EQUITY FUND II, L.P., Deerfield, IL--Limited 
Partner (1997- )
    **WASHINGTON CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.L.C., Washington, DC--Limited 
Liability Company Member (2000- )
    **YBR ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Chicago, IL--General Partner 
(1987- )
    **YBR ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II, Chicago, IL--Limited 
Partner (1992- )

    12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in 
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and 
other organizations.
    See Question 11.

    13. Political affiliations and activities:
    (a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or 
any public office for which you have been a candidate
      
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
      
    (b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered 
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5 
years.
    See Attachment A-13(a)
    (c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign 
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar 
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
      
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
      

    14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, military medals, and any other special 
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
    This attachment represents my best recollections. It is complete to 
the best of my ability, but I suspect there may be some unintentional 
omissions.

                            AWARDS AND HONORS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Date                             Awards/Honors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1947......................................  Eagle Scout Award
1948......................................  Elected Vice President of
                                             Junior Class, New Trier
                                             High School, Winnetka,
                                             Illinois
1949-50...................................  Elected Vice President of
                                             the Tri-Ship Club, New
                                             Trier High School,
                                             Winnetka, Illinois
1949-50...................................  Awarded the Fathers Club
                                             Award as the Outstanding
                                             Wrestler in 1949 and in
                                             1950, New Trier High
                                             School, Winnetka, Illinois
1949-50...................................  Elected Co-Captain of the
                                             New Trier High School
                                             Varsity Wrestling Team
                                             (State Champions),
                                             Winnetka, Illinois
1950......................................  Awarded scholarship to
                                             Princeton University,
                                             Princeton, New Jersey
1950-51...................................  Awarded the Hooker Trophy as
                                             the Outstanding Freshman
                                             Wrestler, Princeton
                                             University, Princeton, New
                                             Jersey
1951-54...................................  Selected in a national
                                             competition for an NROTC
                                             Regular Scholarship,
                                             Princeton University,
                                             Princeton, New Jersey
1953......................................  Elected Captain, Princeton
                                             University Varsity 150 lb.
                                             Football Team, Princeton,
                                             New Jersey
1953......................................  Elected Captain of the
                                             Princeton University
                                             Varsity Wrestling Team,
                                             Princeton, New Jersey
1953-54...................................  Awarded the Triede Award as
                                             the Outstanding Varsity
                                             Wrestler in 1953 and in
                                             1954, Princeton University,
                                             Princeton, New Jersey
1/55......................................  Designated Naval Aviator
1956......................................  Won the All Navy Wrestling
                                             Championship title at 147
                                             lbs
1956......................................  Won the Olympic District
                                             Wrestling Championship at
                                             160 lbs
1956......................................  Selected as a Flight
                                             Instructor in the
                                             Instructor's Basic Training
                                             Group, U.S. Navy,
                                             Pensacola, Florida
1962......................................  Elected to the U.S.
                                             Congress, 13th District of
                                             Illinois
1964......................................  Re-elected to the U.S.
                                             Congress, 13th District of
                                             Illinois
1964-66...................................  Awarded the Watchdog of the
                                             Treasury Award, by the
                                             National Association of
                                             Businessmen in 1964, 1966
                                             and 1968
1965......................................  Selected as one of the ten
                                             Outstanding Young Men by
                                             the Chicago Chamber of
                                             Commerce & Industry,
                                             Chicago, Illinois
1966......................................  Re-elected to the U.S.
                                             Congress, 13th District of
                                             Illinois
1967-68...................................  Elected President of the
                                             88th Club (Republican
                                             Members of the U.S.
                                             Congress who were elected
                                             in 1962)
1968......................................  Re-elected to the U.S.
                                             Congress, 13th District of
                                             Illinois, by the highest
                                             percentage (76) of all
                                             Congressmen in the U.S
1975......................................  Awarded the Distinguished
                                             Eagle Scout Award
1975......................................  Awarded the Opportunity
                                             Industrial Centers (OIC)
                                             Executive Government Award,
                                             presented by Rev. Leon
                                             Sullivan
5/18/75...................................  Awarded an Honorary Doctor
                                             of Laws Degree--Illinois
                                             College, Jacksonville,
                                             Illinois
5/25/75...................................  Awarded an Honorary Doctor
                                             of Laws Degree--Park
                                             College, Kansas City,
                                             Missouri
6/7/75....................................  Awarded an Honorary Doctor
                                             of Laws Degree--Lake Forest
                                             College, Lake Forest,
                                             Illinois
10/2/76...................................  Awarded the Leadership
                                             Citation for Outstanding
                                             Public Service, presented
                                             by the American Friends of
                                             the Hebrew University of
                                             Jerusalem
1/10/77...................................  Awarded the Presidential
                                             Medal of Freedom--with
                                             distinction--the Nation's
                                             highest civilian award,
                                             Washington, D.C
3/17/80...................................  Awarded the Gold Medal as
                                             the Outstanding Chief
                                             Executive Officer in the
                                             Pharmaceutical Industry,
                                             presented by Wall Street
                                             Transcript
1981......................................  Received the Northwest
                                             Suburban 1981 ``Good
                                             Scout'' Award, presented by
                                             Northwest Suburban (Ill.)
                                             Boy Scouts
2/23/81...................................  Awarded the Bronze Medal as
                                             the #3 Outstanding Chief
                                             Executive Officer in the
                                             Pharmaceutical Industry,
                                             presented by Wall Street
                                             Transcript
3/11/81...................................  Presented the Outstanding
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             Award in the Pharmaceutical
                                             Industry, by Financial
                                             World
4/81......................................  Elected Chairman of the
                                             Board of Trustees of The
                                             RAND Corporation, Santa
                                             Monica, California
4/12/81...................................  Awarded an Honorary Doctor
                                             of Laws Degree--Tuskegee
                                             Institute, Tuskegee,
                                             Alabama
5/16/81...................................  Awarded an Honorary Doctor
                                             of Science in Business
                                             Administration Degree--
                                             Bryant College, Smithfield,
                                             Rhode Island
9/81......................................  Elected to the National
                                             Academy of Public
                                             Administration
1/25/82...................................  Awarded a Silver Medal as
                                             the #2 Outstanding Chief
                                             Executive Officer in the
                                             Pharmaceutical Industry,
                                             presented by Wall Street
                                             Transcript
1/31/83...................................  Awarded the Sliver Medal as
                                             the #2 Chief Executive
                                             Officer in the
                                             Pharmaceutical Industry,
                                             presented by Wall Street
                                             Transcript
4/1/83....................................  Awarded the Executive of the
                                             Year Award, by the
                                             University of Arizona
                                             Business Advisory Council,
                                             Tucson, Arizona
5/6/83....................................  Awarded the Invest-in-
                                             America Eagle Award for
                                             dedication to the country's
                                             enterprise system
5/26/83...................................  Presented the City Club of
                                             Chicago 80th Anniversary
                                             Award honoring Outstanding
                                             Chicagoans
7/9/83....................................  Presented the Golden Plate
                                             Award, by American Academy
                                             of Achievement
10/17/84..................................  Awarded the George Catlett
                                             Marshall Medal, by the U.S.
                                             Army Association,
                                             Washington, DC
2/16/85...................................  Awarded the Woodrow Wilson
                                             Medal, by Princeton
                                             University, Princeton, New
                                             Jersey
3/5/85....................................  Presented the Marketing Man
                                             of the Year Award, by the
                                             Commercial Development
                                             Association, Inc
9/27/85...................................  Awarded an Honorary Doctor
                                             of Laws Degree, by the
                                             National College of
                                             Education, Evanston,
                                             Illinois
11/20/85..................................  Presented the Shelby Cullom
                                             Davis Award, by the Ethics
                                             & Public Policy Center,
                                             Washington, DC
4/28/86...................................  Presented the Award of Merit
                                             for Entrepreneurship from
                                             the Wharton School of
                                             Business of the University
                                             of Pennsylvania,
                                             Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
7/86......................................  Awarded the George
                                             Washington Honor Medal for
                                             Excellence in Public
                                             Address, by the Freedoms
                                             Foundation, Valley Forge,
                                             Pennsylvania
7/86......................................  Presented the Outstanding
                                             Private Sector Leader
                                             Award, by The American
                                             Legislative Exchange
                                             Council
9/87......................................  Presented the Professional
                                             Manager of the Year Award,
                                             by the Society for the
                                             Advancement of Management,
                                             Chicago Chapter, Chicago,
                                             Illinois
5/88......................................  Awarded Honorary Doctor of
                                             Letters Degree, by
                                             Claremont University Center
                                             and Graduate School,
                                             Claremont, California
4/8/90....................................  To be inducted into the
                                             Illinois Wrestling Coaches
                                             and Officials Hall of Fame
6/10/90...................................  Awarded Honorary Doctor of
                                             Laws Degree, DePaul
                                             University College of
                                             Commerce, Chicago, Illinois
11/22/91..................................  Awarded Certificate of
                                             Appreciation, Private
                                             Sector Council, Washington,
                                             DC
4/23/92...................................  Presented the Henry Townley
                                             Heald Award by Lewis
                                             Collens, President,
                                             Institute of Technology at
                                             Ceremony honoring 10-year
                                             members of the President's
                                             Council, Chicago, Illinois
5/2/92....................................  Induction as a Distinguished
                                             American by the National
                                             Wrestling Hall of Fame &
                                             Museum, Stillwater,
                                             Oklahoma
5/22/93...................................  Awarded Honorary Doctor of
                                             Laws Degree, Illinois
                                             Wesleyan University,
                                             Bloomington, Illinois
5/27/93...................................  Presented the Dwight David
                                             Eisenhower Medal,
                                             Eisenhower Exchange
                                             Fellowships, Inc.,
                                             Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
7/10/93...................................  Awarded Honorary Degree of
                                             Doctor of Public Policy,
                                             The RAND Graduate School,
                                             Santa Monica, California
6/19/97...................................  Presented the Atlantic Legal
                                             Foundation Award for Free
                                             Enterprise, New York, New
                                             York
5/10/98...................................  Presented the Doctor of Laws
                                             from Hampden-Sydney
                                             College, Hampden-Sydney,
                                             Virginia
10/7/98...................................  The Center for Security
                                             Policy 10th Anniversary
                                             ``Keeper of the Flame''
                                             Award, Four Seasons Hotel,
                                             Washington, DC
4/27/00...................................  Presented the Distinguished
                                             Community Service Award,
                                             Princeton Club of Chicago,
                                             Chicago, Illinois
9/21/00...................................  Named 42nd Ward Republican
                                             of the Year 2000, Chicago,
                                             Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of 
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have 
written.
    This attachment represents my best recollections. It is complete to 
the best of my ability, but I suspect there may be some unintentional 
omissions.

                         DOCUMENTS WRITTEN BY DR
1/65......................................  ``Freedom of Information
                                             Law''
1966......................................  ``Summary of Congressman
                                             Rumsfeld's Efforts on the
                                             Freedom of Information
                                             Bill''
1967......................................  ``Account of Effort to Free
                                             Future Farmers of America
                                             (FFA) from Federal
                                             Control''
10/68.....................................  ``The Long Day''--written
                                             draft unpublished
1976......................................  ``Which Five Year
                                             Shipbuilding Program?''
                                             written for the Naval
                                             Institute Proceedings
1/6/77....................................  ``The All Volunteer Force:
                                             Myths & Realities''
                                            ``The Economics of Good
                                             Intentions: The Carter
                                             Guidelines'' for Wage and
                                             Price Guidelines/
                                             Commonsense
2/13/79...................................  ``Costly Education: History
                                             Gives a Lesson on Wage
                                             Price Controls,'' The San
                                             Diego Union
12/79.....................................  ``Is the Regulatory Process
                                             Working?'' Pharmaceutical
                                             Technology
6/27/80...................................  ``The U.S. in a Dangerous,
                                             Untidy World'' National
                                             Review
11/80.....................................  ``A Presidency for the
                                             1980s''
12/10/80..................................  ``The North Atlantic Treaty
                                             Organization (NATO)''
12/80.....................................  ``ORBIS: A Journal of World
                                             Affairs''
1980......................................  ``Rumsfeld's Rules''
1980......................................  ``America Must Respond,''
                                             Comparative Strategy
1983......................................  ``The Gauntlet-In Search of
                                             a Bipartisan Foreign
                                             Policy, The Challenge to a
                                             Genuine Debate''
1/14/83...................................  ``The Nuclear Balance in
                                             Europe: Status, Trends,
                                             Implications''
                                             (introduction by DR) for
                                             the United States Strategic
                                             Institute
2/83......................................  Defense Forum, Armed Forces
                                             Journal International
1984......................................  ``Beyond Containment? The
                                             Future of U.S.-Soviet
                                             Relations''
11/84.....................................  ``Five Business Views of
                                             Deficits & Taxes,''
                                             Commentary
3/13/85...................................  ``Rumsfeld Recollects''
                                             Wilson Award Winner,
                                             Princeton Alumni Weekly
10/18/85..................................  ``The Middle East & State
                                             Sponsored Terrorism'' The
                                             Commonwealth
Winter, 1985..............................  ``Analysis of Capitalism,''
                                             Keynote Address, Business
                                             Today
7/28/86...................................  Statement by The Honorable
                                             Donald Rumsfeld as read to
                                             Duncan Sellars of
                                             Conservative Caucus
2/21/87...................................  ``America's Competitive
                                             Position in the World, The
                                             Commonwealth
2/92......................................  Message from the Chairman
6/96......................................  ``Economic Freedom,
                                             Political Liberty, and
                                             Prosperity'' for Freedom
                                             House
6/96......................................  Statement for The Wall
                                             Street Journal on Missile
                                             Defense
7/30/96...................................  Reprint of Freedom House
                                             article, ``Economic
                                             Freedom. . .'' published by
                                             the Christian Science
                                             Monitor
9/05/96...................................  ``The Bob Dole Tax Plan Will
                                             Work'' Chicago Tribune--
                                             Voice of the People
3/05/97...................................  ``No to the Chemical Arms
                                             Treaty'' The Washington
                                             Post, written by James
                                             Schlesinger, Caspar
                                             Weinberger, and Donald
                                             Rumsfeld
Fall 1998.................................  The Ambassador's Review
1/65......................................  Freedom of Information Law
1966......................................  Freedom of Information,
                                             Summary
1967......................................  Account of Effort to Free
                                             Future Farmers of America
                                             (FFA) from Federal Control
10/68.....................................  The Long Day--written draft
                                             unpublished
1977......................................  Which Five Year Shipbuilding
                                             Program? Naval Institute
                                             Proceedings
1/6/77....................................  The All Volunteer Force:
                                             Myths & Realities
Date?.....................................  The Economics of Good
                                             Intentions: The Carter
                                             Guidelines
12/79.....................................  Is the Regulatory Process
                                             Working? Pharmaceutical
                                             Technology
6/27/80...................................  The U.S. in a Dangerous
                                             World, National Report
12/10/80..................................  The North Atlantic Treaty
                                             Organization
1980......................................  Rumsfeld's Rules
1980......................................  American Must Respond,
                                             Comparative Strategy
1983......................................  The Gauntlet
1/14/83...................................  The Nuclear Balance in
                                             Europe: Status, Trends,
                                             Implications (introduction
                                             by DR)
2/83......................................  Defense Forum, Armed Forces
                                             International Journal
5/19/85...................................  Book foreword for Wadi
                                             Haddad
7/28/86...................................  Statement by The Honorable
                                             Donald Rumsfeld read to
                                             Duncan Sellars of
                                             Conservative Caucus
12/86.....................................  Book foreword for John
                                             Andrews' Collected Essays
12/2/86...................................  The Arms to Iran and Money
                                             to the Contra's Issue
                                             (unpublished)
4/27/92...................................  Book forward for Tom Curtis
                                             Congressional Intent
 


    16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal 
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have 
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have 
been nominated.
       
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
      
    17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree, 
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any 
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
    Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the 
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set 
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to 
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
                                ------                                

                           Signature and Date
    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete
                                                 Donald H. Rumsfeld
    This 9th day of January, 2001.

    [The nomination of Donald H. Rumsfeld was reported to the 
Senate by Senator John Warner on January 20, 2001, with the 
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination 
was confirmed by the Senate on January 20, 2001.]


   NOMINATION OF DR. PAUL D. WOLFOWITZ TO BE THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF 
                                DEFENSE

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2001

                                       U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m. in room 
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner 
(chairman) presiding.
    Committee members present: Senators Warner, Inhofe, Allard, 
Hutchinson, Sessions, Collins, Bunning, Levin, Cleland, Reed, 
Akaka, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, and Carnahan.
    Committee staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee, staff 
director; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff director; Anita H. 
Rouse, deputy chief clerk; and Scott W. Stucky, general 
counsel.
    Professional staff members present: Charles S. Abell, John 
R. Barnes, Edward H. Edens IV, William C. Greenwalt, Gary M. 
Hall, George W. Lauffer, Patricia L. Lewis, Thomas L. 
MacKenzie, Cord A. Sterling, and Eric H. Thoemmes.
    Minority staff members present: David S. Lyles, minority 
staff director; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff 
member; Gerald J. Leeling, professional staff member; Peter K. 
Levine, minority counsel; and Michael J. McCord, professional 
staff member.
    Staff assistants present: Jennifer Key, Thomas C. Moore, 
Jennifer L. Naccari, and Michele A. Traficante.
    Committee members' assistants present: George M. Bernier 
III, assistant to Senator Santorum; Robert Alan McCurry, 
assistant to Senator Roberts; Douglas Flanders, assistant to 
Senator Allard; Michael P. Ralsky, assistant to Senator 
Hutchinson; Arch Galloway II, assistant to Senator Sessions; 
Kristine Fauser, assistant to Senator Collins; Menda Sue Fife, 
assistant to Senator Kennedy; Christina Evans and Barry Gene 
(B.G.) Wright, assistants to Senator Byrd; Frederick M. Downey, 
assistant to Senator Lieberman; Andrew Vanlandingham, assistant 
to Senator Cleland; Davelyn Noelani Kalipi, assistant to 
Senator Akaka; Peter A. Contostavlos, assistant to Senator Bill 
Nelson; and Sheila Murphy, assistant to Senator E. Benjamin 
Nelson.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN

    Chairman Warner. Good morning. The committee meets today on 
a very important nomination by President George W. Bush for the 
Deputy Secretary of Defense, Dr. Paul Wolfowitz. I have had the 
privilege of knowing Dr. Wolfowitz for many years, worked with 
him in various capacities, and I commend the President for his 
nomination of this outstanding public servant.
    You are a man of accomplishments in many venues. You have 
many years of service in government and academia. You served in 
the Department of Defense on two previous occasions, as Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs from 1977 
to 1980 and as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy during the 
period 1989 through 1993. You were Under Secretary of Defense 
for Policy during the Persian Gulf War, a critical juncture in 
the history of our country. The tenth anniversary is now being 
observed by our Nation and the coalition partners who came 
together under the leadership of President George Bush to mount 
that most important offensive against the aggression of Saddam 
Hussein.
    You have served in various other government assignments, 
including Chief of the State Department Policy Planning Staff 
and as Ambassador to Indonesia under the Reagan administration. 
In addition, you have had a distinguished career in the 
academic world, having taught at Yale, Johns Hopkins, and the 
National War College. Most recently, you served as Dean and 
Professor of International Relations at the Paul H. Nitze 
School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins 
University.
    You have also appeared before this committee many times, 
providing valuable testimony, throughout your public career. 
Your insights and expertise have assisted this committee, and 
indeed Congress as a whole, in our deliberations and 
responsibilities, and we are confident, at least this Senator 
is, that you will continue to give that valued counsel and 
advice to this committee and Congress as a whole.
    If confirmed, you will be returning to the Department of 
Defense at a very challenging time in our history. In the 
judgment of many, and certainly this Senator, the threats 
growing against our interests as a Nation and those of our 
allies are more diverse, more complicated, than any time in 
contemporary history.
    I agree wholeheartedly with the directions which President 
George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld are taking 
towards their new leadership roles in national security 
affairs, and most particularly the Department of Defense. It is 
a wise decision for the President and the Secretary of Defense 
to determine that they would undertake a top-to-bottom study 
long-term of the issues, beginning with the threat, the need to 
realign the military in many ways to meet these changing 
threats, and to take a long and counseled course for deciding 
which programs should continue and those that should be 
terminated.
    I continue--and I am perhaps a lone voice in some respects 
on this--to believe that we have short-term interests that have 
to be addressed, hopefully eventually in a supplemental 
appropriation late this summer or perhaps even earlier--before 
the Fourth of July is the target date I have. We will work 
along on that issue.
    Secretary Rumsfeld has asked this committee, during his 
confirmation hearing and in subsequent consultations, to move 
as quickly as we can on key nominations. I think that we are 
doing that in every respect. I commend my distinguished 
colleague, the ranking member, Mr. Levin, in working to see 
that this nomination has been handled properly and promptly, 
and we will continue to do that.
    Senator Levin.

                STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN

    Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Let me welcome our 
nominee. I see Senator Sarbanes is here to introduce him and we 
are delighted that he is present this morning. I am pleased to 
join you in welcoming Paul Wolfowitz and his family to the 
Armed Services Committee for today's hearing.
    Mr. Wolfowitz is familiar with the work of this committee 
from the many times that he has testified before us and the 
House in his role as Dean of the Johns Hopkins University 
School of Advanced International Studies. He surely is familiar 
with the job to which he has been nominated from his previous 
service as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
    The Deputy Secretary of Defense serves in a position of 
awesome responsibility. He is the alter ego of the Secretary. 
In this capacity, the new Deputy Secretary will play a key role 
in determining how our country will meet the national security 
challenges that face us today. For example:

         How do we need to transform our military 
        forces to meet a new set of threats over the coming 
        decades?
         What new weapons systems and technologies do 
        we need to field? Do we need to skip a generation of 
        technology to do so?
         Will the National Missile Defense make us more 
        or less secure?
         Should we commit to deploy such a system?
         If so, what system should we deploy and under 
        what circumstances?
         To what extent should the United States remain 
        engaged around the world--for example in Kosovo, 
        Bosnia, Colombia, and even on the Korean peninsula?
         What is the best approach to restrain Saddam 
        Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction and 
        from threatening his neighbors in the Persian Gulf?

    Over the years, the best approach to foreign policy and 
national security policy has always been a bipartisan one. The 
administration is properly conducting a strategic review to 
determine the direction of our national security strategy and 
what direction our defense programs should take in the years 
ahead.
    I have supported President Bush's and Secretary Rumsfeld's 
decision to conduct this review before determining the level of 
resources that we should apply to our national defense. I look 
forward to working with them on these issues over the next 
several years.
    In addition, the Deputy Secretary has traditionally served 
as the chief manager of the Defense Department. A wide array of 
management challenges, including financial management, 
information security, and human capital issues, cut across 
functional areas in the Department to such an extent that no 
official other than the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary has 
the authority needed to address them.
    To take just one example, DOD's financial systems remain in 
need of modernization, with hundreds of partially-linked, 
error-prone computer systems spread throughout the Department. 
As a result, the Department remains unable to account for 
billions of dollars of property, equipment, inventory, and 
supplies, and unable to reconcile billions of dollars in 
differences between checks issued by the Department of Defense 
and reported to the Treasury.
    So if Mr. Wolfowitz is confirmed, and I expect that he will 
be, he will have a very full plate indeed. I look forward to 
working with you, as I know all members of this committee do.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin.
    Senator Sarbanes, we are very fortunate, and indeed the 
nominee, to have you appear before this committee this morning. 
In my 23 years in the Senate I have come to know you very well 
and respect your knowledge on foreign affairs and national 
security matters. Indeed, we have traveled abroad together many 
times in this context of our security responsibilities. It is a 
privilege for this committee to welcome you this morning and to 
have you speak on behalf of this distinguished nominee.

 STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL S. SARBANES, U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND

    Senator Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 
Senator Levin, members of the Armed Services Committee.
    I am pleased to have the opportunity to recommend this 
morning to you, very strongly recommend, a distinguished 
Maryland resident, Dr. Paul Wolfowitz, for the position of 
Deputy Secretary of Defense. Now, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will 
not hold it against him that he chose to live on the Maryland 
side of the Potomac and not the Virginia side.
    Chairman Warner. We observed that, but we will let it go 
by.
    Senator Sarbanes. We will let it pass. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Warner. He will be working in Virginia, though.
    Senator Sarbanes. I understand.
    Chairman Warner. If confirmed.
    Senator Sarbanes. Paul Wolfowitz has had a long and 
impressive career in both government and academia. Actually, 
his involvement in public service dates back to 1966, when he 
was a management intern in the Bureau of the Budget. From 1973 
to 1977 he held various positions at the Arms Control and 
Disarmament Agency. That posting was followed by his service as 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs 
from 1977 to 1980, then Director of the Policy Planning Staff 
at the State Department in 1981 and 1982, and Assistant 
Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs from 1982 
to 1986.
    President Reagan then sent him from 1986 to 1989 as U.S. 
Ambassador to Indonesia, the fourth most populous country in 
the world. During his tenure there, his post was cited as one 
of the four best-managed embassies reviewed by the inspectors 
in 1988. His last government position was Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy from 1989 to 1993, when Dick Cheney was the 
Secretary of Defense.
    This is a very wide-ranging and balanced government 
service, involving both the State Department and the Pentagon, 
and I think a very impressive blend of responsibilities.
    Shortly after leaving government service in 1993, Paul was 
appointed Dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced 
International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University here in 
Washington, commonly known as SAIS. SAIS is one of the 
preeminent institutions of higher learning devoted to the study 
of international relations. It is no wonder, of course, that he 
was appointed dean at this prestigious school because, in 
addition to important government service, he has outstanding 
academic qualifications: a B.A. in mathematics and chemistry 
from Cornell University in 1965, followed by an M.A. and a 
Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in political science and 
economics. He has taught at Yale, SAIS, and the National War 
College, where he was the George F. Kennan Professor of 
National Security Strategy.
    In my view, in the post-Cold War environment in which we 
operate, Paul's extensive background and experience should 
serve him well in this very significant and important post of 
Deputy Secretary of Defense. He has a solid grasp of complex 
defense and security issues, the diplomatic skills to operate 
in the international arena, the intellectual strength to look 
ahead to the challenges facing us in the 21st century, and the 
administrative skills to be the number two person in our 
largest government agency. No doubt his mathematics degree and 
his experience on budget matters will also come in handy at the 
Pentagon from time to time.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to close with a quote from a 
statement released by the President of the Johns Hopkins 
University, William Brody, an outstanding educational leader, 
issued at the time of President Bush's announcement of his 
intention to nominate Paul to this position. President Brody 
said: ``The bad news is that Johns Hopkins is losing a great 
dean. The good news is that the country is getting a very 
smart, very focused, clear-thinking leader as Deputy Secretary 
of Defense. Paul Wolfowitz will serve the Nation well.''
    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I strongly 
concur with this assessment. I believe you have a highly 
qualified nominee before you who will serve our country well as 
Deputy Secretary of Defense, and I strongly urge his favorable 
consideration by the committee.
    Chairman Warner. Senator, we thank you. I think those of us 
who had the opportunity to know this distinguished nominee 
concur in your observations and that of the distinguished 
President of Johns Hopkins. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. At this point, I submit for the record the 
statement of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, who could not be here 
in person due to other Senate responsibilities.
    I also submit for the record the statement of Senator Strom 
Thurmond.
    [The prepared statements of Senator Mikulski and Senator 
Thurmond follow:]
           Prepared Statement by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
    Mr. Chairman: I appreciate the opportunity to express my support 
for the nomination of Dr. Paul Wolfowitz to be Deputy Secretary of 
Defense.
    Dr. Wolfowitz is well known to members of the Armed Services 
Committee. For over 30 years, he has committed his life to public 
service. As the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, he was the 
principal civilian responsible for strategy, plans and policy. As the 
Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs, and as our 
Ambassador to Indonesia, Dr. Wolfowitz understands foreign policy as 
well as defense policy--and how the two are linked.
    Most recently, Dr. Wolfowitz served as dean of the Paul H. Nitze 
School of Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins 
University. He repositioned the school from a Cold War orientation, 
which it had since its founding, to a focus on the impact and 
challenges of globalization in the post-Cold War era. He strengthened 
the faculty, increased the endowment, raised funds for student aid and 
enhanced the school's visibility among policymakers in Washington and 
around the world.
    At the Pentagon, Dr. Wolfowitz will face great challenges. We need 
to improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform--so 
that we can continue to attract the best and the brightest to serve in 
our military. We also need to upgrade our weapons and technology. For 
example, the average Navy aircraft is 18 years old. We need to invest 
in new aircraft quickly--to give our pilots what they need to defend 
America.
    I am pleased that Dr. Wolfowitz will bring his keen intellect and 
wide ranging experience to the important position of Deputy Secretary 
of Defense. I look forward to working with him to ensure that our 
military remains strong in a world constantly challenged by ethnic 
conflict, civil and nationalist tensions, and the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction.
    Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry that other Senate responsibilities prevent 
me from being here in person, but I look forward to voting for Dr. 
Wolfowitz when his nomination is considered by the full Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
              Prepared Statement by Senator Strom Thurmond
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman:
    Mr. Chairman, I join you and the members of the Committee in 
welcoming Dr. Wolfowitz. I also want to take this opportunity to thank 
Deputy Secretary of Defense DeLeon for his service to our Nation while 
on the House Armed Services Committee and during the past 8 years in 
the many challenging positions he held in the Department of Defense. We 
may not always have been on the same side, but we always had the same 
goal of providing the best for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and 
Marines.
    Secretary Wolfowitz, congratulations on your nomination and on your 
superb record of public service. Your willingness to serve a third tour 
in the Department of Defense speaks highly of your dedication to our 
country and to the men and women who wear the uniforms of our military 
services. It is also noteworthy because holding public office requires 
many sacrifices and the rewards are few.
    Mr. Secretary, once confirmed, you will be part of the team that 
will face the challenge of transforming our armed forces, and for that 
matter the Department of Defense, to meet the challenges and threats of 
a new century. I want you to know that you can count on me, and, I 
believe the entire Armed Services Committee, to provide, on a 
bipartisan basis, the support that will be so critical toward achieving 
that goal. I wish you success and hope you will not hesitate to speak 
out forcefully on behalf of the men and women of our Armed Forces and 
the civilian employees of the Department of Defense.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman Warner. Dr. Wolfowitz, you now have the unlimited 
opportunity to express such views as you wish. Following that, 
we will have a 6-minute round of questions by our members.

  STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL D. WOLFOWITZ, NOMINATED TO BE DEPUTY 
                      SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

    Dr. Wolfowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that 
unlimited opportunities are best kept short and I will read 
just a part of my statement and submit the rest for the record.
    I want to thank Senator Sarbanes for being so gracious as 
to make time in a very busy schedule to come and introduce me.
    Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, members of the Armed 
Services Committee, it is a great honor to appear again before 
this committee, one that has done so much over the years to 
make our Nation strong and the world more peaceful. I am 
grateful to the President and to Secretary Rumsfeld for the 
confidence that they have shown in me by nominating me for a 
position of such great responsibility.
    If confirmed by the Senate, this will be my third tour in 
the Pentagon. It is also the second time that I come before 
this distinguished committee to seek confirmation for a senior 
position in the Department of Defense. On the previous occasion 
in 1989, it was a very different world. The Cold War was still 
a reality. Even in the heyday of Mr. Gorbachev, the principal 
threat to our Nation still came from a Soviet Union that was 
armed to the teeth with nuclear and conventional weapons. We 
had well over two million men and women on active duty to deter 
and, if necessary, to defend against this constant threat.
    Twelve years ago many observers believed that the United 
States was in a period of permanent decline and many pointed to 
other nations as models for reforming our economy. Budget 
deficits were taken as a given, the personal computer was a 
toddler, and the Internet was a mere infant.
    In the intervening years, the Cold War has become truly a 
part of history and we've fought and won a major war in the 
Persian Gulf. America did not decline, it prospered. We remain 
a vibrant world power with a position that is in many respects 
unique in the history of the world.
    Under these circumstances, it was only natural that our 
Nation desired to reap a peace dividend. We reduced our defense 
budget by 40 percent. We cut the force by nearly the same 
amount. Our defense budget was drawn down to the lowest 
percentage of our gross domestic product since the late 1930s.
    But the world remains, in Secretary Rumsfeld's phrase, a 
dangerous and untidy place. The need, indeed the demand, for 
U.S. leadership has increased as well. So, despite declining 
defense budgets and a shrinking force structure, in the past 
decade we drastically increased the number of military 
deployments for humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. This 
added greatly to the workload of an already busy force, one 
that was struggling to maintain its combat readiness, with 
dedicated but tired troops manning aging equipment.
    Today, as General Shelton has said, the force is frayed. We 
must begin a long overdue renovation and transformation of the 
armed forces, so that we can preserve and extend the peace well 
into the 21st century. President Bush has set this task as one 
of the highest priorities of his administration.
    The President has set three important goals for the 
Department of Defense. First, we must strengthen the bond of 
trust with the American military. As General Creighton Abrams 
said when the all-volunteer force was first created: ``People 
aren't in the Army; they are the Army.'' The same is true of 
all the military services. Building on the dedicated work of 
the Senate and the House, we must continue to improve military 
pay and quality of life.
    But good pay and fair allowances by themselves won't keep 
the best people in the service. Working with Congress and our 
allies, we must also re-examine the balance among force levels, 
commitments, and deployments. We will have to make sure that we 
are focused on the most important defense tasks and not placing 
unreasonable demands on our men and women in uniform.
    We will also have to acknowledge the relationship between 
morale and readiness. President Bush has said that even the 
highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back 
deployments, poor pay, shortage of spare parts and equipment, 
and declining readiness.
    Second, we must develop the capabilities to defend against 
missiles, terrorists, and the complex set of threats to our 
information systems and our all-important assets in space. U.S. 
military strength in the field is unparalleled. Many of our 
enemies therefore have determined that in order to move against 
us they must be able to strike us at home. Some have chosen to 
develop long-range missile systems. Others have chosen to 
support or direct terrorist attacks with conventional devices, 
weapons of mass destruction, or cyber weapons against our 
Nation, our forces, or our diplomats abroad. We must do 
everything in our power to stop them.
    Third, the Department of Defense must take advantage of the 
technological revolution to help us create a military for the 
21st century. To this end, at the direction of the President, 
Secretary Rumsfeld has already launched a review of our defense 
strategy and programs designed to provide a sound understanding 
of the state of our armed forces and their readiness for the 
21st century security environment.
    This work must be done quickly and it must be done before 
we can know what our true defense resource requirements are. 
President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld believe, as the Secretary 
puts it, that we need to engage our brains before we open the 
taxpayers' wallets. I strongly support that approach and will 
work hard to shape a prompt and effective review.
    In addition to that review, to support and make progress on 
the President's goals, the Secretary has set five key 
objectives for the Department of Defense: First, to fashion and 
sustain a new form of deterrence appropriate to the new 
strategic environment, a deterrence based less on massive 
levels of punishment or retaliation and more on the use of both 
defensive and offensive means to deny our adversaries the 
opportunity and benefits that come from the use of weapons of 
mass destruction.
    Second, to assure the readiness and sustainability of our 
armed forces now and into the future. This will require not 
only spending to bring up current readiness levels, but also 
investment in the modernization efforts that our forces need to 
avoid being caught in a trap of making ever-increasing 
expenditures to maintain aging equipment.
    Third, to modernize our command and control and space 
capabilities to support our 21st century needs. That 
infrastructure is the foundation of American military strength.
    Fourth, to begin reshaping the U.S. defense establishment 
to meet new challenges and take advantage of new opportunities, 
we must begin to move, as President Bush has said, beyond 
marginal improvements to replace existing programs with new 
technologies and strategies. Building on the superb human 
capital of the current force, we must fashion a future force 
that is at once more agile, more lethal, and more rapidly 
deployable. It must be able to operate over increasingly longer 
ranges. It must integrate the capabilities of all of the 
services so that field commanders have the best possible 
combination of air, sea, and land weapons for each situation, 
and it must have the best technology that America can offer. 
Our dedicated soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast 
Guardsmen deserve no less.
    Finally, we must reform Department of Defense structures, 
processes, and organizations. We need to seek greater 
efficiencies, not only to safeguard the taxpayers' money, but 
also because that will allow us to create better weapon systems 
and invest more in the cutting edge of our Nation's defenses.
    There is no more solemn responsibility that the American 
people entrust to the Federal Government than to provide for 
the common defense. There is no group of Americans who deserve 
more respect and honor from their fellow citizens than the men 
and women of our armed forces who daily put themselves in 
harm's way for that constitutional purpose. It is both exciting 
and humbling to be asked once again to help lead them in their 
work for the common defense.
    Mr. Chairman, it is more than just an honor to be nominated 
by the President to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. It is also 
a great responsibility. I appreciate the trust that President 
Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have placed in me. If confirmed, I 
look forward to continuing to work closely with this committee 
to achieve our common goals. Indeed, I pledge to you that, if 
confirmed, I will work with the services, Congress, and the 
defense industry to help the President and the Secretary 
prepare our armed forces to meet the challenges of the 21st 
century.
    Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Wolfowitz follows:]
                Prepared Statement by Dr. Paul Wolfowitz
    Senator Warner, Senator Levin, Members of the Armed Services 
Committee: It is an honor to appear again before this great committee, 
one that has done so much over the years to make our Nation strong and 
the world more peaceful. I am grateful to the President and Secretary 
Rumsfeld for the confidence that they have shown in me by nominating me 
for a position of such great responsibility. When I think of the men 
and women who have sought confirmation here in the past, and the number 
of important laws--like the Goldwater-Nichols Act--that have originated 
with this committee, I feel truly humbled.
    If confirmed by the Senate, this will be my third tour in the 
Pentagon. It is also the second time that I have come before this 
distinguished committee to seek confirmation for a senior position in 
the Department of Defense.
    On the previous occasion, in 1989, it was a very different world. 
The Cold War was still a reality. Even in the heyday of Mr. Gorbachev, 
the principal threat to our Nation still came from a Soviet Union that 
was armed to the teeth with nuclear and conventional weapons.
    We had well over 2 million men and women on Active Duty to deter 
and, if necessary, defend against this constant threat.
    Twelve years ago, many observers believed that the United States 
was in a period of permanent decline, and many pointed to other nations 
as models for reforming the U.S. economy. Budget deficits were taken as 
a given, the personal computer was a toddler, and the Internet was a 
mere infant.
    In the intervening years, the Cold War has become part of history, 
and we have fought and won a major war in the Persian Gulf. America did 
not decline, it prospered. We remain a vibrant world power, with a 
position that is in many respects unique in the history of the world.
    Under these circumstances, it was only natural that our Nation 
desired to reap a peace dividend. We reduced our defense budget by 40 
percent, and cut the force by nearly the same amount. Our defense 
budget was drawn down to the lowest percentage of our gross domestic 
product since the late 1930s.
    But the world remained, in Secretary Rumsfeld's phrase, a 
``dangerous and untidy'' place. Amidst the peace that encompassed the 
developed world, ethnic conflict, regional thugs, failed states, 
terrorists, and the proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass 
destruction presented new challenges. The need, indeed the demand, for 
U.S. leadership increased, as well.
    Despite declining defense budgets and a shrinking force structure, 
in the past decade we drastically increased the number of military 
deployments for humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. This added 
greatly to the workload of an already busy force, one that was 
struggling to maintain its combat readiness with dedicated, but tired 
troops manning aging equipment. Today, as General Shelton has said, the 
force is ``frayed.''
    We must begin a long overdue renovation and transformation of the 
Armed Forces in order to preserve and extend the peace well into the 
21st century. President Bush has set this task as one of the highest 
priorities of his administration. As the President has reminded us, 
peace is not ordained, it is earned; and it must be earned, in 
particular, by the hard and often dangerous work of our men and women 
in uniform.
    The President has set three important goals for the Defense 
Department:

          First, we must strengthen the bond of trust with the American 
        military.
        As General Creighton Abrams said when the All-Volunteer Force 
        was first created, ``people aren't in the Army, people are the 
        Army''--and the same is true of all the military services.
          Building on the dedicated work of the House and the Senate, 
        we must continue to improve military pay and quality of life. 
        But good pay and fair allowances by themselves won't keep the 
        best people in the service. Working with Congress and with our 
        allies, we must also reexamine the balance among force levels, 
        commitments, and deployments. We will have to make sure that we 
        are focused on the most important defense tasks, and not 
        placing unreasonable demands on our men and women in uniform.
          We will also have to acknowledge the relationship between 
        morale and readiness. President Bush has said that ``even the 
        highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back 
        deployments, poor pay, shortage of spare parts and equipment, 
        and rapidly declining readiness.'' Our men and women in uniform 
        must have first-class equipment, adequate materiel for training 
        and maintenance, decent barracks, modern family quarters, and 
        suitable working conditions.
          Second, we must develop the capabilities to defend against 
        missiles, terrorists and the complex set of threats to our 
        information systems and our all-important assets in space. U.S. 
        power in the field is unparalleled. Many of our enemies have 
        determined that in order to move against us, they must be able 
        to strike us at home. Some have chosen to develop long-range 
        missile systems. Others have chosen to support or direct 
        terrorist attacks--with conventional devices, weapons of mass 
        destruction, or cyber weapons--against our Nation, our forces, 
        or our diplomats abroad. We must do everything in our power to 
        stop them.
          Third, the Department of Defense must take advantage of the 
        technological revolution to help us create a military for the 
        21st century. To this end, at the direction of the President, 
        Secretary Rumsfeld has already launched a review of our defense 
        strategy and programs designed to provide a sound understanding 
        of the state of our Armed Forces and their readiness for the 
        21st century security environment. This work must be done 
        quickly, and it must be done before we can know what our true 
        defense resource requirements are. President Bush and Secretary 
        Rumsfeld believe, as the Secretary puts it, that we need to 
        ``engage our brains before we open the taxpayer's wallet.'' I 
        strongly support that approach and will work hard to shape a 
        prompt and effective review.

    In addition to that review, to support and make progress on the 
President's goals, the Secretary has set five key objectives for the 
Department of Defense:

          First, we must fashion and sustain a new form of deterrence 
        appropriate to the new strategic environment. The proliferation 
        of missiles and weapons of mass destruction is a key element in 
        the new strategic environment. We need new concepts and forms 
        of deterrence to deal with it. We need a deterrence based less 
        on massive levels of punishment or retaliation, and more on the 
        use of both defensive and offensive means to deny our 
        adversaries the opportunity and benefits that come from the use 
        of weapons of mass destruction.
          Second, we must assure the readiness and sustainability of 
        our Armed Forces, now and into the future. This will require 
        not only spending to bring up current readiness levels, but 
        also investment in the re-capitalization and modernization 
        efforts that our forces need to avoid being caught in the trap 
        of making ever-increasing expenditures to maintain aging 
        equipment.
          Third, we must modernize our command and control, and space 
        capabilities to support our 21st century needs. Our command, 
        control, communications, and intelligence infrastructure is the 
        foundation of American military strength. That infrastructure 
        is essential for current operations and indispensable for 
        adapting today's force to take advantage of new technology to 
        meet 21st century challenges. As Secretary Rumsfeld has said, 
        we must significantly improve our intelligence and space 
        capabilities, as well as our ability to protect them against 
        various forms of attack.
          Fourth, we must begin reshaping the U.S. defense 
        establishment to meet new challenges and take advantage of new 
        opportunities. We face the demanding task of preparing for an 
        uncertain future where there are many individual, unpredictable 
        threats but no single major adversary to focus our efforts. We 
        will have to make a stronger effort to define the key tasks and 
        begin to move, as President Bush has said, ``beyond marginal 
        improvements to replace existing programs with new technologies 
        and strategies.''
          Building on the superb human capital of the current force, we 
        must fashion a future force that is at once more agile, more 
        lethal, and more rapidly deployable. It must be able to operate 
        over increasingly longer ranges. It must integrate the 
        capabilities of all of the services so that field commanders 
        have the best possible combination of air, sea, and land 
        weapons for each situation; and it must have the best 
        technology that America can offer. Our dedicated soldiers, 
        sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen deserve no less.
          Finally, we must reform Department of Defense structures, 
        processes, and organizations. We need to seek greater 
        efficiencies not only to safeguard the taxpayer's money, but 
        also because that will allow us to create better weapons 
        systems and invest more in the cutting edge of our Nation's 
        defenses.

    There is no more solemn responsibility that the American people 
entrust to the Federal Government than--in the words of the 
Constitution--``to provide for the common defense.'' There is no group 
of Americans who deserve more respect and honor from their fellow 
citizens than the men and women of our Armed Forces, who daily put 
themselves in harm's way for that constitutional purpose. It is both 
exciting and humbling to be asked again to help lead them in their work 
for the common defense.
    Mr. Chairman, it is more than just an honor to be nominated by the 
President to be Deputy Secretary of Defense, it is also a great 
responsibility. I appreciate the trust that President Bush and 
Secretary Rumsfeld have placed in me. If confirmed, I look forward to 
continuing to work closely with this committee to achieve our common 
goals. Indeed, I pledge to you that I will work with the Services, 
Congress, and the defense industry to help the President and the 
Secretary prepare our Armed Forces to meet the challenges of the 21st 
century.
    Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Dr. Wolfowitz.
    By the long-standing tradition of this committee, the Chair 
now propounds to you questions that are given to each nominee. 
First, have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations 
governing conflict of interest?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Yes, I have, Senator.
    Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken 
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the 
confirmation process?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. No, I have not, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Will you ensure that you and your staff 
comply with the deadlines established for requested 
communications, including questions for the record, by this 
committee and other committees of Congress?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I consider that a high 
priority. I also will work with Secretary Rumsfeld, as he 
indicated in his testimony, to try and see if we can streamline 
some of those requirements, because they are quite substantial, 
I have observed already.
    Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses 
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I certainly will, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from any 
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Yes, they will.
    Chairman Warner. The Chair notes that you have responded to 
the questions propounded by this committee and that they will 
be made a part of the record today.
    Now we will proceed on a round of 6 minutes to each member. 
Dr. Wolfowitz, you were in the Department of Defense during the 
Gulf War, and I copied a note from your opening statement in 
which you said, ``We fought and won the war in the Persian 
Gulf.'' Unquestionably, the coalition of military forces did 
fight bravely and win that war. It is interesting, it was a war 
of about 100 hours.
    The decision was made not to pursue Saddam Hussein's forces 
back into Iraq and I have always defended that decision that 
was made by our then-President George Bush. But the aftermath 
is not necessarily one of victory. We have seen 10 consecutive 
years now in which, although early on there was some compliance 
with the UN Security Council resolutions by Iraq, there has 
been absolute defiance of the Security Council resolutions and 
the understandings that were agreed to by Saddam Hussein.
    This morning I looked at the headlines and it said the U.S. 
is prepared to revise the sanctions regime and the caption was 
that we would lessen the sanctions. My question to you is, what 
do we get in return from Saddam Hussein and what is the 
likelihood that he will now comply with the clear obligations 
he undertook at the end of the conflict and the clear mandates 
of the Security Council?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Mr. Chairman, in compliance with the 
strictures on me as a not yet confirmed nominee, I have not 
been intimately involved in the policy process on Iraq. I saw 
the same article you saw in the paper this morning. I have not 
yet seen a complete transcript of what Secretary Powell said.
    Chairman Warner. I recognize that you have not been 
involved in that. I understand that. But you have devoted much 
of your career to these types of issues and questions. What 
counsel and advice would you share with the President and the 
Secretary of Defense?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I believe that what one has to do in 
approaching this issue, and it is a very difficult issue and 
you are absolutely correct in saying that we may have won the 
war, but we still have a major problem there as long as Saddam 
Hussein is in power--one needs not just a single policy 
decision, for example one concerning sanctions, one needs an 
overall strategy.
    That strategy has to reflect the reality of where you are 
today and where you hope to be a year from now or 2 years from 
now. I do believe that part of the reality is that where we are 
today is that we have lost a lot of ground since the end of the 
Gulf War and he has gained a lot of ground. In particular, the 
coalition that the first President Bush assembled to confront 
Iraq is not anything like what it used to be.
    Part of that problem is that Saddam has succeeded to a 
disturbing degree in cultivating the notion that the sanctions 
are not punishing him, they are only punishing the Iraqi 
people. I believe that part of what we need to do is make clear 
that the sanctions that are in place are not intended and 
should not prevent humanitarian assistance or food or medical 
supplies from getting to the Iraqi people.
    But I would also emphasize sanctions are not a policy; they 
are at best a part of a policy. I think the overall policy has 
to focus on how one can prevent him from getting weapons of 
mass destruction or get rid of them if he has them, how to keep 
him from becoming a threat to his neighbors by conventional or 
unconventional means, and hopefully, if possible, to devise a 
strategy to assist the Iraqi people in freeing themselves from 
this tyrant. That is not going to be something that is going to 
happen overnight.
    Chairman Warner. I have just returned from a trip to that 
region. Senator Stevens, Chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, and I and several other Senators, visited in Egypt 
with President Mubarak. We visited in Israel with Prime 
Minister-designate Sharon. It seems that there is a feeling 
that we can reconstitute under U.S. leadership in some measure 
the coalition of nations that fought that battle 10 years ago. 
Speaking for myself, I think that is probably the key to such 
new policies as we have towards Iraq.
    Regrettably, the United States and Great Britain have been 
going it alone certainly in the containment of Saddam Hussein 
through the very courageous air operations in the north and the 
south. In the Gulf itself we have been joined by several other 
nations in the naval activities to curtail the smuggling and 
other trafficking to and from Iraq in the Gulf waterways. But 
largely it has been the United States and Great Britain alone.
    My question to you is what is the likelihood that we can 
reconstitute in some measure that some 20-plus nations, is my 
recollection, that participated in that Gulf action?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I think it is going to depend on what we 
want them for, and in fact we may not need all of them, 
depending on what we want to do. But I do think the key to 
putting the coalition together the first time and the key to 
reassembling another coalition if we need it is to convince 
people that there is a long-term outcome that benefits them.
    I think one of the problems we face today is they see many 
short-term costs. Every time there is a military strike, Arab 
governments suffer criticism from their own people. That is 
just one of many short-term costs. They do not see the long-
term gain or benefit. It is crucial, I think, as the American 
piece of putting this coalition together to convince people 
that there is an outcome that is worth enduring those obvious 
costs.
    Chairman Warner. During the course of the early comments by 
President George W. Bush and based on his campaign commitments 
to the American people was the commitment to say that we would 
not engage the U.S. forces in the many and diverse actions that 
were undertaken by President Clinton. We now recognize that the 
Department of Defense was underfunded and the troops 
overextended in that period and corrections have to be made.
    In your work with Secretary Rumsfeld and indeed with the 
extraordinary competent security team the President has put 
together, what is the general framework? What are the general 
guidelines that should be laid down, in your judgment, to guide 
future military commitments by the United States and to guide 
those situations in which we will simply say, no, we will not 
participate?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I think clearly one of the most important 
criteria is that it has to be something that is important to 
our national interests. It also has to be something where 
military forces can achieve the objectives of our national 
interest, and I think it has to be something where we have a 
strategy for success, that we have a way of achieving our goals 
and completing the mission and not end up in something that is 
an unending commitment with no way out.
    It is also true, Mr. Chairman, that I believe we need to be 
more careful about how we engage our forces. But one also has 
to be very careful about how you disengage. One cannot rewrite 
history and it is very important as we try to reduce the 
requirements and burdens that we have imposed by many 
commitments all around the world that we not recreate the very 
situations that we went in to prevent.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you.
    Senator Levin.
    Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Wolfowitz, applying those criteria, where are we 
currently deployed where we should not be?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. It is not so much that we are deployed 
somewhere that we should not be, but I think everywhere that we 
are deployed we should look at the question of whether we need 
as much as we have. We should look at the question of whether 
we are heading down a road where we may tragically pull out 
precipitously.
    I think one of the very important things we want to avoid 
is the precedent--and it has been a bipartisan failure--in 
Beirut where we lost Marines and then suddenly pulled out, and 
Somalia where we lost Rangers and suddenly pulled out. It is 
very dangerous to have a commitment where we are undertaking 
dangers that we have not fully appreciated and that the 
American people are not prepared to support.
    As a general principle, I think we need to look as much as 
possible at turning responsibilities over to other people. 
Sometimes that means turning responsibilities over to our 
allies, sometimes--and I would hope this might be true in some 
places like East Timor and the Balkans--turning more 
responsibility over to the indigenous people themselves. 
Sometimes, where it is a matter where our highly trained combat 
people are performing what is essentially a police function, I 
would hope we could find policemen, hopefully not Americans, 
who can perform those functions.
    So it is less a matter that there is a specific place that 
we should pull out of, but rather everywhere that we have this 
very precious resource engaged we should try to make sure that 
there are not better alternatives.
    Senator Levin. I think we always should do that on an on-
going and continuing basis. But you are not prepared to tell us 
where, applying those criteria and asking those questions, we 
should now plan on withdrawing forces?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. No, I am not. I think that is part of what 
this defense review that the Secretary is undertaking has to 
look at, although it is not entirely a Defense Department 
responsibility.
    Senator Levin. On the Iraq questions that the Chairman 
asked, you have previously said that the no-fly zones do not 
matter. You have been highly critical of that policy. You have 
also advocated what you have called a serious policy aimed at 
liberating the Iraqi people by creating a liberated zone in 
southern Iraq that could be used as a base by the Iraqi 
opposition. You have stated that it will take American forces, 
to use your words, to create a protected area in which the 
opposition forces can organize.
    Now, General Zinni, who is our most recent CINC in that 
area of the world, has taken a very different approach, saying 
that that approach which you have proposed is a dangerous 
illusion that was likely to lead to what he called a ``Bay of 
Goats''--like a Bay of Pigs kind of an operation.
    Do you still advocate the commitment of U.S. forces to 
support opposition elements within Iraq in an effort to 
overthrow Saddam?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Senator, it would depend on what those 
opposition forces are actually capable of doing. Every 
statement one makes, thoughtful statement about Iraq policy, as 
I said to the Chairman before, has to look at the context. In 
1991, a month after the end of the Gulf War, we actually did 
put ground forces back into northern Iraq to create a protected 
zone under which Kurdish opposition forces could operate, and 
to this day, although there was a significant failure in 1996, 
northern Iraq is a largely liberated area.
    I think some of the statements you are referring to go back 
to a time a few years ago when Sandy Berger, President 
Clinton's National Security Adviser, was saying that the 
problem of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was something 
worth fighting for, and my reaction was, if it is worth 
fighting for, then it is worth fighting with whatever 
capabilities we need and not simply limiting ourselves to air 
power.
    Senator Levin. Is it worth fighting for?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. It depends on what we are being asked to do. 
When we were asked in 1991 to get the Kurdish refugees back 
into northern Iraq, it was a plausible plan that made sense. I 
have not yet seen a plausible plan today, but I would be very 
interested in seeing one.
    Senator Levin. Is that goal worth seeking?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I think there is no question that the whole 
region would be a safer place, Iraq would be a much more 
successful country, and American national interests would 
benefit greatly if there were a change of regime in Iraq.
    Senator Levin. That being the case, why then do you 
apparently now back away from your previous statement that it 
is worth achieving a base from which the Iraqi opposition can 
attack Saddam?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Senator, because I believe it depends on the 
context. It depends on what your real options are. If there is 
a real option to do that, I would certainly think it is still 
worthwhile.
    Senator Levin. But you are not then saying that as of today 
there is a real option?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I have not seen it yet.
    Senator Levin. On North Korea, do you have evidence that 
North Korea has cheated on the Framework Agreement?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. No, I do not, Senator. But during the months 
I spent with now Secretary Rumsfeld on the Ballistic Missile 
Threat Commission that he chaired, we kept hearing statements 
that there is no evidence of this and no evidence of that, and 
the commission as a whole began to come up with the saying, 
which I think George Tenet adopted, that absence of evidence is 
not evidence of absence.
    In the case of a country like North Korea, where it is so 
hard to know what is going on, it is very hard to get hard 
evidence. There are bits of information that suggest it might 
be possible, but there is certainly no proof.
    Senator Levin. Do you advocate abrogating the Framework 
Agreement at this time?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Not if the North Koreans comply with it, no.
    Senator Levin. Based on what you know, do you favor 
abrogating it at this time?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. No.
    Senator Levin. Thank you.
    My time is up. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Inhofe.

              STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE

    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Wolfowitz, I do not think I have ever seen someone come 
in for confirmation with a more glittering array of credentials 
than you have. I think we are very fortunate to be having you 
at this confirmation hearing. Your credentials, as I think 
outlined by the Chairman and others, are both in the world of 
academia as well as in the Pentagon.
    What do you in your mind feel particularly qualifies you 
for this job with your background?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I appreciate the question, Senator, because 
you have been polite, but I think one of the questions is: You 
are taking on--I am asking to be confirmed for a job that is 
essentially the chief operating officer of the Pentagon and it 
is quite a management challenge. I have had quite a bit of 
management experience. I would say for the last, ever since I 
was Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs, so 
that makes it the last 18 years, I have been managing 
organizations of 100 or multiple hundreds of people, and I 
think I would say reasonably successfully.
    I think there are two things that I bring to it as a 
manager. One is I believe in managing for results, whether the 
result was a focused American policy that helped to remove 
Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines or the result when I was 
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy implementing, designing 
and implementing a strategy that helped to keep Israel out of 
the Gulf War, or designing and implementing a strategy that 
raised $50 billion, more than $50 billion, from our allies and 
friends to support the war effort, or, on a more modest scale, 
but I hope I had a real impact, as Dean of the Johns Hopkins 
School of Advanced International Studies, managing an 
enterprise of, if you count our students, over a thousand 
people, tens of millions of dollars, which is just a rounding 
error at the Pentagon, but it's real money, and a very 
successful capital campaign that raised four times our original 
goal.
    So I believe results is the way you measure management, not 
how many jobs you've held, and I believe people are the way you 
get results. That is the other thing I hope I bring to the job.
    There is something I think that some private sector 
managers do not quite appreciate about managing in government. 
It is even more so in the academic world. Your flexibility to 
reward people or to penalize people tangibly is limited. You 
have to motivate them in other ways. I think I have had the 
experience of motivating very good people to work ungodly hours 
for the national interest, and I hope I can continue to do 
that.
    Senator Inhofe. I am sure you can.
    The Chairman talked about how it might become necessary to 
reconstitute the 20-plus nation alliance that we once had 
should it become necessary in the Middle East. My concern is, 
while I am concerned for that, I am also concerned equally 
about reconstituting our state of readiness. The CINCs have 
identified some 87 readiness-related deficiencies, of which 31 
of these are listed as category one, and that is our ability to 
fight a war.
    Are you prepared to try to address these? We brought these 
up before and nothing has happened in the last few years. How 
do you look at these identified deficiencies?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I think that is one of the most important 
issues that this defense review that Secretary Rumsfeld is 
undertaking has to address. It is really central to the first 
of the President's priorities, because readiness is both a 
matter of our ability to fight wars, but it is also a measure 
of our ability to keep competent, capable people in the 
military services. So it is a top priority.
    Senator Inhofe. Also, some of the readiness issues that are 
there today, where there are some $4.5 billion of near-term 
readiness requirements, some of these I have been out in the 
field and I have seen. I use the example of out at Fort Bragg 
during a rain storm just that there is no roof on the barracks 
and they are covering up their equipment with their bodies. 
Real Property Maintenance (RPM) accounts that are supposed to 
be done immediately, they are robbing one account for the other 
to get ammunition.
    What is your feeling about a supplemental covering some of 
these things that really have to be done?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. As the Secretary said, we really have to do 
this review and do it quickly and see what our total 
requirements are and see if everything we are doing we need to 
do. But clearly we cannot have a force that is suffering from 
the kinds of problems that you have identified and we have to 
cover those things.
    Senator Inhofe. They are immediate.
    In your statement, I appreciate the fact that you talked 
about the problems that are out there threatening us, not just 
being missiles but other types, the suitcase type. When you sit 
on the floor of the Senate, those who are opposed to a National 
Missile Defense system are saying the real threat is that in a 
truck or a suitcase. Certainly, being from Oklahoma and the 
Murrah Federal Office Building, which you are very familiar 
with, I guess the most significant domestic terrorist attack in 
the history of America, I am very sensitive to that. Yet, just 
one nuclear warhead has a thousand times that explosive power. 
So I hope that you would look at both of these tracks at the 
same time as the real threat that is out there.
    You performed very well in the Rumsfeld Commission 
concerning the necessity for a National Missile Defense system 
and I applaud you for that, and I look forward to working with 
you in this committee to achieve that goal.
    Thank you.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
    Senator Cleland.

                STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAX CLELAND

    Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Wolfowitz, welcome and we appreciate your commitment to 
public service. You talked earlier in your testimony today 
about the over-commitment of American men and women and the 
stress on families from our commitments, the need to review 
those commitments, which I certainly share. Senator Pat Roberts 
and I took the Senate floor a number of times last year to talk 
about the sense in which we were over-committed and under-
funded as a Nation.
    Then, in terms of Iraq, I hear that the air campaign may 
not be enough, that certain things are worth fighting for. I 
just want to get it straight. Are you prepared to support an 
American ground invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. No one has proposed that, Senator, and I do 
not believe that even the statement Senator Levin referred to 
has to do with how we might support efforts by the Iraqi people 
to overthrow their own government.
    Senator Cleland. I just wanted to say that that would be a 
dramatic increase in American commitment abroad and American 
forces are now stretched pretty thin. I just wanted to make 
that clear, since you have talked about over-commitment and 
then in effect indicated the air campaign may not be enough and 
that certain things were worth fighting for. I just wanted to 
clarify your position on that. You do not now support an 
American ground invasion with American forces to overthrow 
Saddam Hussein?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I have never supported an American invasion 
to overthrow Saddam.
    Senator Cleland. Thank you very much.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. But Senator, I think it is also fair to say, 
to point out that the prolonged commitment to that region of 
our forces that Chairman Warner referred to earlier is in part 
because that war ended inconclusively. We can debate endlessly 
whether we should have fought longer, fought differently. But 
the fact is one of the things that produces protracted 
commitments is inconclusive conclusions.
    Senator Cleland. As a Vietnam veteran myself, I am familiar 
with inconclusive conclusions and situations that turn out 
badly if you do not pursue them in the right way. Enough said.
    May I just say that part of my concern about the 
overcommitment of American forces is the inability to get them 
there quickly. If we are to actually make sure that we are not 
overcommitted, but are able to respond to hot spots in the 
world, that means that we have to have global airlift strength. 
The Hart-Rudman Commission recently reviewed American airlift 
capability and found it basically inadequate.
    I would just like to call that to your attention, because 
great aircraft like the new C-130J, the C-5B, and its possible 
modernization, are all part of a global airlift strategy that I 
think fits into our strategic needs very well, and I would just 
call that to your attention, the deficit in the airlift 
capability.
    There is another deficit I would like to bring to your 
attention. The key to our defense is our defenders and I think 
we would all agree with that. Almost all new service members 
enroll and contribute to the GI Bill, the Montgomery GI Bill, 
yet only about half of these service men and women actually use 
these benefits. Many who use the benefits do not use all of 
their entitlement. The great historian Steven Ambrose has said 
that the creation of the GI Bill was the single most important 
law ever passed by the Federal Government. Yet many of these 
soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines are getting out of 
the service. Many would like to stay in the service, they tell 
me as I get around to bases, not only here in this country but 
around the world, but they feel they have to leave so that they 
can provide, especially for the education of their spouses and 
children.
    I believe many of these service members would stay in the 
military if they could transfer part of their unused 
entitlement to the GI Bill to family members in return for a 
service commitment. That is a win-win situation, it seems to 
me. It is an idea actually supported by the Hart-Rudman 
Commission report. Service secretaries could use this retention 
tool selectively, just as they use reenlistment bonuses 
selectively.
    I would deeply appreciate it if you would give serious 
consideration to how the Department of Defense can use the 
transfer of GI Bill benefits to family members, in other words 
making the GI Bill more family-friendly, as the military itself 
has become a more family institution, use it as a retention 
tool, and continue to give us your best thoughts on how we 
might pursue this idea.
    Is that something that might be of interest to you?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. It sounds very interesting and it certainly 
addresses probably our highest priority, which is how to keep 
good people, attract good people, and keep them in the service. 
I know there is nothing that a parent cares more about than the 
education of their children. I know that as a father.
    Senator Cleland. You put your finger right on it. The old 
saying is you recruit a soldier, but you retain a family. I was 
just in Osaka, Japan, and a Navy admiral mentioned to me that 
the decision to stay in the Navy is made at the dinner table. 
So these retention decisions of our aviators, of our top 
quality people, of our high tech people, of our senior captains 
and senior NCOs seem to be made around the dinner table. This 
question of the ability to care for the education of our 
spouses, the education of our kids, is something that is of 
growing importance.
    We thank you very much for your testimony today.
    Mr. Chairman, no further questions. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. I wish to associate 
myself with your observations about that GI Bill. You know that 
I will work with you again to achieve those goals. Just 
yesterday in Virginia I had a constituent raise that very issue 
of transferability.
    Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would yield 
for 10 seconds so I could join in the Chairman's support of 
Senator Cleland's comment on the GI Bill transferability issue. 
This committee has been very supportive of that effort. So, if 
you are confirmed, maybe you can help us persuade some of our 
House colleagues on it.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. It will be high on my list to look at, 
Senator.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Hutchinson.

              STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM HUTCHINSON

    Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Wolfowitz, I join my colleagues in welcoming you and in 
expressing our belief that our Nation is very fortunate to have 
you. I also want to pick up on what Senator Cleland was saying. 
I chair the Personnel Subcommittee. Senator Cleland is our 
ranking member. We have worked closely on this whole issue of 
retaining our men and women in uniform. While at one time most 
of our service men and women were single, that is not the case 
any more. Most of them have families, and the issue of not just 
their education, but the education of dependents, is foremost 
in their minds.
    I have supported, and still support very strongly, Senator 
Cleland's efforts at portability on the Montgomery GI Bill. But 
I also believe that there may be other areas, other methods by 
which service men and women can ensure that their children are 
going to receive an education. I just ask for your commitment 
to work with our committee in exploring ways in which we can 
ensure that that opportunity is there for all of the dependents 
of our men and women in uniform.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I will do so with enthusiasm.
    Senator Hutchinson. Thank you. I think when you speak of 
strengthening the bond of trust, that is a big part of the 
quality of life that we are all concerned about.
    Also, I want to raise an issue concerning the acquisition 
policy of the Department of Defense on vaccine production. In 
the early 1990s the Department made the mistake, I believe, of 
abandoning its plans to construct a GOCO vaccine production 
facility. The consequences of that erroneous decision are only 
now being made fully evident and fully demonstrated.
    Last summer, partly as a result of prodding from this 
committee and our subcommittee's hearings, the gentleman that 
you will replace if confirmed, wisely, I think, decided to 
throw in the towel on that existing vaccine acquisition 
strategy and signaled that the Department would return to the 
pre-1994 strategy, namely the construction of a GOCO.
    Now, during this time of transition there are grumblings 
that there are those who now want to abandon that or head in 
another direction, which concerns me. I have written Secretary 
Rumsfeld and have asked him personally to investigate that 
matter. If confirmed, will you assure me that you will 
personally look into this vaccine acquisition strategy to 
ensure that it is an open and fair process?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Yes, I will.
    Senator Hutchinson. I also want to raise something I have 
been very concerned about, as well as Senator Reed and Senator 
Cleland, and that is the C-130 acquisition and beddown schedule 
for the future. The Little Rock Air Force Base, in my home 
State of Arkansas, is the schoolhouse for the training for the 
C-130s, and the Little Rock Air Force Base is scheduled to 
receive the C-130J flight simulator, it should be up and 
running by 2004.
    But Little Rock is not scheduled to receive the first C-
130J aircraft until 2006. That means there will be a 2-year gap 
between the availability of the simulator and the arrival of 
the aircraft. That is obviously a problem. It is a problem that 
Senator Reed faces in his State as well. That would be eased 
considerably if OSD and the Air Force provided $130 million in 
the budget, the 2002 budget, as was promised last year, for the 
purchase of two C-130J aircraft.
    I do not ask you to make a commitment on that, but I do ask 
you to make a commitment that you will examine this budget 
issue and get back to me on what the possibilities are, because 
obviously if you are going to have a schoolhouse to train the 
pilots and you have the simulators there you need the aircraft 
there.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I will look into that.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    There are two C-130J aircraft in the President's budget request for 
fiscal year 2002, while a third aircraft is on the Air Force's unfunded 
priority list. For now, the Air Force will continue to conduct in-
flight training at the students' ultimate operational training bases.

    Senator Hutchinson. That is a very brief answer, but we are 
going to hold you to that.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I will do it.
    Senator Hutchinson. We look forward to working with you, 
and we are very pleased that the President has nominated you 
and I look forward to your confirmation and being able to have 
the next couple of years to really see that commitment to the 
quality of life, to health care, to housing, to pay, being 
fulfilled and the whole retention issue that has been such a 
severe problem eased.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Thank you. It is, I think, a unique time to 
both fix some old problems and move forward on some new ones, 
and I really look forward to working with you and this 
committee to do that.
    Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Dr. Wolfowitz.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. Senator Nelson.

            STATEMENT OF SENATOR E. BENJAMIN NELSON

    Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you very much.
    Dr. Wolfowitz, there is a report coming out from the 
Pentagon that questions the policy in ``Plan Colombia'' as it 
relates to strengthening the efforts at controlling the growth 
in coca and therefore the growth of cocaine to the United 
States. It is questioning whether the policy ought to be on 
controlling the area of supply or whether our efforts in ``Plan 
Colombia'' ought to be more in the nature of working with sub-
south countries as well as within Colombia to build those 
economies and to work with those countries.
    I wonder if you can give us your distinction between what 
you would consider to be an appropriate role for the United 
States in Colombia with ``Plan Colombia'' and what might border 
on nation-building. My concern is that there is a lot of 
discussion and things are categorized as nation-building when 
we disagree with the efforts, but also it seems to be sanitized 
language when we say we need to work with these countries to 
help them with their infrastructure and with their democracy.
    Can you give us a distinction? I note that in the answers 
to the questions about Colombia that you have reserved the 
right to make statements later, given the fact that you are 
only being considered for approval here at the present time, 
and I can appreciate that. But I wonder if you could share with 
us a distinction that you would have between, let us say, what 
we are doing in Colombia and what might be considered by others 
as nation-building.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I have a lot to learn about Colombia, 
Senator, I think, including from you. I think you were just 
down there, I understand. I know the other Senator Nelson was 
and I met with him yesterday.
    It does seem to me that one of the essential things that 
has everyone concerned, including myself, is that we not find 
ourselves in a situation as we were 35 years ago where we are 
fighting someone else's civil war. I think that is the 
essential thing to stay out of, and that that means I would 
draw the line, I think, less at--I try to understand what we 
mean by the exact terms, but I think most importantly we know 
when they are doing the job as opposed to us taking over the 
job.
    I think helping the Colombians to help themselves is 
something that probably does serve American interests. But I 
would be very leery of something that looked like we were 
starting to get our troops involved in another war down there.
    Senator Ben Nelson. Is it a question of an internal 
struggle or is our policy and our national interest to stem the 
flow of drugs north to the United States, which may be a 
completely different mission than strengthening Colombia, 
although it may have some connection, but it may be a different 
mission?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I think that is ultimately a major part of 
our interest, although I would think also it is not in our 
interest from either point of view to see a so far rather 
democratic government in Latin America taken over by drug 
lords. So yes, I think there is a difference, and I think the 
primary purpose of our efforts to date has been to stem the 
flow of narcotics.
    One of the things I need to learn is whether you can really 
disentangle those two as much as we say we are doing.
    Senator Ben Nelson. At some point you might be in a 
position to help us understand which is the primary role and 
which is the secondary role.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I will work very hard on that, and I look 
forward to actually learning from those of you who have just 
been down there. I think there is nothing like being on the 
spot.
    Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you. That is a very important 
subject before this committee and I commend you and our 
distinguished ranking member for undertaking a trip down there.
    Senator Sessions.

               STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS

    Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Wolfowitz, we are delighted to have you here. You have 
an extraordinary background, the kind of background I think is 
most valuable in public service. You have had three tours in 
the Pentagon, the State Department, SALT talks, but have also 
been in the private sector and in a university, where you have 
had the opportunity to study, maybe more objectively, the 
events that go on around the world, and now back in the 
leadership. I think it is tremendous that you have agreed to 
take on this challenge, which I think is very great.
    When I first came here about 4 years ago, George Gilder 
gave a little talk and told us that the 19th Century was a 
century of progress, the 20th Century was the century of the 
devil, with wars and oppressions and death, the likes of which 
we had never seen before, in a time when it really should not 
have happened, and that the 21st century has the potential to 
be the greatest in the history of mankind.
    I guess I want to ask you, do you feel that the United 
States has an interest, a responsibility, and an ability to 
help shape this new century in a way that promotes peace and 
prosperity around the world, and if so, would you comment in 
general about how that might be done?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I believe very strongly, Senator, and I 
think the reference you made to past history is unfortunately 
all too true. The 20th Century started on an extremely 
optimistic note. People thought technology and economic 
progress was going to bring untold benefits and even outlaw 
war, that people would see war was not worth pursuing any 
longer. Then World War I came and it was all downhill from 
there. Once that terrible genie is out of the bottle, the 
consequences ripple on for decades. The consequences of World 
War I were felt well into the end of the last century.
    I think one of the greatest things to be concerned about is 
that we come to take for granted the structures that have 
produced a relatively peaceful world today. I say relatively. 
It is peaceful for us. It is peaceful for the big countries of 
Europe. Obviously, there are a lot of parts of the world that 
do not look peaceful at all. But the big wars do not threaten 
us now.
    I think it is very important to have an active strategy 
that is not just a military strategy--in fact, I think 
diplomacy and even economic policy may be just as important or 
more important--a policy that tries to protect those large 
zones of peace that we have created in the world and to try to 
extend them. I do believe a strong American military is part of 
that. I think it is an indispensable part of that. I think the 
goal is to keep wars as small and as far away as possible, and 
hopefully smaller and further away, until eventually the whole 
world benefits from that.
    Senator Sessions. So I take it that you are committed to 
creating the kind of defense force that would be relevant to 
this new world we are in for the purpose of promoting peace and 
prosperity?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Exactly, and I also think that is a 
significant part of what Secretary Rumsfeld means when he talks 
about the need for rethinking the concept of deterrence for 
this new world.
    Senator Sessions. That is going to take a challenge, 
because we have constructed a defense establishment designed 
for a different kind of threat. Institutions, I think maybe 
even government institutions most of all, are reluctant to 
change. Do you think and believe at this point that you will 
have to confront some outmoded thinking and to recreate some 
strategies and equipment that would meet these new challenges?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I am sure we will, and I know there is 
resistance to change. I would say that I also think there is 
particularly high resistance to change when you have a 
situation, as I think we have today, where we are trying to do 
too much with the force that we have and when people are 
stretched thin, when you are losing people because of excessive 
deployments, when they are afraid that if they identify some 
function they do not need that money will get taken away and 
they will suffer in their operational readiness accounts.
    I think all of that puts a pressure on the force that makes 
it much harder to be innovative. So I think on the one hand we 
have to fix some of these immediate needs, but if you want to 
create the head room for people to think in an innovative 
fashion, I think you have to give them some confidence that 
when they do try to do things differently there will be rewards 
for that, rather than people saying, oh, well, you have just 
demonstrated we can do without that division because you are 
experimenting with it.
    Senator Sessions. I agree. I have been to Kosovo a couple 
of times and I do believe that our men and women are basically 
doing police work. In fact, the UN was under an obligation and 
agreed to produce police forces that would allow our military 
to leave and they have not done so. So I think generating a 
system that actually produces police force in those kind of 
circumstances, so that our military do not have to be deployed, 
is the correct policy.
    Let me mention one other thing. I am on the Seapower 
Subcommittee and I chair it now. We have learned that we had, 
perhaps when you were last in the Department or in the early 
1990s, we had over 500 ships; we are now at 315. We have seen, 
as you note in your opening remarks, a 40 percent reduction in 
funding and personnel pretty much across the board.
    I believe that there will be no way to transform this 
military, to maintain it at the right level, without some 
increasing expenditures to accomplish those goals. I hope and 
believe you will find every possible efficiency. I hope and 
believe you will find programs that you do not have to continue 
to fund, that could free up money for the things that we do 
have to fund.
    But how are you feeling about this review that is going to 
take place, and how are you feeling about how much additional 
funding the Defense Department is going to need?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I would not, even in the security of a 
closed hearing, feel comfortable taking a guess at a number 
like that. I do share Secretary Rumsfeld's general feeling that 
we probably need more, but if we are going to ask for more we 
had better be very sure that everything we are asking for is 
something we need. I suspect there are things we are doing now 
that we could either stop doing or do much more efficiently.
    I think it was President Bush during the campaign said that 
we need to spend more, but we need to spend smarter. Part of 
this review is going to be focused very much on spending 
smarter, so that if we come and ask you for more you can be 
convinced that it is needed.
    Senator Sessions. I support your idea that you need to 
conduct a review before we just continue to continue programs. 
But I do believe that you will need some additional support. We 
will need to increase this budget, not beyond reason. A solid 
increase for a number of years to compensate for a long period 
now of neglect is going to be necessary if we are going to 
maintain our ability to defend our just national interests 
around the world.
    I look forward to working with you. I am absolutely 
convinced that you and Secretary Rumsfeld are about to lead a 
tremendous revitalization of our Defense Department, and we 
thank you for it.
    Chairman Warner. We thank you, Senator.
    Senator Akaka.

              STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA

    Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to add my welcome to Dr. Wolfowitz this 
morning. I am familiar with you, as others who have been in 
Congress for a while, and I am familiar with your experience, 
accomplishments, and of course as has been said already, 
familiar with your impressive record here of service to our 
country.
    I am also familiar with your prior service as Under 
Secretary of Defense for Policy from 1989 to 1993. I'm 
particularly pleased to know that you have given service as 
Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific 
Affairs, since policies in the Pacific have the most direct 
impact in my home State. I should tell you, in case you were 
not aware, that my friend who worked at East-West Center, Mike 
Oxenberg, just recently passed on. I know you have known him 
and have worked with him on China.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. It is a great loss to our country, Senator.
    Senator Akaka. News reports indicate that China has been 
helping develop a fiber optics communication system for Iraq's 
military. This is the same system that British and American 
forces just attacked, I understand. How important do you think 
it is that we should prevent this system from becoming 
operational and how persistent should we be in attacking it?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Senator, I have not had the benefit yet of 
classified briefings on the details of that. It does seem to me 
the principle is very clear. If they are building something 
that threatens the safety of our air crews, we should do what 
we have to do to eliminate it or otherwise assure their safety.
    We should also, I think, make it very clear to the Chinese 
that this is behavior that has a real cost in our relations.
    Senator Akaka. I know, as I said, you have been in policy. 
Do you support a policy which would permit the Chinese to 
resume the launching of commercial satellites which the U.S. 
licenses?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I think it depends crucially on whether we 
can have the kind of adequate safeguards that make sure that 
our missile guidance technology does not end up in the hands of 
the Chinese. As a commercial matter, it is probably good all 
around, but I think there is evidence that suggests the 
practices in the past were not sufficiently rigorous.
    Senator Akaka. As I have indicated, I regard you as a 
person who has had such a broad view of our country and our 
security. So let me ask you this one. There have been 
discrepancies in the readiness reports of operational forces. 
It is my understanding that some of the discrepancies have been 
attributed to a reporting system which is designed to provide a 
view of the current state of readiness, rather than a 
projection of the future.
    If confirmed, how will you address the issues surrounding 
the accuracy of determining the readiness of operational 
forces?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The first thing I would do, if it has not 
been done already, is to work with Secretary Rumsfeld to make 
sure that we have a really first class person in that Under 
Secretary job, Manpower and Readiness, because this is a huge 
task. I would work with that individual to try to consider 
carefully whether the kinds of measures we are using for 
readiness are, number one, measuring what we want them to 
measure; and number two, to make sure they are not--every time 
you set up a way of measurement, whether it is military 
readiness or academic excellence, people start to game the 
system and they start to design to the measurement instead of 
to something else.
    So you have to be very careful. I suppose this is a 
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. When you start to measure and 
you put out a certain measurement, you change how people 
behave. You want to make sure that you are changing it in the 
way you want to change it and not in an unintended way. But it 
is a very big issue that you raise and a very legitimate one.
    Senator Akaka. I am also aware of your work out in the 
Pacific Rim and in the Philippines and what you have done 
there. Again, I want to say that I am glad to see you here and 
seeking, I think, the position here with this administration. 
We all know that the future of our country and the security of 
our country leans in the Pacific and that area, so it is 
important to have a person like you.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Bunning.

                STATEMENT OF SENATOR JIM BUNNING

    Senator Bunning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, welcome to the committee.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Thank you.
    Senator Bunning. I want to explore just three different 
areas with you, Doctor. First, base realignment and closures. I 
notice in your answers that Senator Warner has shared with all 
the members that you took what we call a powder. You did not 
answer the question. You said: ``As Secretary Rumsfeld noted in 
his response to advance policy questions from this committee, 
we withhold an assessment of this issue until after the 
completion of the defense review.'' At least that is what is 
written down here.
    Do you have any idea what the President's feelings are on 
base realignment and closure, because I am deeply concerned 
until I have seen the savings that occurred from the first and 
the second round of base closures and had them proven to me, 
not just put down on paper and here is what we saved, but a 
much more thorough examination. If we proceed in another round 
you are going to have a terrible time up here on the Hill 
trying to convince anyone that this is in the best interests of 
this country.
    So do you have anything to add to your statement here?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I think I would say what I believe Secretary 
Rumsfeld said when he was up here, that he believes, and I 
agree with him, that the base structure should correspond to 
the force structure. We are only now looking at what the force 
structure ought to be as a product of this review.
    There is a general feeling that we have more base structure 
than our present force structure requires. But until the review 
is done, it is a little early to state that as a firm 
conclusion.
    You bring up another issue which I discussed with you in 
your office yesterday, and I concur very strongly that we need 
to make sure that the savings that are attributed to past BRACs 
have actually been realized and if we end up in another process 
of that kind, that we get real savings out of it. That is 
certainly something I will look into very hard if I am 
confirmed.
    Senator Bunning. Second, there is a statement that you just 
made this morning and I wonder how that fits into this 
statement. I will read from the statement: ``Finally, we must 
reform the Department of Defense structures, processes, and 
organizations. We need to seek greater efficiencies, not only 
to safeguard the taxpayers' money, but also because that will 
allow us to create better weapons systems and invest more in 
the cutting edge of our national defense.''
    I want to make sure that if we are going to do something 
here in closing down a base or removing structures that it is 
not just to save money, but that it does not force us to try to 
do more with less. If I have heard it once in the last 14 
years, I have heard it an awful lot of times, that the Defense 
Department can do more with less.
    It can like heck, and it has been proven that it cannot do 
more with less and ask for more deployments. So does that fit 
into that statement that you made?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I certainly agree with you we have been 
trying to do more with less and the consequences are that 
frayed force that General Shelton referred to. I do believe--
when I wrote those words in that statement, I am thinking much 
more of the kinds of efficiencies that people say we could 
achieve in things like the way we do our pay and accounts 
system, the way we purchase electricity for our bases.
    There seem to be a lot of places where we are much less 
efficient than the private sector and there is no obvious 
reason why we ought to be. But I certainly agree with you the 
purpose is not simply to save money. We need that money. There 
are a lot of needs, both immediate needs and long-term needs, 
it has to be applied to.
    Senator Bunning. Last but not least, Britain's Foreign 
Minister, Robin Cook, recently was before this committee. He 
told us about the effort of the European allies to form a 
60,000-member force which would perform humanitarian action and 
perform military police type duties, such as overtaking 
security checkpoint duties in the Kosovo region and those 
things.
    Are you familiar with this effort of our European allies?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I am in general terms and in some detail.
    Senator Bunning. Let me give you an experience that I had 
that shows that maybe we should encourage our European allies. 
I just spent a day or 2 at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, and 3,000 
of our finest young men and women are about on June 1st to go 
off and replace 3,000 people that are in Kosovo.
    I went out to the training site on site, and those men and 
women were being trained to be MPs. I asked the general, how is 
that in the best national interest of our country, national 
security, to be MPs in Kosovo? He disagreed that it was not in 
our best interest, but they were being trained to secure their 
own safety when they were there.
    Would you like to expand on that a little bit?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I repeat I think what I said earlier, which 
is I believe it is in our interest, where possible, to get our 
allies to take over jobs that they can do and that we do not 
need to do. It is in our interest to get local forces to take 
over tasks that they can do that we do not need to do. Where we 
are talking about police work, we really ought to be looking 
for policemen or their equivalent to do it and not sending 
highly trained combat troops, in fact, as you correctly point 
out, untraining them, retraining them for a whole new task, and 
then having to retrain them for their combat missions when they 
come home. There is a lot in that that does not make sense and 
we ought to be looking for alternatives.
    Senator Bunning. I wish you good luck. Thank you.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
    Senator Carnahan.

               STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEAN CARNAHAN

    Senator Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to welcome you to the committee today. I also want 
to congratulate you on your nomination and for your years of 
national service.
    Although we live in a time of peace and prosperity, these 
are certainly challenging times for the Department of Defense. 
Once the threat to our national security was formidable and 
apparent. Now the overall threat has been reduced, but we do 
not always know where the enemy is or where he is located or 
who he is or what weapons are at his disposal.
    We live in a time of unprecedented budget surpluses, but 
the pressure on the defense budget remains quite heavy. If we 
are to continue to have the best and the most highly trained 
and most effective military in the world, we have to invest in 
our military personnel. That means higher salaries and better 
health care and improved quality of life for those who wear the 
uniform.
    I think we also owe it to our troops that when they are 
placed in harm's way that they are properly equipped and that 
they are trained to perform the tasks for which they have been 
sent.
    The military services continue to demand newer and 
sophisticated weapons systems, but these demands must be 
evaluated against the type of threats we expect to face and 
balanced against competing defense and domestic spending 
priorities. There are discussions of transforming our entire 
armed forces structure, but we face a bureaucracy that is set 
in its ways and very resistant to change. So I expect that you 
will have a difficult time, but hopefully a very rewarding job. 
I look forward to working with you in those efforts.
    I have a few questions I would like to ask today. Senator 
Bond and Congressman Gephardt have been very involved in urging 
the South Korean government to purchase F-15s. I am very 
supportive of those efforts as well. The new purchase of F-15s 
is necessary to keep the F-15 production line running.
    Given the uncertainty of whether we will be relying on the 
Super Hornet or the F-22 or the Joint Strike Fighter, do you 
agree that it is in our national interest to continue the 
production of the F-15?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Senator, I certainly think it is very much 
in our national interest to maintain a strong industrial base. 
Clearly, aircraft production is a big part of that. You asked 
me when I met with you yesterday about this forthcoming Korean 
decision. It seems to me that there are two strong principles 
here which we should emphasize to our Korean allies in their 
consideration of what kind of aircraft to buy. One is that it 
will be far more effective if we are both flying the same kind 
of aircraft. It is not just a matter of interoperability, but 
the ability to repair one another's systems.
    Second, given that their budgets are tight as well as ours, 
I hope they will buy the best value for the dollar or for the 
won, and I suspect very much that is going to be the American 
plane.
    Senator Carnahan. I also mentioned to Secretary Rumsfeld 
when he was here a concern that had been expressed to me a 
number of times. That has to do with the readiness of our 
TRADOC posts, especially the one at Fort Leonard Wood. I would 
like for you to, if you would, check on that for me and get 
back to me with more information about that.
    [The information follows:]
      
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
      
    The question I will ask today is one that is a little bit 
more general. I understand the Department is doing a 
comprehensive review, but I would like to hear what your views 
are on what measures the Department should take to address the 
short-term readiness of our troops.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Clearly, one of the most serious readiness 
deficiencies that I have been briefed on is shortages in 
training facilities and lack of training time and lack of 
resources to do training properly. There is no, I think, more 
important contributor to the readiness of forces than the fact 
that they are well-trained.
    I remember going right after the Gulf War with Secretary 
Cheney to visit the Second Armored Division inside Iraq, and 
Secretary Cheney talked to a tough-looking senior master 
sergeant who I think had spent 26 years in the Army and asked 
him, was it tough? He said it wasn't anywhere near as tough as 
the National Training Center. That is the kind of training you 
want to have. It is an essential part of readiness and it is 
certainly something we will be looking hard at in this review.
    Senator Carnahan. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
    Senator Collins.

               STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS

    Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Wolfowitz, I first want to echo the comments of my 
colleagues in thanking you for accepting this considerable 
challenge and for bringing your considerable expertise and 
talents to bear in this exciting new position.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Collins. As a new member of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, I have had a parade of service chiefs and 
senior officers come to my office to brief me and those 
meetings have been very helpful. I have, however, been 
concerned by what I have heard. Over and over again, senior 
officers have told me that there has been a pattern in the last 
administration of robbing our modernization accounts to pay for 
pressing readiness problems.
    Indeed, one senior officer told me that he was actually 
instructed to prepare a budget in the last administration that 
he knew would not possibly meet the readiness needs of his 
service. In fact, there was a reliance on supplementals in the 
last administration that caused there to be lots of concerns 
about the training moneys available for our troops and other 
readiness issues.
    It seems to me we need a new approach and that is a lousy 
way to go about budgeting. Are you going to commit today to a 
truth-in-budgeting process so that we really know what the 
numbers are and can make sure that we are not essentially 
gaming the system?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I think it is essential not only for 
Congress to know, but for the President and the Secretary of 
Defense to know. I certainly agree with you it is a misuse of 
the budgeting process to have expenditures that you fully know 
you are going to need submitted as an emergency supplement to 
your budget. We have to figure out how we work our way out of 
that process that you correctly identify we have gotten into.
    Senator Collins. On a related issue, I have also heard from 
these senior officers about inefficiencies within the Defense 
Department's acquisition and procurement process. For example, 
one senior officer told me that the Defense Logistics Agency 
adds a markup of 22 percent to each uniform that it buys. He 
was saying that if he could eliminate the middleman within DOD 
that he could save a great deal of money.
    Are you planning to take a thorough look at the internal 
acquisition and procurement systems of DOD to see whether there 
are ways to improve efficiencies and perhaps save substantial 
sums of money?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Absolutely. One of the things that has 
struck me a lot in briefings I have had over the last 6 weeks 
or so is there just are shelves full of studies going back at 
least to David Packard's commission in the early 1980s that 
identify all kinds of reforms. I keep asking the question: We 
do not need more studies; we need to implement these things; 
why is it not happening?
    It is not that people have not tried, and it is not as 
though it is going to be simple to do so. But I certainly 
think, with this unusual man we have as Secretary of Defense, 
we have a real opportunity now to get some things done that 
everyone agrees are long overdue.
    Senator Collins. I agree. I think everyone knows what the 
problems are, but there has been too much internal resistance 
to solving them that has prevented needed reforms from being 
implemented, so I appreciate that commitment.
    Finally, I want to echo Senator Sessions' concerns about 
our current shipbuilding rates. The current rates of 
shipbuilding do not support the goal of a 300-ship naval fleet 
as identified by the last QDR. The Clinton administration's 
defense budgets have been gradually taking the Navy, not toward 
a 300-ship Navy, but rather toward a considerably smaller 
fleet.
    Adding to the challenges are the facts that many defense 
experts believe that even a 300-ship Navy is inadequate for our 
current operational and deployment requirements. I hope as part 
of the top-to-bottom review that you and the Secretary are 
conducting that you will take a very hard look at what we can 
do to make sure that our shipbuilding budgets are adequate to 
make up for the deficiencies of the past 8 years.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. That will be a very important part of what 
we look at, yes.
    Senator Collins. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator, very much.
    Senator Nelson.

                STATEMENT OF SENATOR BILL NELSON

    Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I just want to say to the ranking member, thank you again 
for that trip to Colombia over the last few days. It was 
extraordinary, it was informative, it was personally enjoyable 
to be with you and the other members, and I thank you very 
much.
    Senator Levin. Thank you. Your contribution to that very 
quick trip was really crucial. Our learning was mutually at a 
high level. You and Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Jack Reed, and 
I travelled and again, thank you for participating.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Dr. Wolfowitz, it was a pleasure to 
visit with you yesterday. I want to encourage you on the 
seeming new policy of the administration to break the mold, to 
think outside the lines. It is, I think, refreshing that you 
approach it this way, and with the changing nature of the 
threat to the United States I think it is essential. I thank 
you about that.
    Now, what I would like to get from you is some of your 
ideas about what are going to be the appropriations needs over 
the course of the next decade. Chairman Warner and a group of 
other Senators from this committee had recently written a 
letter asking for necessary appropriations having to do with a 
supplemental for this year. Senator Warner, if I recall, it 
totaled some perhaps $7 billion additional moneys in this 
particular year. This is for the 2001 budget, even before we 
get to the 2002 budget.
    If I recall also, that had to do with pay and benefits, 
health benefits. It had to do with spare parts. It had to do 
with the cost of fuel and a number of things like that. That is 
$7 billion before we even get to the decade that we are talking 
about.
    Can you give me some clue as to what you think are going to 
be the needs of increased defense spending over the course of 
the next decade?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I suppose the real answer is without the 
review I cannot say very much. But I guess if you want a clue, 
it seems to me there is a general feeling, unless we are going 
to radically change what we try to do in the world--and I say 
radically because I think we probably do have to change what we 
try to do in the world, and we may want to do more. But unless 
we are going to do radically less, we probably need more 
resources.
    But we also have to find savings within what we do, because 
we cannot simply add to the defense budget. That is why even 
the short-term question of what do we need to make it through 
2001 is something that requires a thorough look at what we are 
already spending our money on.
    Senator Bill Nelson. I know that that is the answer that 
you have to give at this point and I respect that. So let me 
suggest what I think the truth is on the answer. The fact is, 
as we change the nature of our defense posture we can save 
money, but at the same time, since the reason for a Federal 
Government in large part is to provide for the national 
defense, we cannot be penny wise and pound foolish, 
particularly with research and development and particularly 
with regard to the provision of our forces in the field, the 
supplies, the material, and the quality of the troops by virtue 
of what it is going to cost in competition with the private 
sector in order to be able to retain them.
    I think the bottom line is that there is going to be a 
considerable demand for increased spending over the course of 
the next decade. I think we are fooling ourselves if we do not 
plan for that. We have some choices to make very shortly in 
formulating a budget and how much are we going to allocate for 
defense and how much for education and for prescription drug 
benefit, and balance all that against the need to protect 
social security and the surplus in the Medicare trust fund, and 
then balance all of that on the question of how large is going 
to be the tax cut.
    So I think there are, as we approach the subject matter of 
this committee, people that are fooling themselves if they 
think that we are not going to need substantial defense 
increases over the next 10 years and do so at the peril of 
providing for the common defense if you use it up in other 
areas so that we do not have it, or so that the only choice 
that is left to us is the choice of going back into deficit 
financing, which was one of the reasons of a poorly performing 
economy in the decade of the 1980s.
    So you see where I am coming from, Dr. Wolfowitz. I 
congratulate you on your nomination. I congratulate you ahead 
of time. I am going to be visiting with you about these 
budgetary matters in the future.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I look forward to it, Senator. Thank you.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
    We will now have a second round of questions. I will 
initiate those questions and my distinguished colleague, Mr. 
Levin, will follow up.
    I was quite interested in your selection of a quote in your 
opening statement, that General Creighton Abrams said when the 
all-volunteer force was first created that, ``People are not in 
the Army; people are the Army.'' I was privileged to serve in 
the Pentagon at that time when he was Chief of Staff and I have 
the greatest respect for that military leader. He was exactly 
right.
    As you said, you will become the chief operating officer 
and people will be at the very top of your agenda. This 
committee, indeed Congress as a whole, are very concerned about 
the inability of the Department of Defense, all services, some 
with varying degrees, but all services, having difficulty 
retaining particularly that critical group of younger officers, 
captains, so to speak, lieutenants in the Navy, who are making 
that pivotal decision as to whether to go on and perhaps commit 
for a career of at least 20 years.
    Similarly, the enlisted ranks, the middle grade and senior 
petty officers, sergeants and the like, are likewise not 
staying in the numbers that we need.
    Now, there has been some modest improvement here recently, 
possibly as a consequence of the initiatives taken by the past 
administration and Congress. This committee took the initiative 
to increase the pay raises, took the initiative to increase the 
quality of health care.
    What are your initiatives that you are going to assert, if 
confirmed and you take on this responsibility, to stem the flow 
of these young people out of the military, somewhat induced by 
very lucrative opportunities for their trained skills in the 
private sector?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Pay and allowances are one of the first 
things one looks at. You are absolutely correct, this committee 
has taken very important decisions, including just at the end 
of the last year, that I think should help us. Some of I 
suppose the kinds of tangible benefits that Senator Cleland 
referred to earlier that can help service people think that by 
staying in they are ensuring their children's future, that is 
very important.
    I think, as I said earlier, it is equally important to make 
sure that people feel that they are getting the right kind of 
training and equipment to perform the missions, because at the 
end of the day I think what keeps people in the service will 
never be the pay and allowances. Pay and allowances have to be 
adequate, but they can almost always earn more money with less 
time away from home and less risk of life doing something else. 
It is the sense of mission.
    It is very hard to convince people of a sense of mission if 
they are not being given equipment for that mission or the 
training for the mission is not adequate.
    I also believe that, and I think hopefully this will be 
part of this review, we need as a country--and certainly this 
committee makes a big contribution in that respect--to convince 
the country that the mission these men and women are doing is 
important, because that I think is one of the greatest psychic 
rewards and therefore one of the greatest rewards that they get 
for service.
    So you have to look at it, I think, as a whole. It starts 
with pay and allowances, but it goes right up to what the 
President, Congress, and the country believe is the importance 
of what they are doing.
    Chairman Warner. It is also family separation, Dr. 
Wolfowitz. That is brought about by overdeployments in terms of 
the number of times that these young men and women are sent 
abroad. They will accept not only a reasonable level, but a 
high level, because that is what they joined to do. But I think 
we have in the past few years seen where we have crossed that 
invisible line to where they are now confronted with serious 
family situations because of their departure from family for 
prolonged periods, and they are all too often coming at a 
critical time when they are trying to raise some young 
children. How well all of us who have had that great privilege 
and challenge in life know the essential need for the two 
parents to be together as much as possible with those children 
in their formative years. Bear that in mind.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. You are absolutely right, Senator.
    Chairman Warner. Also, but for a spare part no bigger than 
that tip of that pencil, airplanes cannot fly. The mechanics 
are instructed to go over and take it out of another airplane 
which is operational and cannibalize it and put that airplane 
parked for a while. That is why I am urging consideration of 
this supplemental. We have to get into the spare parts 
replenishment and the distribution of those spare parts right 
away, because these young people working, whether it is on 
ships or on the line of airplanes on the tarmac working on it, 
they need to feel that we are supplying those parts such that 
they can keep those pieces of equipment up and ready.
    In my most recent visit to Kosovo a week or so ago, we 
visited a young captain who had several tanks and other 
motorized vehicles high on a hill in that sector that is 
becoming more and more destabilized, the valley. He said some 
of those units that he had up there were in a precarious 
situation because of spare parts. There is a trooper right out 
on the front line taking risks.
    Again, I know this question of the supplemental is not a 
cheerful one, but I take the brunt of criticism directed. I 
just think it has to be studied and studied very carefully. I 
am confident that Senator Stevens, Senator Byrd, and others 
that are entrusted with the appropriations--therein is the 
primary responsibility--can manage that in a way that we can 
achieve it, hopefully for the military, and maybe restrict it 
and let the President indicate that he will veto if this thing 
becomes a giant snowball rolling down the hillside with 
everybody's need attached to it. So I will continue to work on 
that.
    The industrial base. We can really be no stronger as a 
Nation and a military if we do not have those companies who are 
willing to get out there and put at risk their capital and to 
have the ability to attract the talent that is necessary to do 
the research and development and the test and evaluation on 
these systems that are coming along.
    What are your views about assisting the industrial base, 
and particularly the question of across-the-ocean mergers? They 
are primarily in the Atlantic, trans-Atlantic, but they could 
well become also in the Pacific region a factor that concerns 
the industrial base here at home. That will be your 
responsibility. What are your views on that subject?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. First, Senator, Mr. Chairman, I am very 
concerned about the health of our industrial base. It is 
crucial to our ability to support forces in the future. It is 
crucial to our ability to innovate. I think it is hurting 
badly.
    I think when one looks at this issue of trans-Atlantic or 
even possibly trans-Pacific mergers, I think the crucial 
question is do these mergers contribute to our ability to 
innovate, contribute to the long-term health of our industrial 
base, or conversely are they a kind of fire sale where we are 
transferring absolutely essential American capabilities abroad 
in a way that will hurt our long-term competitiveness.
    I think some degree of distributing production across 
defense establishments of our allies as well as ourselves may 
be a way to make the overall industrial base more efficient. 
But certainly one of the things we better look at is to make 
sure that if some of that is going eastward across the Atlantic 
that there is enough gain coming back the other direction that 
we are all better off in the long run.
    Chairman Warner. I thank you.
    Senator Levin.
    Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to go back to Colombia first. Senator Bill Nelson 
indicated that four of us went down to Colombia last weekend. 
Let me just give you a quick impression, and then ask you for a 
response. First, our focus clearly has to be on the demand side 
of this equation. We are creating the demand which is creating 
the supply that Colombia currently is supplying in the area of 
cocaine. But stemming the flow of cocaine and the supply of it 
is an important goal as well. That is number one.
    Second, we should not send our forces there to try to go 
after the narco-terrorists and the narco-suppliers, but we 
should, as you put it, assist them to assist themselves, to go 
after those folks that are creating this problem.
    This is third--unlike many other countries in Latin 
America, the army in Colombia has been supportive of the 
democratic government in Colombia traditionally and is now. 
Strengthening that army is essential to the survival of that 
democracy against the onslaught of the narco-traffickers, 
number one. Those narco-traffickers are now funding the threats 
to that democracy both from the guerrillas and from the 
paramilitaries. So, when we strengthen the professionalism and 
the training and the protection of human rights by that army, 
we are in the process trying to accomplish two things. First, 
we are stemming the flow of narcotics to this country, 
attempting to reduce that coca crop. Second, we are in the 
process strengthening Colombian democracy. Both things are 
going on and they are inseparable.
    So when you talk about disentangling the two goals, the 
goal of supporting Colombian democracy or nation-building and 
the goal of stemming the flow of cocaine, both of those goals 
are dependent upon strengthening the professionalism, training 
of the army, and making sure that they protect human rights in 
order to reduce the power of the narco-traffickers. So the 
goals, it seems to me, are inseparable and talking about 
disentangling them may miss the point. I just want to give you 
that thought and give you a chance to respond if you want, or 
just to think about it, either way.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I will respond. You are taking me in the 
direction I was heading already. I can see a clear difference 
between their doing the job and our doing the job, and that is 
the line I would like to keep clear and bright. I know people 
make a distinction between fighting narco-terrorists and 
fighting the civil war. I guess I have--you are saying it 
yourself. It is hard to disentangle because the instrument for 
doing both, especially if they are going to do it themselves, 
is their own military.
    When I was Ambassador in Jakarta, the Colombian 
Ambassador--and it may have been the first they ever sent to 
Indonesia--was not a foreign service officer. He was a judge 
who had sent some narco-terrorist to jail and he was in 
Indonesia essentially to protect his life. He told me with 
great bitterness that all that money from the United States 
that's sucking cocaine up from Latin America is destroying his 
country and destroying democracy in his country. It was very 
poignant and very moving. People like that judge-become-
ambassador are very courageous people.
    It seems to me if they want our financial support, our 
material support, our training support, within limits we ought 
to provide it. If they want the lives of our service people, 
then we will say, it is your country, it is your lives that 
should be on the line.
    Senator Levin. They have not asked for that.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I know they have not.
    Senator Levin. I do not think there is any support for that 
that I know of in this country. What there is, however, support 
for in ``Plan Colombia'' is what I just described and what you 
just described. I gather you, in general, are supportive of 
that goal; is that fair to say?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Yes.
    Senator Levin. Back to Iraq for a moment and what many 
thought, including myself, was an unclear signal to Saddam 
prior to his invasion of Kuwait. Would you comment on that? I 
think you have spoken on that issue before. Comment on the 
importance of clarity of our signals and the lack of clarity in 
terms of that signal to him as to what the impact would be 
should he move on Kuwait.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Well, I believed at the time and I believe 
now that we sent ambiguous signals. I argued strongly at the 
time that we should send a clearer signal. In fairness to that 
administration, it also has to be said that one of the greatest 
ambiguities came in congressional testimony where an Assistant 
Secretary of State was pushed in my view a little bit too hard 
to say exactly what our commitments were.
    I liked Secretary Cheney's formulation at the time, which 
was: We have stood by our friends in the past and we will stand 
by them in the future, no further questions. I think if the 
administration had stuck to that line it would have been a 
better signal.
    But having said that, two things. Number one, given how 
Saddam behaved when he was faced with the threat of Desert 
Storm and his unwillingness to yield at that point, I think 
there is every reason to be skeptical that even a very clear 
signal would have deterred him. He was convinced that we were 
weak, that we had lost in Vietnam, we would lose again there.
    Number two, there is no question that once he invaded it 
was a great help in dealing with our Arab friends in the region 
that no one could accuse us of having provoked the attack. 
There is always a little bit of a tradeoff between sending 
clear signals on the one hand and being seen as being 
belligerent on the other.
    At the end of the day, I think history probably would have 
taken a similar course.
    Senator Levin. Just two last questions, and I thank our 
Chairman for yielding to me and so graciously allowing me to 
extend my questions so I can go to another hearing.
    When you were Under Secretary for Policy in President 
George Bush's administration, there was an employee in the 
Office of Nonproliferation Policy who became convinced that the 
administration was about to present false information to 
Congress in a classified briefing about Pakistan's nuclear 
capabilities. The individual complained to his supervisor and 
the supervisor then became concerned that the employee might 
take it upon himself to correct the inaccurate information 
presented to Congress.
    I am not getting into the merits at all of that case, as to 
who was right or who was wrong. But there was a response by the 
supervisor there ordering him not to supply that information, 
and terminated the employment and apparently acted to ensure 
that security clearances be removed from that employee. I do 
not want to get involved in the specifics of that, either. That 
is the background. There is apparently litigation going on, so 
I am not asking you to comment in any way which could affect 
that litigation. The reason I am asking you this is because of 
the questions asked of you at this hearing about providing 
information to this committee and to our designated staff, who 
are cleared to receive classified information. It is important, 
I believe, to us that people who wish to come to give us 
classified information in no way be deterred from doing so or 
be threatened or be in any way deterred from providing that to, 
again, designated staff who are cleared to receive classified 
information.
    The Whistleblower Protection Act does not apply to this 
type of case because information is classified. But putting 
that aside, do you believe that it is appropriate in any way to 
retaliate against an employee who threatens to take accurate 
information to properly cleared congressional staffers, as a 
matter of policy?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. My answer is absolutely not. I do not 
believe that kind of retaliation is appropriate at all. I would 
go a bit further, too. I think it is terribly important, and on 
that specific issue of what Pakistan was doing with nuclear 
weapons there was a legal obligation to keep Congress 
appropriately informed.
    Senator, I was not even aware of that employee or the 
entire case until about 18 months ago when I was asked to give 
a deposition in a civil suit. Most of the events he alleged 
took place before I was confirmed as Under Secretary.
    Senator Levin. I did not want to get into your----
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Well, OK, but you brought it up. So I 
believe----
    Senator Levin. I assume you were aware of it one way or 
another.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Only within the last----
    Senator Levin. The issue. I do not mean back then. I mean 
you are aware of it.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I have been aware of the issue. In fact, 
there have been times on that issue when I specifically sensed 
that people thought we could somehow construct a policy on the 
house of cards that Congress would not know what the Pakistanis 
were doing. I have always thought policies based on withholding 
information from Congress are going to fail in the long run. In 
that case, there was a clear legal obligation to keep Congress 
informed.
    Senator Levin. I appreciate that.
    My final question is the question of whether and how to 
deploy a National Missile Defense part of the strategic review 
or is it left out of the strategic review as far as you know?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. My understanding is it is a piece of the 
strategic review. There are many pieces. There is not a 
single--as Secretary Rumsfeld said when he was up here, surely 
one of the things that is going to come out of this strategic 
review is we can make some decisions now, we are going to have 
to review some more. I do not think this is a process that is 
going to end. But clearly you cannot make decisions about long-
term resource requirements without factoring in what missile 
defense requirements are going to be.
    Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, let me just again thank you. I 
want to congratulate Dr. Wolfowitz and wish him the best of 
luck. I know there will be a lot of important efforts here to 
keep this committee on the bipartisan tack that it has always 
tried to follow and that we can look to you to assist us in 
that process.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Thank you. I think I have had courtesy calls 
with 18 members of this committee, and every one of them has 
been a strong bipartisan supporter of a strong national 
defense. So I am sure the other six are as well, and I really 
look forward to working with this committee if I am confirmed.
    Senator Levin. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. I have several more questions I wish to 
ask. Speaking for myself and I think others, we were shocked 
about this recent series of allegations regarding a long and 
trusted member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the 
allegations of his sharing classified material with another 
nation. Also, regrettably, a person who preceded you in the 
office to which you aspire to serve this Nation was the subject 
of a pardon recently by the President with regard to 
allegations about his handling of classified materials.
    As the chief operating officer, it seems to me, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Defense and other persons in 
the administration, you should undertake a review of the 
Department of Defense with regard to the handling of classified 
material and the means by which to detect any violation of the 
regulations of the use of that material by employees at all 
levels of the Department.
    Therefore, my question to you is how do you view the 
importance of classification, the responsibility that those 
entrusted with documents that are classified and how they 
should deal, not only in the safeguarding of that, but the 
sharing of that information? How do you intend to deal with 
that issue and what are your views with regard to classified 
material?
    I feel very strongly that the most rigid rules should apply 
and that when an individual is found to have violated, and 
subject to the appropriate legal actions that have to be 
reviewed to verify that violation, whether it is a court case 
or whatever, that accountability of the strongest measures 
should be done. What are your views?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I agree very strongly with you about that, 
Senator. It is kind of shocking, the extent to which classified 
information frequently and with great speed finds its way into 
public in one form or another. I do think we need to do 
everything we can to hold people accountable, to make it clear 
that we take this seriously.
    I know any one of us has come across a classified document 
that we may have thought was overclassified. But that does not 
give you an individual right to take it on yourself to 
declassify it or downgrade it. There are procedures for doing 
that and they should be stuck with.
    You are talking about two very different things and the 
second one--the first one is a matter of treason. We clearly 
have to look at what that whole Hansen case tells us about our 
counterintelligence capabilities, which clearly have missed two 
big ones in recent times, and think about how to protect 
ourselves from that kind of traitor.
    On the more almost mundane matter of the day-to-day 
handling of classified materials, I think we lead by example. 
We have to be careful ourselves. We have to take infractions 
seriously. If we think that things are overclassified, then we 
need in an orderly way to take care of that problem, but not 
let individuals take it on themselves.
    Chairman Warner. Are you prepared to commit to this 
committee that, if confirmed, you will undertake as one of your 
top priorities a review of that subject within your Department?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I will do so, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you.
    The President, I think quite wisely, and the Secretary of 
Defense, in the course of his hearing before this committee, 
put increased emphasis on the subject of homeland defense. This 
committee has taken a number of initiatives to strengthen the 
ability of our communities to deal with a terrorist attack 
involving weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical. We 
have really been out on the cutting edge. We have a 
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities and it has 
been one of the most active subcommittees. I commend the 
chairman and ranking member for the past work and indeed what 
they propose to do in the coming year.
    But this is a subject of great concern to this Senator and 
I think many others. It is astonishing. I do not want to harp 
too much on my recollections, but I remember when we had 
blackouts in Washington, D.C., in the early stages of World War 
II. I was a youngster then. I remember it well. People would 
sit here and listen to me make that statement in astonishment.
    But that was the last time, really, that this Nation felt 
imperiled at the hands of an adversary. At that time it was 
primarily the Nazi submarine fleet, which was actively sinking 
shipping off of the shores. I will not go into further details, 
but it was the silhouetting of the shipping as a consequence of 
the lighting emanating from the shores. A drastic number of 
ships lost right off the Atlantic coast of the United States.
    There have been other incidents. But now we have come to 
the point where we are threatened by intercontinental ballistic 
missiles, we are defenseless. I commend the President for his 
strong initiatives to address the question of missile defense. 
We have covered it here today.
    But the terrorism that could strike here at home is a major 
concern. We have taken initiatives in the last authorization 
bill of this committee, to try and urge a reorganization of the 
lines of responsibility in our Federal Government. I do not 
have it with me, but I will see that you get it, a chart 
showing the voluminous number of crossed lines and crossed 
authority that exists today. I do not say that as a criticism 
of the past administration. It is just a statement of fact.
    I would hope that you would put this high on your list of 
priorities to address, because we have to have, I think, 
greater involvement by all departments and agencies of the 
Federal Government in this question of homeland defense. I just 
wondered what you thought about the missions for the Department 
which you will hopefully be responsible as Deputy Secretary of 
Defense. Right now the Department of Justice has primary 
authority, and we come up against the time-honored law of Posse 
Comitatus which limits the involvement of the U.S. military as 
it relates to the daily lives of our people in this country. I 
think that doctrine is well-founded in history and should be 
protected.
    But again, the assets and the knowledge of the Department 
of Defense need to be shared at every level of government and 
with the communities as to how best to protect themselves and, 
if an incident were to happen, how we can best assist those in 
the community that will come to the rescue of their fellow 
citizens.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Actually, I know John Hamre, when he was 
Deputy Secretary, took a very strong interest in this issue, as 
will I if I am confirmed.
    Chairman Warner. I commend him. He did indeed. We talked 
many times on this subject.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Actually, during, I guess it was the 
transition--it was actually the period of the recount of the 
Florida vote--he convened a very interesting 3-hour session 
over at CSIS of officials from the Clinton administration with 
a number of people prospectively on both the Gore and Bush 
group, to talk about this issue. What that discussion and many 
others reveals is there is a fundamental problem that you 
identify of how the U.S. Government organizes itself to deal 
with this problem, which has both a domestic and a foreign 
aspect, both a law enforcement and a security aspect.
    We need to do everything we can to prevent that kind of 
attack, everything we can, where possible, to defend against 
it. But also this question of how you respond is crucial. I was 
in Israel during the Gulf War with Deputy Secretary Larry 
Eagleburger, whom President Bush sent over to persuade the 
Israelis not to get in the war. So I have been in a country 
under missile attack. We knew the odds and the odds 
individually were not that dangerous, but the whole country is 
immobilized by it.
    The Israelis had a very substantial civil defense effort 
and they were quite clear that without that civil defense 
effort, without the little bit of warning that our satellites 
were able to provide so the people could go into shelters, they 
would have had a mass panic. So the ability to deal with an 
event if it happens I think is very important for the stability 
of society as a whole. It has to get a high priority.
    Chairman Warner. That is an interesting historical footnote 
that you mention about your visit with my old friend Dr. 
Eagleburger, former Secretary of State. I too was in Israel, on 
February 18th, 1991, with Senator Nunn--then Chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee--Senator Stevens, and Senator Inouye. 
We were in the headquarters of the Defense Ministry when the 
last Scud fell on Tel Aviv. We had to stop our meetings and put 
on our gas masks.
    The strike landed a mile or two away. I never felt--well, 
you are in the hands of the gods when that thing came in, 
because it did not have any particular target except to hit the 
population. It was used as a terrorist weapon, not as a 
military.
    The people of Israel and the government of Israel showed 
enormous courage at that time to withhold their ability, and 
they had it, to retaliate because they knew of how it could 
fracture and impede the progress of the coalition at that time 
engaged in repressing Saddam Hussein.
    So I share that. But I hope that you put this high on your 
agenda, this subject of homeland defense.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I will, Mr. Chairman. I hope our whole 
government does.
    Chairman Warner. The National Missile Defense system, as I 
said, the President is taking a strong leadership role, 
together with other members of his cabinet. Secretary of State 
Powell, I think in a very forceful and successful way, based on 
the reports received, asserted the right of the United States 
to defend itself in the face of this threat. We stand, as I 
think we have to repeatedly say, defenseless against an 
incoming strategic intercontinental ballistic missile, and 
indeed other missiles for that matter, and we must marshall the 
resources of this country to determine whether or not we can 
devise a limited ability to interdict the accidentally fired or 
terrorist missile or whatever the case may be, up to a dozen or 
more of these missiles.
    As the President and Secretary Powell and others have 
pointed out, it is not a system that in any way should lessen 
the deterrence that Russia looks to its system to provide, or 
indeed other nations. It is simply an essential protection for 
our cities and communities here at home.
    Now, you have spent time on this. Have you ever sorted out 
the sea-based system and how that could be brought in a timely 
way to augment the current architecture that was employed by 
the last administration?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. If I may make one general point quickly and 
then get to your question. I think you said something which I 
think is missed too often, and that is we are not talking about 
missile defense as it emerged during the Cold War. We are not 
talking about SDI, we are not talking about how to compete with 
the Soviet Union. We are talking about a limited missile 
defense, of a kind that, frankly, I would think the Russians 
themselves would want to have.
    On the specific question of sea-based options or, I would 
say, other options more generally, I think one of the things we 
need to do, and hopefully the Russians will concur in this and 
we can do it cooperatively, is to relax a number of the 
restrictions of the ABM Treaty that I believe have prevented us 
from looking adequately at those kinds of options. I am just 
starting to get read into this on a classified basis, but it is 
quite clear to me from what I have seen already that our 
development would have looked very different over the last 10 
years if the ABM Treaty had not been there or if it had been 
modified.
    What we want to do is find the most effective, least 
expensive, and least provocative way of proceeding in this 
direction. I think that is something that hopefully we can 
persuade the Russians and our allies and many other people is 
in their interest as well.
    Chairman Warner. I thank you for that observation and I 
share that. Actually, I was in the Department at the time the 
ABM Treaty was negotiated and happen to have been part of the 
delegation that attended the signing, that ceremony. I was 
there for other purposes.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. It was a different era, was it not, Mr. 
Chairman?
    Chairman Warner. It was a different era. It was May 1972, 
and at that time I was Secretary of the Navy and had finished 
negotiations of the Incidents at Sea agreement which was signed 
the day before the ABM Treaty.
    The point being that, yes, we do need to address 
modifications, amendments, to the ABM Treaty because the Treaty 
does serve, I think, an important role in the architecture, the 
world architecture of arms control agreements. But I think 
progress is being made with the Russians to come to the 
realization that this country has a right to defend itself and 
employ that technology which can be most efficiently and cost 
effectively used to achieve that system.
    Again, I commend the President for his very clear, forceful 
message to the entire world that he is going to protect the 
rights of this country to defend itself and that he will 
pursue, I think, in a diligent way, in consultation with our 
allies, amendments to the ABM Treaty.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I think we are getting more of a bipartisan 
consensus in this country, which is progress.
    Chairman Warner. I think you are correct in that.
    But I do believe that we have to begin to put more focus on 
the sea-based option as a follow-on or an adjunct, whatever 
phraseology you wish, because that gives us in my judgment a 
greater protection of the instruments themselves on the high 
seas from interdiction of the defense system as a part of any 
attack, a limited attack.
    Now, moving on to Secretary Rumsfeld's very important point 
when he was before this committee, he said that this Nation 
needs ``a reasonable exit strategy'' as a precondition for the 
decision to make a military intervention. What definition would 
you apply to ``a reasonable exit strategy''?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. That we can define what our goals are, 
successfully achieve those goals, and then take our forces out. 
I suppose one might--at least that would be what I would 
generally strive to achieve. I suppose there might be a 
situation like the one we used to have in Europe or the one we 
still have in Korea, where ``exit'' is not the right word; it 
is a long-term commitment, but a stable one where you have a 
deterrent force in place.
    But certainly for most of the things we are talking about I 
would hope it is the kind of thing where you can finish the job 
and be done.
    Chairman Warner. Dr. Wolfowitz, that concludes the 
questions from the committee. I think that your responses have 
been very clear. I thank you for your what I perceive as total 
cooperation today. This committee will very shortly gather to 
determine the balance of the confirmation process, but at the 
moment I am optimistic we can conclude it in an expeditious 
manner.
    I thank you very much.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee adjourned.]

    [Prepared questions submitted to Dr. Paul D. Wolfowitz by 
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied 
follow:]

                                               February 23, 2001.  
Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the policy 
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
            Sincerely,
                                   Paul D. Wolfowitz.
cc: Senator Carl Levin,
   Ranking Minority Member.
                                 ______
                                 
                        Questions and Responses
                            defense reforms
    Question. More than 10 years have passed since the enactment of the 
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and 
the Special Operations reforms. From your close association with 
defense issues, you have had an opportunity to observe the 
implementation and impact of those reforms.
    Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
    Answer. The establishment of the unified and specified combatant 
commands, the delineation of responsibilities, and most importantly, 
the focus on ``jointness'' outlined in the Defense Reorganization Act 
of 1986 has enhanced the readiness and warfighting capabilities of the 
U.S. Armed Forces.
    Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense 
reforms have been implemented?
    Answer. These reforms have changed the way the Department of 
Defense works by strengthening the role of the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders, and significantly 
improving the ability of the Department to protect America's security 
and further its vital interests. The reforms have helped improve the 
interaction among the services in conducting military operations by 
making joint operations the norm.
    Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of 
these defense reforms?
    Answer. I would consider each of the goals noted below to be an 
important aspect of these defense reforms. Each one has enhanced the 
ability of the Department of Defense to carry out its assigned 
responsibilities.
    Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms, 
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of 
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian 
control; improving military advice; placing a clear responsibility on 
the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; 
ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with 
their responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of 
strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use 
of defense resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military 
operations and improving the management and administration of the 
Department of Defense.
    Do you agree with these goals?
    Answer. Yes, I support the goals of Congress in enacting the 
reforms of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation.
    Question. Do you anticipate submitting legislative proposals to 
amend Goldwater-Nichols?
    Answer. If confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Defense, I will work 
with the Secretary to review the extent to which the reforms have been 
implemented and the extent to which they have achieved their stated 
goals. As Secretary Rumsfeld has noted, we would consult with Congress 
on any changes that might be appropriate.
    Question. If so, what areas do you plan to address in these 
proposals?
    Answer. It would be premature to offer any thoughts on the question 
at this time.
                             relationships
    Question. What do you see as the relationship between the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense and each of the following?
    The Secretary of Defense
    Answer. If confirmed, it is the Secretary's intent that I act as 
the Department's chief operating officer under the Secretary's 
direction as chief executive officer. It will be my duty to execute the 
policies of the President and the Secretary within the department, and, 
when new direction or guidance is needed, to facilitate the timely, 
accurate, and reasoned presentation to the Secretary of issues that 
require his or the President's consideration.
    Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense
    Answer. My relationship with all other senior officials of the 
Department will, for the most part, be based on the chief operating 
officer role described above. If I am confirmed, I will seek to carry 
out the policies and guidance of the Secretary with respect to actions 
and initiatives of the respective Under Secretaries, and bring to the 
Secretary's attention facts, options, analyses, and recommendations 
from the Under Secretaries when such guidance or direction is needed.
    Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense
    Answer. My relationship with Assistant Secretaries of Defense and 
other senior officials of the Office of the Secretary of Defense would 
be similar to that described above in relation to the Under Secretaries 
of Defense.
    Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
    Answer. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal 
military advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and 
the Secretary of Defense. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with 
the Chairman to assure his full participation in the leadership team of 
the Department of Defense.
    Question. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
    Answer. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has a vital 
role in developing and implementing joint plans, programs, and policies 
for the Services. If confirmed, I anticipate working very closely with 
the Vice Chairman.
    Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments
    Answer. The Secretaries of the Military Departments carry out the 
policies of the President and the Secretary of Defense in their 
respective Military Departments and make recommendations to the 
Secretary and to Congress relating to their Military Departments and 
the Department of Defense. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with 
the Secretaries of the Military Departments. I will assure that they 
are aware of the President's and the Secretary's policies and 
priorities and assist them in contributing to the successful 
development and implementation of effective DOD policies and programs. 
This includes assuring that the recommendations of the Secretaries of 
the Military Departments are brought to the Secretary of Defense and 
that they understand his policies.
    Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services
    Answer. The Chiefs of Staff provide advice to the Secretaries of 
their respective Military Departments and other senior officials, and 
carry out the policies of the Secretaries of their respective Military 
Departments and the Secretary of Defense. My relationship with the 
Service Chiefs will follow the model outlined above, but with the extra 
dimension that my relationship will be in the context of my overarching 
relationship with the Military Departments and the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff.
    Question. The Service Acquisition Executives
    Answer. The Service Acquisition Executives are most directly 
involved with their respective Service Secretaries and the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. In the 
role of chief operating officer of the Department, I will, if 
confirmed, promote the successful involvement of the Service 
Acquisition Executives in the development and execution of the policies 
and initiatives of the Secretary of Defense in the acquisition field.
    Question. The Inspector General
    Answer. As the Department's chief operating officer, I consider it 
my responsibility to support the Department of Defense Inspector 
General (DODIG) in carrying out his or her duties as set forth in the 
Inspector General Act.
                             qualifications
    Question. Section 132 of Title 10, United States Code, provides 
that the duties of the Deputy Secretary of Defense are to be prescribed 
by the Secretary of Defense.
    Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect that 
Secretary Rumsfeld will prescribe for you?
    Answer. In general, if confirmed, I expect to be the chief 
operating officer of the Department while the Secretary fulfills the 
role of the chief executive officer. It will be my duty to execute the 
policies of the President and the Secretary within the Department and, 
where necessary, to present well-reasoned advice when policy must be 
changed or modified. If confirmed, I will endeavor to establish close 
and effective relationships with Congress and to insist that 
responsible officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the 
Military Departments do likewise.
    Question. What background and expertise do you possess that you 
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
    Answer. If confirmed, this will be my third senior position in the 
Department of Defense and the second one that requires confirmation by 
the Senate. I served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Regional Programs from 1977-1980 and as Under Secretary of Defense for 
Policy from 1989-1993. This latter position covered a period of time 
that included the end of the Cold War, the revision of our national 
strategy, and the planning for and conduct of major military operations 
in Panama and the Persian Gulf region. In addition to these positions, 
I have held senior management positions as Assistant Secretary of State 
for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and served as U.S. Ambassador to 
Indonesia, running one of the most important U.S. embassies in Asia. 
Finally, for the last 7 years I have managed a school of international 
affairs that entailed the development of fiscal and academic programs 
for 750 students on campuses in Washington, D.C.; Nanjing, China; and 
Bologna, Italy. The school is a $30 million per year operation. While 
in the job, I also supervised a team that more than doubled the 
school's endowment.
    Question. Do you believe that there are any steps you need to take 
to enhance your expertise to perform the duties of Deputy Secretary of 
Defense?
    Answer. I believe that I have an excellent, general base of 
experience for this position. Without presuming confirmation, I have 
already begun to benefit from excellent information briefings from the 
SASC Staff, various offices within the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense, and the Joint Staff. Courtesy calls with over a dozen members 
of this committee have been invaluable. I believe if confirmed, I am 
ready to assume the duties of the position of Deputy Secretary of 
Defense, which will remain a learning experience, as long as I hold the 
office.
               budgetary impact of contingency operations
    Question. Over the past several years, military units have been 
increasingly deployed to contingency operations around the world. While 
participation in these operations may improve discipline, unit cohesion 
and leadership skills that are not generally possible to develop during 
normal garrison activities, they disrupt operating budgets, cause lost 
training opportunities, and accelerate wear and tear on equipment. 
Additionally, increased OPTEMPO impacts quality of life and could 
jeopardize retention of high-quality people. Finally, unless funded 
through timely emergency supplemental appropriations, they divert funds 
from programs designed for needed readiness or modernization.
    Do you have any ideas as to how to reduce the impact of these 
operations on both near and long-term readiness and modernization 
programs?
    Answer. Near term, contingency operations--regardless of their 
intrinsic merits--can damage readiness by interrupting needed training 
for wartime operations, accelerating wear and tear on equipment, and 
eroding the quality of life of military personnel and their families. 
However, that damage can be minimized through careful management, and 
whatever damage is unavoidable can sometimes be offset by benefits to 
the units participating in these operations. Key to avoiding damage is 
robust funding for readiness accounts, so that readiness needs can be 
met before, during, and after contingency operations. Looking long-
term, damage to modernization programs is best prevented by timely 
funding so that the Department does not have to disrupt procurement and 
RDT&E programs. Especially key is accurate DOD projections of 
operational costs and timely congressional approval of supplemental 
appropriations that are needed for unbudgeted contingency operations.
                     preparation for future threats
    Question. We have heard a great deal recently about the fact that 
Russia no longer poses the threat to U.S. interests that the Soviet 
Union and the Warsaw Pact once did. Because of this, many argue that we 
can continue to cut back on defense spending and force structure beyond 
that which we have already achieved. Recognizing the need for a 
comprehensive examination of our national security requirements, 
Congress passed legislation last year that would make permanent the 
requirement for the Department of Defense to conduct the Quadrennial 
Defense Review (QDR). As a result of the last QDR, the Department 
recommended a reduction in military personnel levels despite the 
recognition that we will continue to engage in numerous peacekeeping 
activities. This, in part, led the National Defense Panel to state that 
``there is insufficient connectivity between the strategy on the one 
hand, and force structure, operational concepts, and procurement 
decisions on the other.''
    Do you believe that the Two Major Theater War scenario continues to 
be the most appropriate basis for determining force structure, 
operational concepts and procurement decisions for U.S. armed forces?
    Answer. Modern history suggests that the United States has often 
faced more than one security contingency at a time. With that history 
in mind, preparations are appropriate. The increasing diversification 
of current and emerging threats requires that we build forces and 
operational concepts aimed at fashioning a new approach to deterrence. 
The manner in which the United States underwrites deterrence--for 
example, how we posture our military to be able to respond to multiple 
contingencies--is an issue of military strategy and operations and the 
adequacy of available resources at the time. This issue will be 
examined in the strategic review.
    Question. Do you believe that the force structure, operational 
concepts, and procurement decisions recommended by the QDR are 
sufficient to provide the capability to engage in overlapping Major 
Theater Wars today, and to prepare for the potential military threats 
of the future?
    Answer. It is important that we shape and prepare the armed forces 
to respond to whatever national security challenges may confront us. We 
must ensure that the military has the tools it needs to fight and win, 
should that be necessary. The technological revolution makes possible 
new forces and concepts of operations that can transform the way we 
fight in the future. These matters will be among those examined in the 
strategic review.
    Question. What are the principal threats to U.S. vital national 
security interests that you believe the Department should examine both 
in the near and long term?
    Answer. The centrifugal forces in world politics have created a 
more diverse and less predictable set of potential adversaries, whose 
aspirations for regional influence and whose willingness to use 
military force will produce challenges to important U.S. interests and 
to those of our friends and allies. Modern technology and its 
proliferation also confront us with an expansion of unconventional 
threats, including nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons, 
missiles, terrorism, and the newer threats against space assets and 
information systems. At the same time, we have traditional 
responsibilities to existing allies in key strategic theaters that 
remain in our vital interests.
    Question. Would you agree that the uncertainty which we face in the 
future requires us to maintain a military which is both strong and 
flexible?
    Answer. In addition to fielding strong, flexible military forces 
for an uncertain future, the United States can help build a new 
national security environment by integrating the economic, 
technological, and diplomatic tools at our disposal, maintaining and 
strengthening our alliances, and promoting continued market and 
democratic reforms around the world. By providing for a military that 
is second-to-none and equipped to meet the newer challenges of the 21st 
century, I believe we can best ensure a peaceful strategic environment 
that advances U.S. national security interests and those of our friends 
and allies. The goal is to assure that our country has the new 
capabilities necessary to deter and defend in this new security 
environment so we are able to contribute to lasting peace and 
stability.
                          readiness indicators
    Question. Over the past several years, the committee has observed 
discrepancies between the readiness reports we receive from the 
Pentagon and the information we receive from the operational forces. 
Many of these discrepancies are attributed to a readiness reporting 
system including the SORTS data which is designed to provide a snapshot 
of the current state of readiness rather than a projection of the 
future.
    If confirmed as the Deputy Secretary of Defense, will you work with 
the Services to try to develop a better system of measuring and 
reporting readiness, including a way to predict future readiness, so 
that we have an adequate understanding of any readiness problems within 
the operational forces?
    Answer. At its core, our readiness reporting system centers on the 
readiness of our forces for high intensity combat operations. While the 
current system is useful, I know that it can be improved, and I support 
efforts to do so. The basic position as developed in this committee and 
others and as outlined by President Bush remains clear: we have an 
urgent need to address any decline in operational readiness.
                             plan colombia
    Question. The United States is heavily involved in resourcing and 
training Colombian security forces that are fighting the growth and 
processing of coca leaves and the transport of refined cocaine. U.S. 
forces are specifically precluded, by policy, from taking a direct part 
in any such operations.
    Do you favor continuing U.S. support for Colombian security forces 
in this effort?
    Answer. The Department's counterdrug programs and policies are 
currently under review. This is a process in which I will participate 
if confirmed. At this point, however, it would be premature on my part 
to comment on this review until it is completed.
    Question. Are you committed to maintaining the policy that 
precludes U.S. forces from taking a direct part in these operations?
    Answer. As with all other Department policies, if confirmed I will 
reserve the right to review the existing policy and make my 
recommendations to the Secretary. However, in principle, I support the 
policy which prohibits DOD personnel from accompanying drug law 
enforcement and foreign military forces on counterdrug field 
operations.
    Question. Would you favor increasing U.S. assistance to the 
countries bordering Columbia to prevent a relocation of coca growth 
elsewhere?
    Answer. U.S. counterdrug policy relative to programs in the region 
is currently under review within the interagency, to include the 
Department of Defense. It would be premature on my part to speculate on 
the outcome of these reviews.
                     maintaining our infrastructure
    Question. The Department of Defense maintains the world's largest 
infrastructure, with a physical plant value exceeding $500 million. It 
is widely acknowledged that much of this infrastructure is in poor 
condition and therefore impacts quality of life and readiness.
    What are the most critical infrastructure issues facing the 
Department of Defense?
    Answer. Our physical plant is too big, too old, and too often in 
poor condition. The Department faces the daunting task of rationalizing 
its infrastructure and finding the resources to properly sustain, 
restore and modernize the facilities and installations we will keep. 
Improving the quality of life and workplaces for our servicemembers and 
their families is critical to readiness and retention. The Department 
believes that it has excess facility capacity and infrastructure in the 
wrong locations. We will address these issues during our planned review 
and the months thereafter.
    Question. The Military Housing Privatization Initiative was enacted 
to provide a means for solving the military services' housing crisis.
    Has the initiative lived up to its expectations? If not, what 
actions would you advocate to assure the success of the program?
    Answer. The Military Housing Privatization Initiative was slow to 
start, but with nine projects now awarded, it has demonstrated that it 
is a powerful and important tool to solve our housing shortfall. 
Enthusiasm is high in the Military Services to do more, but the success 
of the program depends on capturing lessons learned at the initial 
projects and applying them as we move forward.
                         defense health funding
    Question. As you are aware from your current position, the 
Department of Defense has identified a core program shortfall in the 
Defense Health Program of $6 billion from fiscal year 2002-2005. These 
figures do not include any expansion of the Department's capabilities 
or resources to meet the commitment to the over 65 military retiree 
population and their families.
    If confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Defense, how do you plan to 
address this shortfall?
    Answer. Addressing this or any other major program funding 
shortfall will be our task once the DOD strategic review is completed 
and used to set guidelines for future spending. Additionally, however, 
we will be scrutinizing processes and management--including those in 
the Defense Health Program--to make improvements, increase efficiency, 
and save money.
                    aviation modernization programs
    Question. In a recent presentation, the Air Force Chief of Staff 
stated that if all of our current aviation modernization programs 
execute as planned, in 15 years the average age of aircraft in the 
inventory will be 30 years. Specifically there has been much 
speculation that the current tactical aviation modernization plan is 
not affordable.
    Is this a viable program?
    Answer. The requirements and timing of the tactical fighter 
programs are subjects in the on-going review which Secretary Rumsfeld 
has initiated. Although a major investment, the modernization of U.S. 
tactical fighters is of immense importance and deserves careful review.
    Question. With the cost of individual platforms escalating, will we 
ever be able to rejuvenate our fleet of aircraft without a significant 
increase in our modernization budgets?
    Answer. Given the aging of the current fighter force structure, 
replacement aircraft must be procured. Once the review is complete, we 
will be in a position to address the budget necessary to satisfy the 
required future force structure.
    Question. How do you expect the development of unmanned aerial 
vehicles to impact our requirements for manned platforms over this 
period?
    Answer. Our unmanned aerial vehicles have demonstrated their value 
as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets. As the 
quantity and capability of these unmanned systems increase, we expect 
them to pick up more of these roles, complementing our heavily tasked, 
manned intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance fleet. We also have 
technology programs to begin to develop combat roles for unmanned 
aerial vehicles. If the technologies prove successful, these unmanned 
systems will complement our manned combat fleet.
                               readiness
    Question. Over the last few years we have seen increasing evidence 
that the readiness of the U.S. Armed Forces has begun to deteriorate as 
a result of the over-commitment of an under-resourced Department of 
Defense. Whether you look at the comments of Army Training and Doctrine 
Command commanders, the testimony of the Service Chiefs, or reports of 
severe shortages aboard deployed naval vessels, all point to a pending 
readiness crisis. Many have argued that we are approaching a readiness 
death spiral where maintaining today's aging equipment and facilities 
is preventing the modernization necessary to maintain readiness in the 
future.
    What do you view as the major readiness challenges that will have 
to be addressed by the Bush administration, and, if confirmed, how will 
you approach these issues?
    Answer. Our new administration faces a number of readiness 
challenges across the military. These include the classic ``unit 
readiness'' concerns of robust manning, functioning equipment, and 
realistic training so that our military is prepared to defend the vital 
national interests of the United States. Our war fighting commanders 
around the world must have the assets to synchronize and use their 
units in effective joint and coalition forces. This ``joint readiness'' 
requires effective command, control, communications, and computer 
(C\4\) systems; robust intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
(ISR) systems; sufficient lift to mobilize forces and equipment; 
interoperability; and healthy logistics practices and sustainment 
stocks. I believe that the U.S. also needs to be better prepared for 
the growing threats posed by terrorism, weapons of mass destruction 
(WMD), threats to critical information and other infrastructure 
systems, and vulnerable space assets. Some of the more pressing 
concerns lie in the condition of equipment, or more broadly, the 
materiel readiness of the forces. Of particular concern is the 
readiness of our aviation forces. They continue to struggle to overcome 
the ill effects of higher-than-planned use and inadequate parts support 
that have accrued since the end of the Cold War. While increased 
funding in the past 2 years has had some positive effect on materiel 
readiness, there is more work to be done. DOD's equipment is growing 
older, and we will be continually challenged to keep our existing 
forces ready while preparing for the threats of the future. Our 
National Guard and Reserve Forces also have a number of unique 
challenges in meeting their mission requirements upon deployment that 
require our immediate attention. As we undertake a thorough review of 
the National Military Strategy, we will address these concerns.
               readiness supplemental funding requirement
    Question. The military services have provided this committee with a 
list of $4.5 billion in near-term readiness requirements, such as spare 
parts and equipment maintenance, and another $2.5 billion for emergency 
personnel and modernization programs, that they have identified for 
this fiscal year.
    Have you taken a look at the military services fiscal year 2001 
emergency requirements and will the administration submit a 
supplemental budget request to fund these items?
    Answer. I have not studied in detail the service's unfunded fiscal 
year 2001 requirements. The administration's position is that DOD's 
strategic review must be completed before any decision on submitting an 
fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations request is made.
                                vieques
    Question. Over the past 18 months Naval forces deploying from the 
east coast of the United States have been prevented from conducting 
live-fire training on the Navy's training range on Vieques, Puerto 
Rico, which has had a significant impact on the readiness of these 
forces to execute their wartime missions. An agreement was reached with 
the then-Governor of Puerto Rico, and legislation passed to implement 
that agreement, which will provide economic incentives to the people of 
Vieques in return for their cooperation in the restoration of live-fire 
training. Unfortunately, the current Governor has stated that she will 
not abide by the terms of this agreement and that she will insist the 
Navy cease operations immediately.
    If confirmed, what actions will you take to achieve the restoration 
of live-fire training on Vieques?
    Answer. It is my understanding that Vieques is a superior site for 
rehearsing amphibious operations, the only site currently used for 
aerial mine warfare training, and is the only location currently 
available on the east coast where aircraft, naval surface ships, and 
ground forces can employ combined arms training with live ammunition 
under realistic conditions. It is also the only range currently 
available on the east coast that allows the Navy and Marine Corps to 
conduct naval gunfire training. I understand that to date no 
alternative sites, providing the ability to conduct combined arms 
training with live ammunition under realistic conditions, have been 
located. If confirmed, I will work with Secretary Rumsfeld and the 
Department of the Navy to explore all possible options for solutions 
that best meet the national interest.
                  outsourcing of commercial activities
    Question. Do you believe that the military services need to retain 
a core capability to perform certain activities such as equipment 
maintenance, and what approach you take to allocate workloads between 
the public and private sector?
    Answer. The size and composition of DOD's facilities to perform 
equipment maintenance is an important aspect of the overall readiness 
of the Armed Forces. The appropriate balance between government and 
private sector facilities must be struck in a manner that assures the 
equipment employed by the Armed Forces will be ready for use when 
needed. This balance in turn will be affected over time by the nature 
of the technology used in military equipment. A balance will be 
reviewed to assure that capabilities essential to national defense that 
cannot reliably be provided by the private sector will be provided by 
the government sector. Moreover, critical capabilities will be 
maintained in the government sector.
    Question. Do you believe that significant savings can be achieved 
through outsourcing, and if so, do you have any data that would be 
applicable to those activities which you would outsource?
    Answer. I believe significant savings can be achieved by competing 
the Department's non-core activities with the private sector. While 
there has been some debate over the actual magnitude of the savings, 
recent studies have all agreed that savings are substantial. I believe 
specific functions should be identified for study where the most 
potential for savings and efficiency improvement exists. For example, 
past studies indicate base operating support functions achieve above 
average savings. I would review all functional areas to identify and 
target those commercial activities that offer the most promise for 
competition with the private sector.
      commercial vs. military requirements for frequency spectrum
    Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to review the 
Department's total spectrum requirements and ensure that new systems 
are designed to ensure efficient spectrum utilization by the Department 
of Defense?
    Answer. I understand the Department has reviewed its current and 
long-term electromagnetic spectrum needs, and will continue to re-
assess these regularly. The Department has also revised its acquisition 
regulations to mandate more stringent procedures for determining and 
validating, prior to production decision, the requirements for and 
availability of spectrum for all equipment and systems to be utilized 
by the Department. If confirmed, I plan to support these efforts and 
ensure that the Department continues to investigate new technologies 
for the more efficient use of the electromagnetic spectrum such as 
software programmable radio technology.
    Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take if the study 
currently being conducted within the Department of Defense determines 
that there will be a significant cost and operational impact if the 
military services surrender the 1755--1850 MHz band of frequencies?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will need to be thoroughly briefed on the 
study to fully appreciate its findings. The Department will continue to 
work closely with the National Telecommunication and Information 
Administration and the Federal Communications Commission in determining 
the best decision for the Nation, balancing national security and 
economic development, in identifying spectrum for the next generation 
of wireless systems while understanding that the Department's readiness 
must not be comprised. I know that Secretary Rumsfeld assigns a very 
high priority to this. I would also like to acknowledge the tremendous 
support the Department has received from this committee in supporting 
the Department's assured access to the electromagnetic spectrum.
                      base realignment and closure
    Question. The previous administration insisted that another round 
of base closures was needed to streamline the defense budget and to 
shift resources into personnel programs and weapons procurement. 
However, when asked if in the absence of an additional base closure 
round they would provide, for congressional consideration, a list of 
those facilities that they consider excess and eligible for closure, 
they have been unable, or unwilling, to do so.
    Do you believe that we have excess defense facilities and, if so, 
where does this excess capacity exist?
    Answer. See response below.
    Question. Would you recommend additional rounds of base closures?
    Answer. See response below.
    Question. Would you provide a list of those facilities for 
congressional consideration absent the authorization of another round 
of base closure?
    Answer. See response below.
    Question. Would you support another round of BRAC but limited to 
where excess capacity exists?
    Answer. As Secretary Rumsfeld noted in his response to Advance 
Policy Questions from this committee, we will withhold an assessment of 
this issue until after the completion of the defense review.
                           policy toward iraq
    Question. Ten years after the successful conclusion of Operation 
Desert Storm, tens of thousands of U.S. troops remain in the Persian 
Gulf region--at a cost of $1 billion per year--to enforce the current 
U.S. policy of containing Saddam Hussein. Despite our efforts, Saddam 
remains in power in Iraq, his weapons programs unchecked; the 
international coalition that repelled him from Kuwait has virtually 
collapsed; and our friends and allies in Europe and the Gulf region are 
reestablishing diplomatic ties with Iraq.
    What steps do you think the United States should take to 
reinvigorate the international community's efforts to ensure Iraqi 
compliance with the obligations Iraq accepted at the end of the Gulf 
War--particularly those obligations related to disarmament?
    Answer. The administration is in the process of reviewing all the 
elements of U.S. policy toward Iraq. This review will have to address 
whether more can be done to secure Baghdad's compliance with the 
conditions laid down by the United Nations, particularly its obligation 
to foreswear the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. It will also 
have to address the complex task of rebuilding support for an effective 
policy in the region and in the international community.
    Question. What role do you believe the Iraqi opposition can play in 
these efforts?
    Answer. This is an issue that the Iraq policy review now underway 
will have to address. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on it 
at this time.
    Question. Do you believe that sanctions are an effective tool 
against Saddam Hussein?
    Answer. Sanctions can be a part of an effective policy, but they 
are not a substitute for a policy. The administration is reviewing 
whether any adjustments are needed in the U.S. approach to 
administering the sanctions. It is important to remember that the focus 
of the sanctions is not the Iraqi people but preventing Saddam Hussein 
from developing and using weapons of mass destruction against his own 
people or his neighbors, as he has done before.
                    u.s. military presence in bosnia
    Question. Last December marked the 5-year anniversary of the NATO 
military presence in Bosnia. Although reduced from its early high of 
about 60,000 troops, the international community, under NATO 
leadership, today maintains a force of over 20,000 troops in Bosnia, 
almost 4,600 of whom are American. Despite over 5 years of an 
international military presence in Bosnia, we are far from achieving 
the goal of a unified, multi-ethnic nation, as envisioned in the Dayton 
Accords which ended the war. In fact, during the most recent nation-
wide elections in Bosnia, the Nationalists--those who oppose the aims 
of Dayton--made surprising gains.
    What should the United States do to break the stalemate in Bosnia 
and help create the conditions for the withdrawal of U.S. troops?
    Answer. NATO is currently assessing options. It would be 
inappropriate for me to comment further.
    Question. Should we consider a renegotiation of the Dayton Accords?
    Answer. Dayton has served the central purpose of stopping the war. 
The Dayton Accords include procedures for making changes. Whether any 
changes are made is ultimately a matter for the Bosnians themselves to 
decide.
                              north korea
    Question. What is your view of the agreed framework between the 
United States and North Korea?
    Answer. The Agreed Framework is one element of an overall effort by 
the U.S. and its democratic allies, the Republic of Korea and Japan, to 
prevent war and reduce the level of confrontation on the Korean 
Peninsula. It is important to remember that their overall problem is 
not only a nuclear one but also involves a large North Korean 
conventional military threat and a long record of North Korean 
hostility toward the South. The historic summit between Kim Dae-Jung 
and Kim Jong-Il is a significant positive step, but we need to proceed 
with caution. We also need to make sure that North Korea honors its 
commitments as we live up to ours.
    Question. What steps can the United States take to reduce the risks 
from North Korea's weapons proliferation activities?
    Answer. The risks posed by North Korea fall in three areas: the 
potential to build an ICBM capable of hitting U.S. territory; the 
continued domestic deployment of missiles that put our allies at risk; 
and the export of long-range missiles and missile technology to world 
trouble spots that heighten regional tensions. The administration is 
committed to the deployment of an effective national missile defense as 
soon as it is technologically feasible. Given the widespread deployment 
of North Korean derived theater range ballistic missiles and the threat 
those missiles pose to deployed U.S. forces as well as our friends and 
allies, the administration would attach a high priority to the 
development and deployment of effective theater missile defense systems 
in a timely and efficient manner. It is in the U.S. interest that the 
North Koreans terminate their programs and stop exporting missile 
technology to other countries. The administration will pursue that 
objective--the precise means would likely be determined following a 
review of U.S. policy toward North Korea and its proliferation 
policies.
                                 africa
    Question. The Defense Department is currently involved in a number 
of initiatives in Africa to help certain nations be better prepared to 
provide their own regional peacekeeping forces and humanitarian 
missions. The African Crisis Response Initiative and the ongoing 
training of several Nigerian army battalions for peacekeeping duty in 
Sierra Leone are two examples of this policy.
    Do you support such initiatives which are aimed at helping African 
nations be better prepared to respond to a regional crisis?
    Answer. Yes. The current strategy to develop peace operations and 
humanitarian response capacity in Sub-Saharan Africa includes two key 
objectives: to develop defense partnerships with important states, and 
to actively engage sub-regional organizations. One of these important 
states is Nigeria, with whom the U.S. is currently implementing peace 
operations training in support of UNAMSIL in Sierra Leone (Operation 
Focus Relief, or OFR).
                            export controls
    Question. The domestic satellite industry has complained that it 
has lost a significant amount of market share, and billions of dollars, 
as a result of the satellite licensing provisions that were enacted as 
part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.
    What is your view of these complaints?
    Answer. Let me start by saying that the satellite industry is an 
important industry for national defense. We must ensure that government 
processes are not unnecessarily impeding legitimate exports of 
satellites that provide the critical revenues for the industry to 
continue to invest in advancing the state of the art. The satellite 
industry itself has released information suggesting that competitive 
pressures facing the industry are the result of a number of factors 
including launch failures, competition from land-based communications 
systems, and growing capabilities of foreign suppliers. All of these 
factors must be reviewed in the course of establishing an appropriate 
policy on the export of satellites. National security must always be of 
paramount consideration.
    Question. Do you believe that Congress should revisit the issue of 
how we license exports of satellite technology?
    Answer. I believe that the administration will be examining this 
issue carefully (including any statutory or regulatory changes that 
might be required), and will consult closely with Congress as this 
review proceeds. Any review must be undertaken in a manner that 
preserves fundamental national security interests.
    Question. Over the past 2 years, 16 ambassadors from NATO countries 
have written to the Secretary of State expressing their deep 
frustration with the U.S. export control system. Deputy Secretary of 
Defense Hamre initiated an effort to streamline export control process 
without weakening controls. What is your view of Secretary Hamre's 
reforms?
    Do you believe that further streamlining is required?
    Answer. The administration will be reviewing this issue.
    Question. What policies and procedures do you believe need to be 
changed in the export license control process that would reflect the 
right balance between national security and commercial interests?
    Answer. Exports of sensitive high technology affect U.S. national 
security interests in many ways. First, we must protect our military 
personnel and our security interests by ensuring that sensitive 
technologies are not exported to potential adversaries or to foreign 
entities that represent a significant diversion risk. Second, we must 
have sensible and effective policies and procedures to ensure that 
appropriate transfers of military and commercial systems and 
technologies that support our coalition warfighting objectives are 
permitted. Finally, we must be mindful that the U.S. is not the only 
country with advanced military and commercial technology. Efforts to 
control exports can sometimes become counterproductive if they weaken 
American technical capacity without protecting truly critical 
technologies. Thus, we need to work aggressively with our allies and 
friends to ensure that our policies and approaches toward the export of 
such technologies meet our mutual security interests. The Department of 
Defense has an essential role to play in designing export control 
policies and implementing the principles I have outlined. We will be 
working closely with Congress and the other Executive Departments on 
these important matters.
    Question. Do you believe the Department of Defense should play a 
greater role in the export licensing process than it currently does in 
determining whether sensitive technologies should be exported overseas?
    Answer. The Defense Department must play a strong role in the 
export control policy process. Defense has a tremendous amount of 
technical expertise in the export control area and should have the 
ability to apply these assets to the overall export control process. I 
will be reviewing whether there are specific changes that should be 
proposed concerning DOD participation in these processes.
    Question. What critical military technologies do you believe the 
United States should not license for export overseas and why?
    Answer. There are obviously a number of critical military and dual-
use systems and technologies that must be export controlled to preserve 
U.S. military technological advantages and to ensure that these items 
do not fall into the wrong hands. This is a changing picture as 
military capabilities advance and technology become diffuse worldwide. 
We must ensure that we have a system in place that regularly reviews 
the specifics to make sure that we are controlling the most important 
items and that we are not controlling items that cannot be effectively 
controlled because of widespread availability.
    Question. Senator Gramm recently reintroduced his bill to 
reauthorize the Export Administration Act. Senator Gramm has 
characterized his bill as an effort to build a higher fence around a 
smaller number of items, the export of which would have a detrimental 
impact on our national security. Others have expressed concern that the 
bill does not pay sufficient attention to national security concerns.
    What is your view of Senator Gramm's bill?
    Answer. I have not studied the bill but will do so as soon as 
possible.
    Question. Do you support the reauthorization of the Export 
Administration Act?
    Answer. It is my understanding that the administration is in the 
process of reviewing the bill and will have some comments soon.
                technological capabilities of terrorists
    Question. A key disadvantage of the proliferation of information 
technology is that potential and acknowledged adversaries can now 
gather data, imagery, and intelligence updates from many of the same 
sources and means that the U.S. military uses. Keeping a step ahead of 
these capabilities is a great concern for this committee.
    What would you propose the Department of Defense do to address this 
concern?
    Answer. While greater access to multiple sources of data has many 
advantages for the U.S., it is also true that our adversaries can use 
commercial imagery and other burgeoning information technologies to 
monitor and target U.S. interests. While we cannot prevent commercial 
capabilities from becoming more sophisticated and widespread, we do 
have the ability, with the proper blend of resources, personnel and 
processes, to enhance the likelihood that the U.S. will continue to 
maintain the information advantage it needs. Furthermore, the control 
of certain technologies remains an issue of significant concern to the 
Department. We will continue to review each export license request and 
appropriately apply conditions and provisos to those licenses to 
protect our national security interests. The Secretary has made it 
clear that information superiority is one of his top priorities. If 
confirmed, I intend to fully support these efforts.
    Question. According to the Department of Defense's most recent 
annual report to Congress entitled ``Worldwide NBC Weapons and Missile 
Threat'', ``technology to improve the delivery of nuclear, biological, 
and chemical weapons is becoming more advanced and in some cases more 
available. Some countries are focused on the production of better 
missile guidance and control mechanisms and countermeasures to defeat 
ballistic missile defense systems.''
    What options should the Department of Defense pursue to address the 
threat posed by this growing capability?
    Answer. The Department of Defense needs to continue to support U.S. 
Government nonproliferation efforts intended to prevent or reverse the 
proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, their means 
of delivery, and associated technologies. It needs to press ahead with 
its counterproliferation programs to ensure that U.S. forces are 
prepared to fight and win in chemical and biological weapons 
environments. It must develop and deploy missile defenses that are 
effective against current and emerging ballistic missile threats. We 
also must strive to build stronger international non-proliferation 
regimes and simultaneously look for opportunities for cooperative 
programs with like-minded Defense Ministries.
                   cooperative threat reduction (ctr)
    Question. Last month Secretary Rumsfeld told the committee that 
``we need to be aware of the fact that Russia, in particular, claims to 
lack the financial resources to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, 
but continues to invest scarce resources in the development of newer, 
more sophisticated ICBMs and other weapons. We would not want the U.S. 
investment in the [DOD] CTR program to become the means by which Russia 
frees up resources to finance its military modernization programs. A 
review of ongoing [DOD] CTR projects and their respective national 
security benefits would be appropriate.''
    What are the most important factors that should be considered 
during this review?
    Answer. The most important factor for this review should be the 
extent to which the assistance provided to the eligible states of the 
former Soviet Union enhances the security of the United States. Each 
eligible state is unique and that will also be an important 
consideration. Russia is the only eligible state that is permitted by 
international treaty to retain and modernize its nuclear forces. 
Therefore, an important factor for review should be whether the 
Department's CTR program is structured to prevent support for Russian 
military modernization programs.
    Question. Do you agree that the CTR program serves the U.S. 
national interests by reducing the threat from former Soviet weapons of 
mass destruction?
    Answer. Certainly the elimination of former Soviet strategic and 
tactical nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles that the CTR 
program has funded has benefited U.S. national security. As the 
previous answer indicates, we need to monitor the details of 
implementation to insure that those purposes continue to be achieved.
                           reserve components
    Question. Although the Department of Defense is committed to the 
``Total Force,'' as recently demonstrated by the deployment of the 49th 
Armored Division of the Texas Army National Guard to Bosnia, there is 
concern among the Reserve community that this commitment to the ``Total 
Force'' is only ``lip service.'' Those who question the Department's 
support of the Reserve components point out the Reserves do not receive 
an appropriate share of the defense budget for modernization and 
military construction. A specific issue was that the fiscal year 2000 
military construction program. While the request for the National Guard 
amounted to about 3 percent of its critical needs, the active-component 
funding request covered nearly 20 percent of their critical needs.
    What role should our Reserve components have in the post-Cold War 
era?
    Answer. Over the last several years, the National Guard and 
Reserves have been transformed from a Cold War force held in Reserve to 
an essential force serving in the ``front lines'' daily. For example, 
during each of the past 5 years, Reserve component personnel have 
performed between 12.5 and 13.5 million workdays per year supporting 
the active force. The Total Force Policy is now a fundamental principle 
guiding the restructuring and reorientation of our Nation's military 
forces. At the same time, though, we must be careful not to place too 
much of the burden of our national security objectives on the Guard and 
Reserve. These are immensely capable forces that play a critical but 
well-defined role in our force structure. As such, the role of our 
Reserve components will be examined, along with our other Armed Forces, 
during the review of the overall defense strategy.
    Question. Do you believe the Reserve components are fully 
integrated into the ``Total Force?'' If not, what further steps should 
be taken to make the integration a reality?
    Answer. The integration of the Reserve components has improved 
steadily. Although barriers to full integration into the Total Force 
have been reduced or eliminated, work remains. For example, quality of 
life programs are needed to recruit and retain Reserve component 
forces. We need to work together to address employers' concerns and 
provide family support programs.
    Question. What should be the basis for level of funding in the 
administration's budget request for the Reserve components?
    Answer. Keeping the required force trained and ready remains our 
top priority. The basis for the level of funding for the Reserve 
components in the administration's budget request should be based on 
the readiness requirements placed on the Reserve components by the 
National Military Strategy, the ongoing strategic review being 
undertaken by Secretary Rumsfeld at the President's direction, the 
fiscal year 2001 QDR, and other missions assigned by the Services. The 
Reserve components should then be resourced to ensure interoperability 
to meet the requirements identified by those mandates.
    Question. Due to the leaner Active Duty military and greater number 
of operational commitments, the Department of Defense has increasingly 
called on the Reserves and National Guard. In 1989, reservists and 
members of the Guard recorded one million days of duty. In each of the 
past 3 years, that figure has averaged 13 million days. This increased 
workload has had an impact on the individual reservist and on his 
civilian employer. As a result, retention and recruiting are impacted 
and in extreme cases the relationship between the reservist and his 
employer.
    In your judgement, is it realistic to expect the Reserve components 
to assume an increasing role in operational deployments and in the 
``Total Force'' without adverse impact on their civilian jobs?
    Answer. The Reserve Forces are a major and integral part of our 
National Defense team. The key to their effective use is maintaining 
the proper balance of utilizing their capabilities without overusing 
any specific segment of the force. We will endeavor to seek a level of 
participation for our reservists that maximizes the investments made in 
their training and equipping while mediating the potential for 
inadvertent harm done by their overuse.
    Question. What can the Department do to mitigate the impact of 
increasing Reserve deployments on the civilian employers?
    Answer. The key to mitigating the impact of Reserve component 
deployments on civilian employers is early notification, a predictable 
return of the Reserve component member, and not calling upon the same 
individual too often. We will continue to improve our ability to return 
reservists from deployments when they are scheduled to return. Work 
needs to be done to ensure that the force structure contains sufficient 
high demand units so the same reservists are not used too frequently.
    Question. The Reserve components represent a great asset to our 
Nation as they support the National military strategy while also 
serving to link our military forces to hometown populations where they 
serve. These forces also provide state governments with a critical 
ability to respond to natural disasters and are available to be the 
first responders to homeland defense mission requirements. 
Unfortunately, a significant portion of these forces appear to be 
improperly structured as there are a number of medium and heavy 
divisions in the Reserve components that have not been required or 
assigned to support warfighting requirements. These forces are 
similarly not equipped to properly support state missions. Tanks and 
mechanized infantry units are of little utility to governors who need 
these forces to respond to natural disasters. Modernizing these forces 
with combat support and combat service support equipment appears to be 
the most appropriate course to follow but would require Department of 
Defense oversight and a significant investment in resources.
    How do you believe this issue should be addressed and what will you 
do to restructure our Reserve components to be in a better position to 
support both Federal and state mission requirements?
    Answer. The National Guard and Reserve Forces play an essential 
role within today's force in supporting the day-to-day operations, at 
home and abroad. It is also my understanding that today's Guard and 
Reserve Force structure provides a significant portion of the Total 
Force's combat support/combat service support capability, which 
coincidentally, is also likely to be needed to help mitigate the 
consequences of a domestic Weapons of Mass Destruction event. While we 
anticipate that the Guard and Reserve will continue to play an 
important role in supporting our homeland security for the reasons you 
have articulated, it is important to note that the President and his 
key national security advisors are in the process of developing a new 
National Security Strategy. The President has already asked the 
Secretary of Defense to be prepared to undertake appropriate actions to 
reshape and restructure our force to meet that strategy. Therefore, it 
would be premature to predict with any precision what changes in 
structure are appropriate at this time.
                       privatization of services
    Question. The Department is relying increasingly on the private 
sector to provide critical services. Among the most significant 
privatization efforts are the areas of military family housing and 
utility systems.
    What are your views on the ever-increasing reliance by the 
Department of Defense on the private sector to provide essential 
services to our military personnel?
    Answer. I believe the Department should seek out private sector 
performance for non-core functions where they are more cost effective 
and efficient.
    Question. If you support additional privatization of defense 
activities, what are they?
    Answer. Following the success of housing and utility privatization, 
other defense activities should be reviewed as possible privatization 
candidates. This is an issue that, if confirmed, I will have to study 
in further detail.
    Question. Although initial privatization efforts have resulted in 
near term savings, there is concern that over the long term there will 
be no savings.
    What are your expectations of the long term benefits from these 
privatization initiatives?
    Answer. All of our privatization efforts require analysis of life 
cycle savings to ensure they benefit the government over the long term. 
My understanding is that analysis of specific competitive sourcing 
competitions indicates that initial savings do, in fact, hold up over 
the life of the contract. In addition to savings, privatization 
supports the rapid infusion of best business practices, and attracts 
private sector capital to augment Department resources.
                           management issues
    Question. During your tenure as Deputy Secretary, what key 
management performance goals do you want to accomplish, and how would 
this committee be able to judge whether you have accomplished them?
    Answer. If confirmed, I plan to work with Secretary Rumsfeld to 
establish key management performance goals. At this point, it would be 
premature for me to offer specific performance initiatives, but in 
general, one of our primary goals should be to hire, support, and 
retain military and civilian personnel with the necessary skills to 
meet our mission needs. As we establish our goals, we must carefully 
consider the results of our ongoing strategic reviews as well as the 
QDR process, and look to closely tie DOD's strategic plans to our 
desired mission outcome. We also need to establish financial management 
operations that provide reliable information and foster accountability. 
Finally, we must look to reform our acquisition processes, establishing 
business practices that are more efficient and effective. I look 
forward to working with this committee and Congress as we strive to 
reduce or eliminate bureaucratic redundancies in the Department of 
Defense and streamline our management practices.
    Question. To successfully lead an organization, a leader must be 
able to create and share a vision that inspires people to follow.
    In your past experience, what specific steps have you taken to 
successfully create a vision for an organization, and how did you make 
sure that the entire organization had a common understanding of the 
mission and was aligned so that it could be accomplished?
    Answer. In previous questions and in many documents supplied to the 
committee, I have outlined my work history and the many organizations 
that I have run. I have always believed that the importance of 
leadership and management jobs is measured not by the title but by the 
results that the whole organization achieves. Perhaps most telling in 
the area of establishing a vision were my positions as Under Secretary 
for Policy, and my work as Dean at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced 
International Studies (SAIS), The Johns Hopkins University. In OSD 
Policy from 1989-1993, I redrew the organization, picked new people, 
and held numerous team building sessions to drive home my vision for 
how policy would operate. I don't want to say that my team did it all 
alone. Indeed, working closely with Congress, the Military Departments, 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and our allies were integral parts of our 
standard operating procedures. I hope that the results--a new strategy 
and force structure, success in the Gulf War and in Panama, improved 
relations with our allies, highly successful arms control initiatives, 
and a whole set of new defense relationships with former adversaries--
validated my approach. At SAIS, I followed the same organizational 
strategies and was very pleased with the results--we doubled the goal 
for the school's 5-year capital campaign, focused it on the school's 
top priorities and then reached our goal in 2\1/2\ years (eventually 
reaching almost four times the original goal by the end of the 
campaign). Through a combined team effort, we were able to not only 
achieve significant increases in the school's endowment, but also 
created new and up-to-date programs, better faculty, improved 
facilities, and improved communications with the central university 
administration in Baltimore. In both cases, the keys to success were 
setting sensible objectives that could inspire support, clear 
communications, good people, and lots of hard work. I agree strongly 
with someone who once said that good government is a team sport. If 
confirmed by the Senate, that is the spirit I will bring to my duties 
as Deputy Secretary of Defense.
    Question. What steps do you intend to take to accomplish these 
objectives at the Department of Defense?
    Answer. As noted above, it would be premature for me to offer 
specific performance initiatives at this time. If confirmed, I will 
work with Secretary Rumsfeld to establish key management performance 
goals. I look forward to working with this committee and Congress as we 
move ahead.
    Question. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) is 
intended to provide managers with a disciplined approach--developing a 
strategic plan, establishing annual goals, measuring performance, and 
reporting on the results--for improving the performance and internal 
management of an organization.
    What are your views on this law and your experience with it, as 
well as your preliminary ideas on how this law might be implemented?
    Answer. Congress enacted GPRA in 1993 to strengthen performance 
management within the Federal Government. At the time GPRA was enacted, 
most Federal agencies did not routinely use strategic planning or 
performance management to shape resource decisions. DOD was a major 
exception, having relied for more than four decades on the Planning, 
Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) to guide program development 
and resource-allocation decisions. The PPBS is well aligned, in 
structure and intent, with the results-oriented mandate of GPRA. 
Instead of introducing a new data reporting or management system to 
implement GPRA, DOD has elected to use GPRA reporting to provide an 
executive-level overview of how the Secretary employs PPBS performance 
objectives to manage the Department's resources.
    Question. Are you familiar with the strategic plan, annual 
performance plans, annual accountability report, and financial 
statements of the Department of Defense?
    Answer. Yes, I'm familiar with these plans and reports, which are 
an important part of communicating the President's and the Secretary's 
priorities to the Department, Congress, and in a larger sense, to the 
American people. GPRA requires each Federal agency to produce a 
strategic plan every 3 years, to submit a performance plan with each 
budget, and to publish a performance report at the end of each budget 
year, summarizing progress in implementing the performance plan. In the 
case of DOD, Congress subsequently passed legislation establishing the 
Report on the Quadrennial Defense Review as DOD's strategic plan. DOD's 
annual performance plans and reports are structured to track progress 
in executing the defense strategy. In the next month or 2, the 
Department will forward its fiscal year 2000 performance report to 
Congress. If confirmed, I will give it close attention.
    Question. What do you consider to be the most important priorities 
and challenges facing DOD as it strives to achieve these management 
goals?
    Answer. Fundamentally, I believe the Department has effective 
processes in place for developing its strategic plan, establishing 
goals and measuring performance, and reporting the results. The 
challenge is to make sure that the substantive results of those 
processes reflect the true needs of U.S. national security in the 21st 
century and that goals are clearly articulated. Overall, the quality of 
the data we use to monitor performance has allowed us to measure and 
report our progress in meeting annual goals. In those cases where data 
is lacking, we are working to improve the underlying data support 
systems. Over the past several years, the Department has worked closely 
with Congress, the General Accounting Office, and the DOD Inspector 
General to enhance the performance of its internal management systems. 
In that process, several challenges have been identified, including the 
effective management of information technology investments and the need 
to streamline and improve the efficiency of financial management 
systems. The Secretary has made the modernization of these financial 
management systems one of his priorities, and I certainly support that 
objective.
    Question. What changes, if any, do you feel might be necessary in 
these plans?
    Answer. With the change of administration, the Department will 
revise its strategic plan and annual performance plans to reflect the 
priorities of President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld as informed in the 
ongoing strategic reviews. We will continue to work with Congress as we 
present future GPRA strategic plans, performance plans, and performance 
reports to ensure that our GPRA activities reflect a full and effective 
implementation of the law.
    Question. What are your views on the importance and role of 
financial information in managing operations and holding managers 
accountable?
    Answer. These are immensely important. Accurate financial 
information is critical to evaluating outputs, services, costs, 
efficiency, productivity, and other essential management indicators. 
Such information is a vital tool for holding managers accountable.
    Question. How would you address a situation in which you found that 
reliable, useful, and timely financial information was not routinely 
available for these purposes?
    Answer. I would move decisively to improve the system or get a 
different one that works. It is my understanding that given the 
financial challenges we are facing, systems will need to be replaced 
over time.
    Question. What is your view of the importance and role of internal 
controls (i.e., management controls) in ensuring the reliability of 
financial information?
    Answer. Internal controls are very important. Their most critical 
role is to hold managers accountable for results and the wise use of 
resources. Also, these controls are essential to ensuring the proper 
allocation, disbursement, and accounting of funds and to prevent waste, 
fraud, and abuse.
    Question. How would you determine whether the Department has in 
place the key information management processes required by law, 
including a detailed architecture, an investment control process, and 
appropriate information security plans?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will look to the DOD Chief Information 
Officer to advise the Secretary and me on what information management 
initiatives are currently in place and what additional steps need to be 
taken to ensure that information technology investments are consistent 
with plans, process change requirements, architectures, and other 
information management guidance. I believe that the Department already 
has laid the foundation for a structured and systematic process for 
determining whether the key information management processes required 
by law are in place.
    Question. What role do you envision you would play in managing or 
providing oversight over these processes?
    Answer. As I indicated above, if confirmed I will look to the DOD 
Chief Information Officer to provide guidance for DOD information 
management and to spearhead the coordination of information technology 
activities across the Department. As such, I intend to fully support 
the DOD Chief Information Officer in these and other information 
technology management efforts.
    Question. How would you go about implementing or improving these 
processes?
    Answer. It would be premature for me to make any recommendations 
until I have had more time to study this area. However, if confirmed I 
intend to work closely with the DOD Chief Information Officer and other 
senior leaders in the Department to identify opportunities to improve 
existing information technology and management processes, and to 
achieve those improvements.
    Question. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 
envisions that agencies will link their human capital planning with 
their strategic and annual plans.
    Can you describe your experience in building and maintaining the 
human capital needed to achieve results (getting the right employees 
for the job and providing the training, structure, incentives, and 
accountability to work effectively)?
    Answer. Attracting the right people, matching ``faces with 
spaces,'' ensuring professional development, and rewarding outstanding 
performance have been essential parts of every management job that I 
have ever held. Indeed, I believe that recruiting the right people for 
the right jobs and motivating them to perform are the most important 
keys to effective management. In government and in the academic world, 
where I have managed medium to large organizations, there are fewer 
tangible incentives to offer for performance and less flexibility to 
hire and fire. That means that one has to pay more attention, not less, 
to how you motivate people and provide as much intangible job 
satisfaction as possible, most importantly by empowering capable 
performers and entrusting them with meaningful responsibilities. Given 
our tight labor market, the Department of Defense's senior leadership 
and personnel managers will have to become more people-centric and 
rethink our incentive structure. If confirmed by the Senate, I pledge 
to make personnel issues--military and civilian--a central concern for 
senior departmental management.
    Question. The DOD workforce has undergone significant downsizing in 
the past several years, and with the current tight labor market, it is 
becoming increasingly difficult to attract and retain talent.
    How would you work to attract and retain individuals with the 
experience, education, and skills needed throughout the Department of 
Defense?
    Answer. The issues facing DOD in recruiting, developing, and 
retaining an excellent civilian workforce require a multi-faceted 
approach. I believe we begin by determining carefully what future 
workforce needs will be. Armed with that information, we need to 
strengthen or put into place the appropriate accession and retention 
strategies, including policies, legislation, and compensation. We also 
need to offer development opportunities, both as key accession and 
retention tools and as insurance that we are growing the cadre of 
leaders and managers necessary to implement our Defense strategy. 
Finally, we must continue to manage the workforce transition 
effectively.
    Question. To become a high-performance organization, an agency 
needs senior leaders who are drivers of continuous improvement.
    What is your approach to motivating career employees to achieve 
excellence?
    Answer. Career civil servants represent the core of operations, as 
they provide the continuity and institutional knowledge that support 
all of our military operations. Therefore, I believe in recognizing 
that value and rewarding excellence. One of the most important things 
is to communicate clearly the importance of the mission and an 
understanding of how their work contributes to the mission. Another way 
of doing so is to provide the education and training necessary to meet 
the increasingly complex mission. If confirmed, I will review existing 
education and training programs to ensure that they give current and 
prospective leaders the tools they need to manage effectively in the 
highly complex Defense environment. I will also make every effort to 
ensure that our career employees are appropriately compensated for all 
they do and would encourage public recognition of excellence.
                         science and technology
    Question. The Department of Defense Science and Technology program 
is at a 20-year low. The Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization 
Bill for Fiscal Year 1999 established the goal of increasing the budget 
for the defense science and technology program by at least 2 percent 
over inflation for each of the fiscal years 2000 to 2008. This goal has 
not been met in the fiscal year 2000 nor the fiscal year 2001 budget 
request submitted by President Clinton. In President-elect Bush's 
speech at the Citadel he spoke of his support for a strong and stable 
technology base.
    If confirmed, how will you reflect this support in the defense 
budget?
    Answer. One of my goals will be to fund the Science and Technology 
(S&T) program at a level adequate to ensure the technological 
superiority of our armed forces. A downsized military needs a 
technological edge now more than ever. President Bush has committed to 
increasing defense R&D by at least $20 billion between fiscal years 
2001-2006. The S&T accounts should receive a substantial share of this 
increase.
    Question. The defense laboratories are facing a future of continued 
reductions in research and support personnel. This trend, if unchecked, 
could result in a loss of ``critical mass'' in research efforts across 
a number of areas critical to future programs. This situation is 
further complicated by the fact that in the current economy the 
Department is vying with industry for the best and the brightest high 
tech personnel, but is unable to compete on salary and quality of work. 
Finally, the process for hiring can take up to 18 months as opposed to 
direct hiring in industry.
    If confirmed, how will you attract and retain scientists and 
engineers in the Department of Defense?
    Answer. This is an important issue, central to transformation. 
Unfortunately, I do not yet know enough about it to give you a complete 
answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that attracting and retaining 
scientists and engineers is a key priority of the Department of 
Defense.
                             modernization
    Question. Last fall, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 
if the Department were to execute just the current procurement plans, 
at the rates included in the approved acquisition strategy, that an 
additional $30 billion a year would be required in the procurement 
accounts alone.
    Do you agree that the procurement accounts are not executable 
unless there is an infusion of additional funds?
    Answer. The CBO estimate is based on the assumption that the 
currently approved plans are appropriate. The ongoing defense review 
directed by Secretary Rumsfeld will specify where shortfalls lie and 
what must be done to address those shortfalls. If confirmed, I will 
actively support that review.
    Question. Do you believe that significant changes are needed in the 
Department's current procurement plans?
    Answer. See previous answer.
    Question. If confirmed, how do you intend to address this 
shortfall, if it in fact exists?
    Answer. The aforementioned review of the U.S. national security 
strategy will result in consideration of which capabilities to 
modernize, upgrade or replace with new technology. Properly conducted, 
this process would address the Department's procurement plans.
    Question. Even if all of the current aircraft modernization 
programs execute as planned, the average age of the tactical, 
strategic, and tanker fleet will increase. Aging aircraft require ever-
increasing maintenance, but even with these increasing maintenance 
costs, readiness levels continue to decline.
    How can both the maintenance of the legacy force and the 
modernization efforts be affordable at anywhere near the current budget 
levels?
    Answer. I look at Secretary Rumsfeld's ongoing defense review as 
the first step to addressing these issues. That review should clarify 
the appropriate balance between legacy forces and modernization 
efforts.
                   department of defense organization
    Question. In the 50 years of DOD's existence, there has grown up a 
substantial bureaucracy, much of which duplicates functions in the 
military departments.
    In your opinion, are there areas where functions should be 
centralized in DOD, at the expense of the military departments, or 
should functions be devolved from DOD to those departments? Please give 
examples.
    Answer. Without a more careful internal review, it would be 
premature for me at this point to offer any thoughts on administrative 
restructuring. If confirmed, I will work with Secretary Rumsfeld and 
the Service Secretaries to identify redundancies in our bureaucratic 
infrastructure and to streamline our operations where possible.
                            major challenges
    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting 
the next Deputy Secretary of Defense?
    Answer. We will need to consider a number of issues in evaluating 
our National Security Strategy and National Military Strategy. Our goal 
is to assure that our country has the new capabilities necessary to 
deter threats and defend our national security interests and contribute 
to peace and stability. This will involve transforming our U.S. 
military into a 21st century force, modernizing the intelligence and 
command, control, and communications infrastructure, and reforming DOD 
structures, processes, and organizations. In addition, our new 
capabilities and readiness must be sustainable. Balancing limited 
resources--even in an atmosphere of projected budget surpluses--is 
always a challenge. Properly outfitting our forces today, while at the 
same time ensuring we sustain robust modernization for the future, will 
be a key challenge for the new administration. Specific quality of life 
issues--such as morale, recruiting and retention, health care and 
benefits--will also be important.
    Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these 
challenges?
    Answer. These issues and others will be considered in the defense 
review and the QDR. Through these reviews, we will examine priorities 
and consider the fiscal implications associated with those priorities.
                         most serious problems
    Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in 
the performance of the functions of the Department of Defense?
    Answer. As Secretary Rumsfeld has noted, institutional change 
across the board--in the executive branch, the legislative branch, the 
private sector, as well as our allies--will present a great challenge. 
If confirmed, I plan to work with Secretary Rumsfeld to establish key 
management performance goals and to reduce or eliminate bureaucratic 
redundancies in the Department of Defense and streamline our management 
practices.
    Question. What management actions and time lines would you 
establish to address these problems?
    Answer. It is too early to establish time lines. If confirmed, I 
look forward to working with this committee and Congress as we address 
current problems in the Department of Defense.
                        congressional oversight
    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information.
    Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before 
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views, 
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as the Deputy Secretary of 
Defense?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
             Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
                           overseas presence
    1. Senator Thurmond. The United States maintains a significant 
number of forces in forward deployed locations such as Europe and South 
Korea. With the end of the Cold War and ongoing peace initiatives on 
the Korean Peninsula, what is the justification for keeping the large 
number of forces forward deployed?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Although the Cold War has ended and tensions on the 
Korean Peninsula have begun to lessen, forward-deployed U.S. forces in 
Europe, South Korea, and elsewhere continue to serve a number of vital 
national purposes. Our forces in Europe not only ensure the continuing 
security and stability of this critical region, they are also well 
postured to respond to crises both in Europe and in adjoining regions 
such as the Middle East.
    Despite some lessening of tensions on the Korean Peninsula, North 
Korea remains a significant military threat to South Korea. U.S. forces 
in South Korea and elsewhere in Northeast Asia represent a powerful 
deterrent to North Korean aggression and, should deterrence fail, would 
constitute a critical element of the initial response to that 
aggression. Moreover, as with our forces in Europe, our forces in 
Northeast Asia provide broader benefits. They demonstrate our ongoing 
security commitment to the region, underwrite regional stability, and 
provide rapid response to crises throughout Asia.

                       most significant challenge
    2. Senator Thurmond. Unlike the period of the Cold War, the United 
States Armed Forces are facing the challenges of a world that is 
politically and economically unstable and unpredictable. In view of 
this uncertain future what in your personal views will be the most 
significant challenge facing the U.S. Armed Forces in the next 10 
years?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The most pressing challenge we face in the next 10 
years will be ensuring our men and women in uniform have the 
wherewithal they need to address the threats of a new security 
environment, in which a more diverse, less predictable set of potential 
adversaries will seek to challenge the strategic interests of the 
United States and of our allies. Maintaining a capable and flexible 
force appropriate for this environment will require us to address 
issues ranging from recruitment and quality of life concerns to the 
expansion of unconventional threats brought by the proliferation of 
modern technology, including nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) 
weapons, missiles, terrorism and newer threats against space assets and 
information systems.

                          junior rotc programs
    3. Senator Thurmond. As you may be aware, I am very interested in 
the Junior ROTC program. While the primary purpose of the program is to 
develop good citizens, there are tangible benefits to our Nation's 
Armed Forces. Statistics show that more than 40 percent of the students 
who graduate from the Junior ROTC program choose some form of military 
service.
    Although I have expressed my goal to enhance the program to 
Secretary Rumsfeld, I want to make you aware of my interest in the 
program and would appreciate your views regarding Junior ROTC?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. In his February 21 letter to you, Secretary Rumsfeld 
underscored his support for the Junior ROTC program and reported the 
intent to look into expansion during the Department's forthcoming 
defense review. I agree that JROTC is a great way to improve the 
citizenship of America's high school youth, while helping students and 
faculty better understand and appreciate their armed forces.

                           dod transformation
    4. Senator Thurmond. Our services are undergoing or are planning 
major transformation to meet the challenges posed by threats of 
spreading technologies, increased nationalism, and weapons of mass 
destruction. In your personal view, why has it taken this long to begin 
the transformation and are these changes looking far enough into the 
future to be effective against emerging threats?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Implementing rapid transformation of the world's 
premier fighting force is difficult absent a compelling case for how 
and why the future security environment demands such change. It is a 
difficult challenge to balance this transformation with our nearer-term 
readiness concerns. As a greater consensus emerges on future security 
challenges, the pace of transformation should accelerate. The means to 
measure progress toward transformation goals are also required in order 
to manage the allocation of resources appropriately. It is our goal to 
achieve a clearer articulation of emerging challenges in the context of 
the current strategy review. The metrics for measuring success should 
follow closely. We must carefully look at process changes that will 
bring new transformed capabilities to the field more rapidly.

                               key issues
    5. Senator Thurmond. Your experience and knowledge regarding the 
Department of Defense and Congress will serve you well during your 
tenure as Deputy Secretary of Defense.
    Based on that experience and on the needs of our Armed Forces, what 
is the one key issue that you would like to resolve before you leave 
office?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I have no single issue that will animate my work in 
the Department. Rather, I will focus my efforts on helping Secretary 
Rumsfeld attain the President's three major goals for the Defense 
Department:

         First, to strengthen the bond of trust with the 
        American military;
         Second, to develop the capabilities to defend against 
        missiles, terrorists and the complex set of threats to our 
        information systems and our all-important assets in space; and
         Third, to take advantage of the technological 
        revolution in order to help us create a military for the 21st 
        century.

    At the end of my tour, if I have improved the well-being of the 
Department's people--military and civilian, Active and Reserve--and 
their ability to defend our Nation, I will consider my mission 
accomplished.

       multinational force and observers--sinai force deployment
    6. Senator Thurmond. A significant concern with both the Bosnia and 
Kosovo deployments is that they appear to have no end. We only need to 
look at our deployments to the Sinai Peninsula that started in 1982. 
The 900 servicemembers year round commitment contributes to the high 
operations pace of our Armed Forces and is a drain on the Department of 
Defense's resources.
    In this era of peace between Egypt and Israel, what do these forces 
contribute to the peace in the region and when will this commitment 
end?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. MFO-Sinai has been a particularly successful 
peacekeeping operation and a highlight of the continued peace between 
Egypt and Israel. The presence of U.S. forces in the MFO has been a 
major contributor to mutual Egyptian-Israeli confidence in the Camp 
David Accords. This success now presents the opportunity to consider 
whether this commitment is still necessary. The Department is now 
reviewing options for the possible reduction of U.S. troop commitment 
in the Sinai.

                    department of defense facilities
    7. Senator Thurmond. The average age of the Department of Defense 
facilities is 41 years and is increasing. To support this 
infrastructure the Department is investing less than 2 percent of its 
replacement value while the accepted corporate standard is at least 3 
percent. In simple terms, we are not investing sufficient resources to 
maintain our facilities to ensure the quality of life and readiness.
    As the next Deputy Secretary of Defense you will have a significant 
role in ensuring the readiness of our facilities. Other than providing 
the necessary fiscal resources to maintain our facilities, what other 
steps can the Department take to resolve this critical issue?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. You are right, Senator, our physical plant is aging. 
DOD has previously reported that it maintains excess infrastructure. We 
will continue to demolish and dispose of excess facilities 
individually. We plan to improve utilization of existing facilities 
through more joint use and through partnering with the private sector 
on leasing underutilized facilities. However, the Department is 
currently conducting a comprehensive defense review that will help 
guide decisions regarding our infrastructure strategy. Until that 
review is complete, I will defer judgment on whether further 
initiatives and additional funding are needed.
                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Senator Bob Smith
               u.s.-china military-to-military relations
    8. Senator Smith. I believe China is a serious threat to U.S. 
national security and our allies in Asia. In 1999, Rep. Tom DeLay and I 
addressed the threat posed by the Clinton administration's policy of 
engagement with China with an amendment restricting military-to-
military exchanges, a law which we believe the Clinton administration 
circumvented. We believe the military-to-military briefings given by 
DOD made available sensitive U.S. military information to the People's 
Liberation Army.
    Would you support ending this military-to-military exchange 
program? Or would you propose to overhaul it to convert it into a 
program that teaches code of conduct for soldiers, the role of a 
military in a democratic society, etc., information which would 
actually benefit the PLA and would promote our stated goals of 
encouraging China to democratize?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Section 1201 of the Fiscal Year 2000 National 
Defense Authorization Act prohibits ``inappropriate exposure'' of U.S. 
operational capabilities and technologies to Chinese visitors. The 
Department of Defense will continue to strictly comply with the 
requirements of this provision in our military-to-military engagement 
with the PRC. As the new administration settles in place, we are 
undertaking a serious review of the schedule of military-to-military 
events with the PLA planned for 2001. In this review, we will ensure 
that our military-to-military program with the PLA supports U.S. policy 
objectives and will emphasize that the program must have increased 
reciprocity and transparency on the part of the PLA. Secretary Rumsfeld 
conveyed this message clearly and directly to senior Chinese leaders 
during his March 22, 2001 meeting at the Pentagon with Chinese Vice 
Premier Qian Qichen.

                            export controls
    9. Senator Smith. I am very concerned over easing export control 
restrictions to China, which has allowed the Chinese Government to 
purchase powerful computers and garner sensitive aerospace technology 
assistance from the United States that can be employed for military 
purposes. How do you see the DOD working to prevent such dual-use 
transfers of technology from occurring under the Bush administration? 
Do you believe the DOD should have a heightened role in determining the 
sale of sensitive dual-use technologies to China?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. My objective is to ensure that we have a robust 
export control system that controls sensitive items and technologies 
that represent national security or proliferation risks. I am committed 
to ensuring that DOD plays a key role in the development and 
implementation of export control policy. In this regard, I will be 
paying close attention to the operation of existing interagency 
mechanisms and will work to revise them if it is necessary to protect 
our national security interests, particularly with regard to exports of 
sensitive dual-use technologies to high risk destinations.

                             taiwan policy
    10. Senator Smith. I support the sale of U.S. military hardware, 
including the Aegis system, to Taiwan in order for the island nation to 
defend its democracy against Chinese threats to reunify through 
military aggression. Furthermore, I support the Taiwan Security 
Enhancement Act (TSEA).
    Do you agree that the U.S. should sell advanced military hardware 
such as the Aegis system and other types of military hardware to Taiwan 
to balance the military situation in the Taiwan Strait? Will you push 
for TSEA's passage in the Senate since President Bush endorsed the 
measure as a candidate?
    Do you believe the United States military has a role to play in the 
collective defense of Taiwan as a democratic friendly nation beyond 
military hardware sales should China initiate military aggression 
towards Taiwan?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. We support the provision of defense articles and 
services in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act. We are currently 
evaluating this year's Taiwan's arms sales requests, to include the 
Aegis-derived Evolved Advanced Combat System. With regard to the Taiwan 
Security Enhancement Act, we support the intent of the legislation--
ensuring the security of Taiwan. As has been stated publicly, the 
United States remains committed to maintaining regional peace and 
stability in this region, and we continue to stand firmly for the 
peaceful resolution of differences between the PRC and Taiwan. With 
regard to U.S. military support to Taiwan beyond arms sales, our forces 
are postured to safeguard U.S. interests and to react quickly to a 
range of possible contingencies in the region.

                                ke-asat
    11. Senator Smith. Over the last decade I have encountered 
considerable difficulty within the DOD and the previous administration 
to ensure the development and deployment of the Kinetic Energy Anti-
Satellite (KE-ASAT) program. I believe we should finish the KE-ASAT 
program (which is 90 percent complete), which provides defensive 
measures against hostile space assets surveiling U.S. forces.
    Do you support programs such as KE-ASAT that will protect U.S. 
troops and ensure U.S. military dominance? I would like to ask you for 
your commitment to completing this vital program and providing the 
necessary oversight over SMDC to do so, including returning the team to 
the program and necessary funding for completion, as General Shinseki 
committed to me to do.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I fully support protecting our U.S. troops and doing 
what is necessary to ensure U.S. military dominance. We will be looking 
at a new strategy for America's defense in our strategic review and 
subsequently in the Quadrennial Defense Review. As part of these 
reviews, we will look at how to programmatically and operationally 
support these very important goals.

                        space commission report
    12. Senator Smith. Last month, Secretary Rumsfeld released the 
findings of the Space Commission Report which made several 
recommendations to improve military space management and assets.
    What are your views on the need to reform military space management 
and the need to implement the recommendations made by Secretary 
Rumsfeld and the Commissioners?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. It is clear that the United States relies 
significantly on space for our national security. We need to ensure 
that the management and the organization of our national security space 
program reflect the importance of space to the Nation today. I believe 
that a more comprehensive approach is necessary to assign clear 
responsibilities and accountability for national security space 
programs. The Space Commission has presented a thorough, independent 
and objective assessment of our national space program. In our 
strategic review, we must seriously consider their recommended 
management and organizational changes if we are to meet the national 
security space needs of the 21st century.

                      cooperative threat reduction
    13. Senator Smith. I have serious concerns with the Cooperative 
Threat Reduction (CTR) program which I believe subsidizes the Russian 
Government's ability to improve their military at U.S. taxpayers 
expense--allowing the Russians to use our funds to replace obsolete 
weapons with more sophisticated ones. Meanwhile, the Russians continue 
to modernize their military and proliferate weapons of mass destruction 
to other hostile states.
    Do you believe the Cooperative Threat Reduction program could be 
reinvented to reach its original objectives--i.e. reducing the threat 
and conditioning funding to Russian compliance, particularly on 
proliferation issues?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. As Secretary Rumsfeld has noted to Congress, the 
elimination of former Soviet strategic nuclear weapons and their 
delivery vehicles under the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program 
has benefited U.S. national security. I would note that the CTR program 
does not provide funds to the Russian Government. All assistance is in 
the form of contracts to either U.S. companies or to Russian 
enterprises and institutes. The weapon systems being eliminated are 
mainly operational systems while the pace of Russian strategic 
modernization remains slower than projected. Nevertheless, a review of 
ongoing CTR projects and their national security implications is 
appropriate and has now begun.

                            chinese missiles
    14. Senator Smith. Last year, I addressed in a floor amendment the 
sale of the Russian-made Moskit sea-skimming missiles purchased by 
China for use on Sovremenny Class destroyers, which China now 
possesses.
    How do you view this direct threat to U.S. naval forces in the 
Pacific and how do we aid Taiwan as required under the TRA to counter 
this escalated threat?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Due to its high speed and maneuverability, the 
Moskit sea-skimming missile does present technical challenges to navies 
around the world. The Taiwan military has some limited capability 
against Moskit missile through U.S. supplied weapons systems. Perry-
class and Knox-class frigates are equipped with the PHALANX Close-In 
Weapons System (CIWS), which is designed to intercept surface skimming, 
low-flying anti-ship missiles. In the event of a conflict, Taiwan's F-
16 aircraft, equipped with the air-launched Harpoon missiles, could be 
used to attack People's Republic of China ships equipped with the 
Moskit anti-ship cruise missile.

                              phalcon sale
    15. Senator Smith. I have recently read in defense industry 
publications that Israel is attempting to resurrect its Phalcon early 
warning radar sale with China. This sale will increase China's ability 
to project force in the Taiwan Strait and into the South China Sea. I 
believe this sale would also threaten the U.S. Navy's 7th Fleet. What 
would you do as Deputy Secretary of Defense to deter this sale to 
China?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The United States has consulted with the Israeli 
government closely on its proposal to sell the Phalcon early warning 
aircraft to China. We have made clear to the Israelis that we view the 
Phalcon as a threat to U.S. interests and regional stability in Asia, 
as well as a potential threat to any U.S. forces involved in a military 
conflict with China, and we have clearly stated our opposition to the 
sale. Then-Prime Minister Barak announced in July 2000 that the sale 
would not go forward, and we consider the matter closed.

                        national missile defense
    16. Senator Smith. I am an ardent supporter of the creation of a 
multi-tiered missile defense system. I believe the United States should 
move forward with developing and deploying this system. Furthermore, I 
am in full agreement with Secretary Rumsfeld's assessment that without 
a missile defense, hostile nations will be able to alter the actions 
and limit options available to the United States.
    Would the abrogation of the ABM Treaty help with the goal of 
pursuing missile defense?
    How should the United States approach providing Great Britain, 
Japan and Taiwan and other allies with missile defense capabilities?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The issue of how to handle the ABM Treaty will be 
part of our overall strategic review. However, as senior administration 
officials have made clear, the ABM Treaty, in its current form, is no 
longer relevant. We will look at missile defense options unconstrained 
by the ABM Treaty, to see what makes the most sense. We hope to 
persuade the Russians of the need to permit deployment of effective 
missile defenses. But as Secretary Powell has noted, it may be 
necessary to withdraw from the ABM Treaty if the government of the 
Russian Federation will not agree to modifications necessary to 
accommodate our missile defense programs.
    The administration has made clear that our proposed missile 
defenses would protect our friends and allies as well as the United 
States. We have also made clear our commitment to close and substantive 
consultations with allies. These consultations have begun, and we will 
seek the views of our allies about specific missile defense responses 
to the growing ballistic missile threat.

      peacekeeping and humanitarian missions: impact on readiness
    17. Senator Smith. I am disturbed at the dangerous decline of the 
U.S. military over the last decade. There is a long list of issues that 
concern me, but in particular, I see a pressing need to address 
military readiness. Furthermore, I believe peacekeeping and 
humanitarian missions correlate directly to our current readiness 
dilemma. What do you believe is the best way to work with the DOD to 
reverse our readiness deficiencies and to terminate U.S. peacekeeping 
and humanitarian missions that have no bearing on U.S. national 
security interests? Is anyone at DOD conceiving an exit strategy for 
the Balkans?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The Secretary is actively reviewing U.S. military 
participation in the full range of ongoing peace operations, 
humanitarian operations, and routine engagement activities to ascertain 
ways for reducing tempo strains on our personnel while also continuing 
to advance U.S. interests. In this regard, it is worth noting that in 
some cases, such as communications, engineering, and civil affairs, the 
impact of ongoing operations on readiness is not entirely negative, as 
they can provide excellent training for certain military specialties.
    Our strategic goals in the Balkans are to maintain peace and 
security in South Eastern Europe, protect the strength of the NATO 
Alliance, and maintain U.S. credibility with our European Allies. With 
that in mind, we want to avoid precipitous withdrawals while 
continuously reviewing troop levels to tailor them properly to mission 
and environment. Changing conditions in Bosnia and Kosovo will allow 
adjustments with the intent of ``right-sizing'' our forces to the tasks 
at hand.

                             defense review
    18. Senator Smith. I am pleased that Andy Marshall has been 
selected to review the structure of the Defense Department. When will 
this review be completed and what kind of input will you or other 
appointees have in it? Will Senate Armed Services Committee members be 
briefed on Marshall's findings?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. To clarify the structure of our review, Andy 
Marshall has been asked to review the Department's overall strategy. 
Additional reviews will be conducted to look at other areas of concern. 
Later this spring, Secretary Rumsfeld will provide testimony in support 
of the fiscal year 2001 Supplemental Budget, at which time he will 
outline some broad aspects of the review for Congress.

                       security clearance backlog
    19. Senator Smith. Last year, I passed legislation that tightened 
the requirements for people seeking DOD security clearances for job-
related purposes following revelations of clearances being granted to 
felons. But there is another problem, the clearance backlog.
    The Defense Security Service (DSS) is still a chaotic and 
demoralized agency and the security clearance backlog has not improved. 
What is being done to resolve this problem? Will new leadership be 
appointed at the DSS?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I share your concern that this is a very serious 
issue that must be addressed quickly. As we assemble our senior 
leadership team, it will be a priority to consider any process changes 
that may be necessary to alleviate the current backlog in security 
clearances.

                             base closures
    20. Senator Smith. As I understand it, a BRAC round is being 
considered as a way to save money by the DOD. Portsmouth Naval 
Shipyard, (PNSY), which is located in New Hampshire, represents the 
best performance shipyard for attack subs. PNSY successfully rolled out 
``smartbase'' technologies to demonstrate to the DOD the cost saving 
improvements of the ``smartbase'' technology. Can you outline what you 
believe are the parameters of any BRAC Secretary Rumsfeld and you would 
like to see?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Our base structure should fit our force structure 
requirements. We are looking at the issue of excess infrastructure, and 
will make a decision on how best to address this as soon as we can in 
the review process. When we have established the proper relationship 
between the force structure needed to execute our national security 
strategy and the infrastructure needed to support that force, we will 
work closely with Congress to develop a process that is fair and true 
to that objective.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Rick Santorum
                         basic research funding
    21. Senator Santorum. President Bush has emphasized the need to 
fund ``leap ahead'' technologies and has mentioned the possibility of 
``skipping a generation of weapons to make them more lethal and 
mobile.'' The only way this policy will succeed is if President Bush 
commits to investing heavily in basic sciences in American 
universities.
    The Department of Defense has historically played a major Federal 
role in funding basic research and has been a significant sponsor of 
engineering research and technology development conducted in American 
universities. For over 50 years, Department of Defense investments in 
university research have been a dominant element of the Nation's 
research and development (R&D) infrastructure and an essential 
component of the U.S. capacity for technological innovation.
    Supporting university research benefits the Department of Defense 
in many ways. In addition to producing important advances in knowledge, 
support to university research helps keep top scientists and engineers 
involved in defense research. Also, students who get hands-on research 
training become the highly qualified scientists and engineers of the 
future who go to work in academia, industry, and Federal laboratories.
    In the 1990s, Basic Research funded through the Department of 
Defense peaked at $1.489 billion in fiscal year 1993 and declined to a 
level of $1.059 billion in fiscal year 1998. In fact, funding for 
Department of Defense Basic Research began to increase, beginning in 
fiscal year 1999, only after Congress took the lead in reversing this 
trend.

    Do you believe that there exists a mismatch between the goals of 
President Bush and levels of investment in our Department of Defense 
Basic Research accounts?
    If so, what do you believe is a more accurate figure that ought to 
be invested in Department of Defense Basic Research funding?
    Can you indicate any short-term goals that you feel are achievable 
with respect to Department of Defense Basic Research funding?

    Dr. Wolfowitz. First, it is important to review the funding history 
for the Department's Basic Research program. The funding numbers you 
have cited for fiscal years 1993 and 1998 are appropriated values in 
fiscal year 2001 constant dollars. The table below shows both the 
requested and appropriated amounts for the Department's Basic Research 
program in fiscal year 2001 constant dollars.

                          BASIC RESEARCH DOLLARS IN MILLIONS/FISCAL YEAR 2001 CONSTANT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Fiscal Year
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   1993     1994     1995     1996     1997     1998     1999     2000     2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requested......................    1,277    1,398    1,337    1,300    1,220    1,215    1,148    1,133    1,217
Appropriated...................    1,489    1,312    1,282    1,176    1,090    1,059    1,098    1,157    1,314
Difference.....................     +213      -86      -55     -124     -130     -156      -50      +24      +97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in ``A Blueprint for New Beginnings,'' outlining the 
President's Budget Request to Congress, ``the President believes that 
the Nation's defense strategy should drive decisions on defense 
resources.'' Such is the case with Basic Research. However, determining 
a sufficient level of investment for Basic Research is not a precise 
science, rather it is a strategic decision to invest in broad areas of 
research that have the potential of yielding revolutionary advances, as 
well as pursuing solutions to known operational problems. An investment 
in Basic Research pays dividends in many ways. Basic research is a 
long-term investment with an emphasis on opportunities for military 
application in the future, yet it also, as you note, contributes to our 
national academic and scientific knowledge base by providing 
approximately 40 percent of the research funding for the Nation's 
colleges of engineering. The Department will sustain an investment in 
Basic Research because of proven significant, long-term benefits.
    It has always been the Department's goal to fund Basic Research, 
and the remainder of the Science and Technology program, at a level 
adequate to ensure the technological superiority of our armed forces. 
However, we also need to ensure that the funding levels of the various 
components of the DOD budget are balanced based on our assessment of 
the most urgent requirements at any given time. The Department's 
compelling desire to increase the modernization budget, while 
sustaining readiness at a high level, must also be considered. The 
amount of funding the Department will request for Basic Research will, 
I believe, be adequate to maintain our technological superiority both 
near-term and in the future.

                        defense industrial base
    22. Senator Santorum. Last year, based on concerns articulated by 
the defense industry, the Department of Defense initiated a review of 
ways to improve not only the health of the defense industrial base but 
also competition among these companies. The review was carried out by a 
Defense Science Board (DSB) panel. The goal of the process was to see 
what kinds of actions in terms of acquisition practices, rules and 
regulations needed to be changed in order to help the Department get 
lower costs and more innovation.
    The DSB report, Preserving a Healthy and Competitive U.S. Defense 
Industry to Ensure our Future National Security, concluded that the 
Department of Defense must move aggressively to help American companies 
attract and retain top talent as well as improve overall profitability 
by continuing changes in profit policies boosting investment in defense 
research and development.
    The DSB panel issued a listing of 27 regulatory and policy changes 
designed to help ensure the financial health of the defense industry.

    Have you reviewed the DSB panel's report on improving the health of 
the defense industry?
    Are there other policy or regulatory changes that you would 
recommend to improve the health of the defense industry and improve 
innovation that were omitted by the report?
    Are there ways that the Department could do a better job at 
encouraging firms to increase their independent research and 
development (IR&D) efforts?
    Are there changes that can be made which will enable individuals 
who leave the private sector for public sector service the ability to 
return to private sector employment?

    Dr. Wolfowitz. We are continuing to address the recommendations of 
the DSB panel's report. As we assemble our management team, we will be 
examining recommendations made by a variety of groups, such as the 
Business Executives for National Security Tail-to-Tooth Commission, in 
order to establish the initiatives we intend to pursue. It is 
recognized that we must consider ways that the Department can encourage 
firms to increase their IR&D efforts. For example, the recommendation 
made by the DSB to revise the IR&D policy regarding fees could 
incentivize contractors to spend IR&D dollars. This is an area that 
certainly requires further analysis and careful consideration. At this 
point, it would be premature to offer more specific detail on changes 
that may be necessary.

                             base closures
    23. Senator Santorum. The military base closure process (BRAC) was 
first established in 1988. Since that time, 97 bases have been closed 
and about 400 have been realigned. The process of closure and community 
development after the base closes has suffered from problems in the 
past, especially in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Accordingly, 
between 1992 and 1995, the Federal Government adopted policies to 
improve the reuse and redevelopment process governing these closed 
facilities.
    Congressional efforts to authorize additional base closing rounds 
have been unsuccessful due in large part to the belief that President 
Clinton interfered with the integrity of the process during the 1995 
BRAC review.
    In an effort to re-start the base closing process, several Members 
of Congress have discussed the creation of a ``two-step'' BRAC process. 
Under this proposal, the military services would identify certain 
``core'' bases that would not be considered for closure. Facilities 
like the Pentagon or Andrews Air Force Base would fall into this 
category. These core facilities, which might comprise up to 25 percent 
of all bases, would be exempt from further review by the base closure 
commission.
    A full assessment of ``non-core'' bases would follow this initial 
review period. Proponents of this approach believe that the two-step 
process would help eliminate community uncertainty and also help ``core 
base'' communities avoid the expense of hiring consultants and other 
experts to guide them through fighting the closure process.

    Do you believe that the Department of Defense should recommend to 
President Bush that he request authorization of additional BRAC rounds?
    If so, do you believe that the process must be changed to restore 
faith in the fairness of the process?
    What are your thoughts on the proposed ``two-step'' BRAC process 
that has been suggested?

    Dr. Wolfowitz. Our base structure should fit our force structure 
requirements. We are looking at the issue of excess infrastructure, and 
will make a decision on how best to address this as soon as we can in 
the review process. When we have established the proper relationship 
between the force structure needed to execute our national security 
strategy and the infrastructure needed to support that force, we will 
work closely with Congress to develop a process that is fair and true 
to that objective.
                                 ______
                                 
           Questions Submitted by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
                            strategic review
    24. Senator Lieberman. What is your role in the current strategic 
review?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. As the Deputy Secretary of Defense I am part of a 
small group reviewing the work of each panel associated with our 
overall look at the Defense Department structure. I provide guidance 
regarding the particular areas each panel undertakes, as well as 
reviewing their results. I also make recommendations to Secretary 
Rumsfeld on various aspects of the overall review.

                             transformation
    25. Senator Lieberman. What do you think are the necessary actions 
to effect transformation?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Successful military transformation will require 
several actions, the first of which is to generate organizational slack 
and free-up resources needed to develop future capabilities. Second, we 
need to create new, experimental forces dedicated to the development of 
new combat capabilities. These forces would conduct long-term 
experiments, develop operational concepts and even look at new ways of 
organizing forces. Finally, when the U.S. engages in conflict, these 
new units, should they prove effective, would be vanguard forces to 
test and refine our new methods.

                            strategic review
    26. Senator Lieberman. How do you intend to assure the strategic 
review puts the main focus on these actions?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. As discussed earlier, Andy Marshall is conducting 
one element of the strategy review. For the past 8 years, he has 
carefully reviewed past military transformation efforts and the 
conditions that allowed them to be successful. Also, there is a panel 
dedicated solely to the issue of transformation among the group of 
panels contributing to the Defense review.

                       quadrennial defense review
    27. Senator Lieberman. How do you see the review connecting to the 
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The Defense review is an iterative process that will 
be ongoing. The findings and recommendations of the various elements of 
the Defense review will serve as road maps for key issues that must be 
considered during the QDR process, and subsequently, in the development 
of future budget requests.

                             defense review
    28. Senator Lieberman. Please tell us the time lines for the 
review.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Again, I want to emphasize that the Defense review 
is an iterative process that will be ongoing. Accordingly, specific 
completion dates have not been established.

                             top priorities
    29. Senator Lieberman. What do you see as the top priorities for 
the Defense Department and the Pentagon?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The Department's top priorities, as outlined by 
Secretary Rumsfeld are:

    1. Fashion and sustain deterrence appropriate to the new national 
security environment, aimed at devaluing investment made in weapons of 
mass destruction and their delivery systems. This must be based on a 
combination of nuclear and non-nuclear defensive capabilities working 
together to deny the opportunity and benefits associated with the 
threat or the use of weapons of mass destruction against U.S. forces, 
our homeland, and our allies.
    2. Assure the readiness and sustainability of our forces, reducing 
unnecessary risks to American interests and to the lives of American 
service men and women. Inadequate readiness takes a larger toll on the 
future quality of our forces. Even the highest morale is eventually 
undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare 
parts and equipment, and declining readiness.
    3. Modernize U.S. Command, Control, Communications, and 
Intelligence (C\3\I) capabilities to support our 21st century needs. 
Modern C\3\I infrastructure is the foundation upon which military power 
rests, and is fundamental to the transformation of U.S. military 
forces. We must also strengthen our intelligence capabilities and our 
space capabilities and protect those assets against various forms of 
attack.
    4. Transform the U.S. defense establishment to address our new 
circumstance by swiftly introducing new weapons systems. Undertake 
near-term investment to acquire modern capabilities derived from U.S. 
scientific and industrial preeminence.
    5. Reform DOD structures, processes, and organization. The legacy 
of obsolete institutional structures, processes, and organizations 
creates unnecessary costs and imposes unacceptable burden on national 
defense. We will examine omnibus approaches to changing the statutory 
and regulatory basis for the most significant obstacles to reform.

              the role of the deputy secretary of defense
    30. Senator Lieberman. Will you adhere to the habitual role of the 
DEPSECDEF and manage the day-to-day operations of the Pentagon?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Yes, it is fair to say that while the Secretary is 
the Chief Executive Officer, the Deputy functions mainly as the Chief 
Operating Officer (COO). This normal business relationship does not 
extend to the day-to-day supervision of military operations, but does 
cover most other areas of responsibility in the Department.

    31. Senator Lieberman. Will your role be policy or management?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I believe it is impossible to separate policy 
formulation and management. In general, I intend to be the COO of the 
Department. I realize that we will have an Under Secretary for Policy, 
as well as other senior officials in the Department with responsibility 
for various aspects of policy. My prior service as Under Secretary for 
Policy will in no way limit the traditional authority of those 
officials.

    32. Senator Lieberman. Given your depth of policy expertise, how 
will you coordinate your role with the Under Secretary for Policy, once 
he/she is nominated?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The Under Secretary for Policy will function in much 
the same way as they have in the past. I will assist and give guidance 
as necessary, but the fact that I once held this position will not 
limit the prerogatives of the incumbent.

                            homeland defense
    33. Senator Lieberman. What should be the Pentagon's role in the 
broader issue of homeland defense?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Homeland defense is not a new mission area. The U.S. 
military has a long and proud tradition of protecting the American 
homeland from a wide variety of threats. Over time, the nature of the 
threat has changed--from traditional land and maritime invasion in the 
country's early years, to potential nuclear attack during the Cold War, 
to the present day potential of nuclear, biological, chemical, missile 
and information attacks from both state and non-state actors, such as 
terrorists. As part of our strategic review we will be addressing how 
the Department of Defense should be postured to ensure continued 
defense of the U.S. homeland from these evolving threats.

                              military pay
    34. Senator Lieberman. Do you believe there is a pay gap for 
military members?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Much has been written about the existence of a 
military ``pay gap.'' Many argue that difficulty in recruiting and 
retaining high quality people in itself suggests the presence of a pay 
gap, but I believe the fundamental issue is the ability of pay to 
attract and retain a quality force. Recognizing that it has become 
increasing difficult to recruit and retain amidst today's economy, one 
can make a case that pay may not be adequate. One of my important 
responsibilities will be to ensure that great attention is paid to 
sustaining a level of military pay that is competitive, and supportive 
of consistent success in recruiting and retention.

    35. Senator Lieberman. Do you support a military pay raise?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Yes. The President recently announced an additional 
$1.4 billion to be directed to military pay. This will provide for a 
minimum pay raise of 4.6 percent on January 1, 2002, and $1 billion to 
be used to address specific recruiting and retention needs.

    36. Senator Lieberman. Should the next pay raise be across the 
board or targeted, as in pay for skill?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I believe all military members should receive a pay 
raise, and the President has proposed that all members will get a 
minimum of a 4.6 percent raise on January 1, 2002. Exactly how to use 
the President's additional billion dollars needs further review.

                         defense health program
    37. Senator Lieberman. What do you consider to be the most 
significant threats to the Defense Health Program (DHP) and the ongoing 
implementation of TRICARE?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. It is imperative that the Defense Health Program 
(DHP) maintains a fully funded budget that allows for a stable business 
environment. The absence of adequate funding directly impacts patient 
care in the Military Health System. With the implementation of expanded 
TRICARE benefits for our Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, directed by 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, funding 
continues to be a challenge. The Department has identified an 
approximate shortfall of $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2001 and will 
continue to assess DHP funding requirements as well as necessary 
solutions during the Secretary's strategic review.

                       tempo for our armed forces
    38. Senator Lieberman. Do you have any plans to reduce tempo for 
our armed forces?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The use of military force is one of the most 
important decisions a President can make. We in the Department will 
work closely with the President and his senior advisors to develop 
appropriate policies to guide the use of our military forces in 
peacetime, crisis and war. A decision to employ U.S. military forces in 
support of our national interests is one that should never be taken 
lightly. Likewise, the decision to sustain, reduce, or end the 
commitment of U.S. forces to ongoing operations must be informed by 
careful assessment and deliberation. Working with Congress and our 
allies, we will reexamine the balance among force levels, commitments 
and deployments. We will ensure that we are focusing on the most 
important defense tasks and not placing unreasonable demands on our men 
and women in uniform. Still, we recognize that deployments will always 
be a part of military life, and we will continue to improve the ways we 
monitor and manage them.

    39. Senator Lieberman. Given that the Services are different and 
even define tempo differently, how do you plan to measure tempo in a 
consistent manner?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. We recognize that deployments will always be a part 
of military life, and we continue to improve the ways we monitor and 
manage them. Last year, DOD implemented a department-wide tempo 
management system to allow us to identify the activities that have most 
affected the pace of operations and help us to better manage the 
demands on our people. Also adopted was a common definition for 
personnel tempo that allows us to measure it in a consistent manner 
across the Department. Personnel tempo is defined as the time an 
individual spends away from his or her home station.

              two major theater war (mtw) force structure
    40. Senator Lieberman. Is the two MTW force structure the right 
planning tool to create a military prepared for the dangers of a new 
century? If not, what would you support using instead?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Modern history suggests that the United States has 
often faced more than one security contingency at a time. With that 
history in mind, the Department's preparations to deal with multiple 
challenges have been appropriate. However, the increasing 
diversification of current and emerging threats requires that we build 
forces and operational concepts aimed at fashioning a new approach to 
deterrence. This issue will be examined in the strategic review.

                        national missile defense
    41. Senator Lieberman. What type of NMD system should the U.S. 
pursue?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. President Bush has said that the U.S. must build 
effective missile defenses, based on the best available options, at the 
earliest possible date, and that missile defenses must be designed to 
protect all 50 states, our friends and allies, and our deployed forces 
overseas. The administration is currently undertaking a major review of 
missile defense as part of a broader strategic review examining our 
future offensive and defensive requirements. In this review, we are 
examining all available technologies and basing modes that could 
contribute to an effective and affordable missile defense.

    42. Senator Lieberman. Given the limited funds available, what 
recommendations would you give regarding finding money for NMD?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. We are currently reviewing our policy with regard to 
missile defenses and how they can best contribute to deterrence in the 
current and emerging strategic environment. Given this, no decisions 
have yet been made with regard to possible deployments or funding 
requirements.

    43. Senator Lieberman. What is your priority if forced to make 
choices among NMD and conventional forces?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The top priorities of the Department include the 
deployment of effective missile defenses, the assured readiness and 
sustainability of our deployed conventional forces, the modernization 
of command, control, communications, intelligence and space 
capabilities, and the transformation of the means by which we acquire 
these forces. Additionally, the Secretary is currently conducting a 
comprehensive review of the defense strategy and program, which 
includes our missile defenses as well as our conventional forces. Given 
this, no decisions have yet been made with regard to making funding 
choices among different programs.

    44. Senator Lieberman. How will the U.S.'s plans change if our 
European allies refuse to support U.S. NMD plans and Russia and China 
execute a nuclear force expansion as a result?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. As we move forward with missile defense, the 
administration is committed to consulting closely with our friends and 
allies to address their concerns and explore their possible 
participation in the program. The U.S. wants to deploy defenses that 
would protect our friends and allies as well as ourselves. We see 
missile defense as a necessary element of deterrence and an opportunity 
for a collective approach to enhancing security for all.
    We will also engage Russia and China on missile defense and seek to 
address their concerns about our defenses.
    Clearly, the missile defenses we are pursuing are so limited that 
they would not call into question Russia's nuclear deterrent. As for 
China, the Chinese have already embarked upon significant modernization 
of their nuclear forces that predates, and will take place regardless 
of, current U.S. NMD planning.

    45. Senator Lieberman. What is your reaction to the Russian 
European Missile Defense proposal?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. We are currently examining the Russian proposal. The 
U.S. government welcomes the fact Russia recognizes that Europe also 
faces a serious threat from weapons of mass destruction and missile 
delivery systems. While we welcome the prospect of cooperation in 
principle, the deployment of a ``Pan-European'' TMD system would not 
defend North America from ballistic missile attacks, and is therefore 
not a substitute for the deployment of a missile defense capable of 
defending North America.

                  stockpile stewardship program (ssp)
    46. Senator Lieberman. Will you support full funding for the 
Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP)?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. As Secretary Rumsfeld made clear in his confirmation 
hearing, maintaining high confidence in the U.S. nuclear weapons 
stockpile is critically important to the national security interests of 
the United States. I believe that the administration needs to review 
the Stockpile Stewardship Program and to evaluate how well it has done 
its job to date, and how well it will likely meet future stockpile 
issues. Following on that review and evaluation, it should be in a 
position to make informed decisions on the future of the Stockpile 
Stewardship Program, including appropriate levels of funding.

                        nuclear weapons testing
    47. Senator Lieberman. You have stated that continued nuclear 
weapons testing is not an impediment to arms reductions. That, on the 
contrary, our confidence in the reliability of our weapons has enabled 
us to take the lead in nuclear arms reductions since the end of the 
Cold War. Can you explain this? If the U.S. tests, what argument would 
you use with the nations who might then decide on their own limited 
test program?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. During the last 5 years that the United States was 
conducting nuclear tests (1987-1992), we concluded arms control 
agreements and announced unilateral initiatives to reduce the number of 
U.S. nuclear arms by many thousands of warheads. So clearly, nuclear 
weapons testing is not an impediment to nuclear arms reductions. 
Indeed, our decisions to make these reductions were in part based upon 
the fact that due to nuclear testing we believed that our residual 
stockpile of nuclear weapons was safe, secure, and highly reliable.

                             balkans policy
    48. Senator Lieberman. What policy do you expect to promote for 
U.S. forces in the Balkans?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The presence of U.S. forces in the Balkans is key to 
the successful outcome of these missions with associated issues of 
regional stability, both U.S. and NATO credibility, and alliance 
cohesion. However, we do believe that conditions in Bosnia have changed 
so as to allow a restructuring of the force, and we are working with 
our allies through the normal NATO 6-Month Review process and 
associated Stabilization Force (SFOR) Restructuring Options Study to 
achieve this. In Kosovo, the situation remains unstable enough to 
require engagement at current levels. However, we will pursue a change 
in the capabilities of the existing force more appropriate to the 
current mission.

    49. Senator Lieberman. Do you advocate a full or partial withdrawal 
of U.S. forces in the Balkans?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Balkans is a 
function of many things: the security situation, our position in NATO, 
regional stability. I am committed to withdrawing U.S. troops when the 
situation warrants. That will be done through the established NATO 
processes. I do feel that the situation in Bosnia should allow for 
restructuring of SFOR. Kosovo, however, is still unstable, and will 
require a more careful examination in consultation with our allies 
before any decisions are taken there. Within these factors, then, I am 
committed to withdrawing our soldiers as quickly as possible.

    50. Senator Lieberman. What strategy would you recommend we 
undertake regarding the Balkans?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. With the fall of Milosevic, and the consequent rise 
of a democratic-oriented government in Belgrade, the dynamics of the 
region have changed. We should clearly be able to focus on things such 
as: promoting rule of law, respect for human rights and civil society; 
combating crime and corruption; assisting in economic reform and 
revitalization; and regional cooperation as basis for integration into 
European institutions. These are the means by which we may capitalize 
on the change in the strategic context.

    51. Senator Lieberman. How do you intend to pursue that with our 
European allies and the Russians?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The current engagement with our European allies 
continues to be effective. Increasingly, they are assuming more of the 
burden, and we will continue to press them on this.
    Ironically, our relations with Russia by way of the SFOR and 
International Security Force (KFOR) missions continue to be strong and 
cooperative. Our goal should be to build on these relationships through 
the NATO Permanent Joint Council and other bilateral means so as to 
gain their effective cooperation in dealing with the Balkan states.

               accelerating drawdown for iraqi opposition
    52. Senator Lieberman. Will you act to accelerate the drawdown 
authority you have for the Iraqi opposition?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. It all depends on how the drawdown authority is to 
be used. The administration is in the process of reviewing all elements 
of U.S. policy toward Iraq. This review will address whether efforts to 
promote regime change are appropriately focused. Until that review is 
complete it would be premature to make a judgment as whether the use of 
the drawdown authority should be changed.

               upgrading support for the iraqi opposition
    53. Senator Lieberman. Some speculate that the new administration's 
most promising option for putting Saddam ``back in the box'', in 
addition to bombing, is to support the Iraq National Congress (INC). 
How would you recommend the U.S. upgrade our political, economic, and 
military support of the opposition? What are the plans to do this?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The administration is in the process of reviewing 
all elements of U.S. policy toward Iraq. This review will address 
whether our efforts to promote regime change are appropriately focused. 
Until that review is complete it would be premature to make a judgment 
on the exact nature of our future support to the Iraqi National 
Congress.

                    support for the iraqi opposition
    54. Senator Lieberman. How far should we be willing to go with 
regards to support for the INC-funds, weapons, equipment, sales, joint 
training, TMD, etc.?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. As part of our comprehensive policy review on Iraq, 
we are exploring how best to work with the Iraqi National Congress and 
other opposition groups to promote a regime transition in Iraq. Until 
the policy review is completed, it would be premature to speculate on 
the details of our support.

                              inc charter
    55. Senator Lieberman. What will the INC task force's charter 
include? When do you see it in place and functioning?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The administration is reviewing its Iraq policy, 
including how it will work with the INC.

                         regime change strategy
    56. Senator Lieberman. You have talked about the current policy of 
containment regarding Iraq. You have stated that when this policy 
collapses, the U.S. will face a Saddam who has new nuclear, biological, 
and chemical weapons and a renewed capacity to conduct conventional 
warfare and terrorism, and who is bent on avenging his 1991 defeat. 
Further, this policy would risk many more lives than trying to 
overthrow Saddam by force. What are your recommendations regarding this 
new Iraqi strategy? What do you see as the Pentagon role? How will this 
affect U.S. force posture and OPTEMPO? What would you do to deal with 
increased OPTEMPO?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. There can be do doubt that Iraq under Saddam Hussein 
remains a threat to the Gulf region and to U.S. interests and that this 
threat must be deterred and contained. Part of the administration's 
Iraq policy review must be to consider whether more can be done to 
secure Baghdad's compliance with the conditions laid down by the United 
Nations in a way that would satisfy us and the world community at large 
that Iraq is no longer a threat. We also are exploring whether more can 
be done to hasten the replacement of the present regime by one that is 
prepared to live at peace with its neighbors and with the people of 
Iraq. Clearly, our armed forces will have a prominent part to play in 
our national strategy toward Iraq. Until our review is completed, 
however, it is not possible to say what the effect will be on OPTEMPO.

                             taiwan policy
    57. Senator Lieberman. You suggested that Taiwan point the way of 
democracy to China. That is no doubt several years down the road. How 
should the U.S. plan to assist in this endeavor?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Taiwan today is a full-fledged democracy, with a 
vibrant multiparty system, a popularly elected president and 
representatives at all levels of government, a free and spirited press, 
and the people's strong commitment to democratization. One of the most 
important measures the United States can take to foster the development 
of democracy in the PRC is to support Taiwan's fledgling democracy by 
acting in accordance with the principles outlined in the Taiwan 
Relations Act.

    58. Senator Lieberman. You are known as a fierce defender of 
Taiwan, yet you have proposed a status quo in your writings. Can you 
elaborate on your approach?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The status quo can best be maintained by ensuring a 
dynamic equilibrium of forces in the Taiwan Strait. Such a balance 
requires provision of necessary defense articles and services to Taiwan 
in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act to offset an increasingly 
capable PRC military.

    59. Senator Lieberman. How far should we be willing to go with 
regards to support for Taiwan--funds, weapons, equipment, sales, joint 
training, TMD, etc.? What about a formal mutual defense pact?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The Department of Defense is engaged with Taiwan in 
several ways to ensure the United States is appropriately prepared to 
implement relevant sections of the Taiwan Relations Act. The United 
States actively monitors the security situation in the Taiwan Strait, 
provides articles and services to Taiwan to ensure it can maintain a 
sufficient self-defense capability, works with Taiwan on a series of 
non-hardware related initiatives to address shortcomings in Taiwan's 
readiness, and maintains capabilities to assist in the defense of 
Taiwan if required. However, establishment of a formal defense pact 
would contradict the unofficial nature of our relationship with Taiwan.

                       missile defense and china
    60. Senator Lieberman. You support NMD. Is this contrary to your 
previous call for a status quo approach? Can you clarify this, since 
NMD might spur aggressive actions by China?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Missile defense must be designed to protect all 50 
states, our allies and friends, and deployed forces overseas from 
missile attacks by rogue states and from unauthorized or accidental 
launches. The missile defenses that will be deployed by the U.S. are 
intended for defense.
    Nevertheless, we understand that China has voiced its concerns 
about the potential implications for its deterrent posture of any 
future U.S. missile defense system. China has recently expressed a 
willingness to engage in substantive dialogue on missile defense 
issues. We welcome and encourage such dialogue.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator Max Cleland
                       u.s. airlift requirements
    61. Senator Cleland. The recently released Hart-Rudman Commission 
report places a high priority on the development of expeditionary 
forces, much of which is dependent on our strategic and tactical 
airlift capabilities. The Mobility Requirements Study estimates we are 
woefully short on meeting the future requirement.
    With the move away from more forward-deployed forces, airlift and 
air mobility will continue to be the key ingredient in our responding 
to future military missions and crisis. Do you agree that we need to 
focus attention on our airlift needs?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The recent Mobility Requirements Study 2005, 
required by the fiscal year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act, is 
the most exhaustive study on this subject to date. It provides a 
comprehensive assessment of our overall mobility requirements in the 
context of a two major theater war strategy and shows that, under 
certain extremely demanding conditions, we have insufficient airlift 
assets to meet the requirement. Clearly strategic and tactical airlift 
capability will remain a vital element of our national military 
strategy, and the results of the Mobility Requirements Study 2005 are a 
good point of departure for establishing airlift requirements in the 
context of the current strategy review. Options for meeting airlift 
requirements, however, need to be carefully considered in a manner that 
allows them to be balanced with other strategic risk and affordability 
decisions.

                          military health care
    62. Senator Cleland. Military health care is a matter of great 
importance to our service members and this committee. Last year, in 
response to concerns raised by the Secretary of Defense and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, we enacted legislation that eliminates 
deductibles and co-payments under TRICARE Prime for families of Active 
Duty service members; provides lifetime health care for military 
retirees and their families through the TRICARE program; and provides a 
comprehensive pharmacy benefit for military retirees.
    We still hear concerns from our constituents about lack of timely 
access to health care, portability of benefits as our service members 
move around, and poor claims processing. What are your priorities for 
maintaining a working, accessible, properly funded health care system?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. As you point out, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2001 includes significant health care benefit 
enhancements for military beneficiaries, both for families of Active 
Duty members and for retirees and their families. The Department is 
working hard to implement these important new programs. In addition, we 
have made significant strides recently in improving our health care 
business practices, in areas such as providing a portable health care 
benefit, exceeding industry standards for claims processing timeliness, 
and enhancing appointment systems to ease access to care. Our number 
one priority is to assure medical readiness to support wartime 
missions; delivery of an excellent peacetime health care benefit on a 
cost-effective basis is a vital secondary mission.

                           montgomery gi bill
    63. Senator Cleland. Almost all new service members enroll in and 
contribute to the Montgomery GI Bill. Only about half of these use 
their benefits, and many who use the benefits do not use all of their 
entitlement. Many of these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines say 
they would like to stay in the Service, but feel they have to leave so 
that they can provide for the education of their spouses and children.
    I believe that many of these service members would stay in the 
service if they could transfer all or a part of their unused 
entitlement to GI Bill benefits to family members in return for a 
service commitment--an idea supported by the Hart-Rudman Commission 
report. Service Secretaries could use this retention tool selectively, 
just as they use reenlistment bonuses.
    Will you give serious consideration to how the Department of 
Defense could use the transfer of GI Bill benefits to family members as 
a retention tool and give me your thoughts on how we best do this?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I will certainly give this full consideration. I 
agree that we must be prepared to adapt our incentive systems to 
address the changing needs and aspirations of service members.

                         hart-rudman commission
    64. Senator Cleland. The Hart-Rudman Commission review suggested 
numerous initiatives to help prepare for the domestic threats that 
endanger the continental U.S. Several of these initiatives involve 
reform and restructuring at the Department of Defense in an effort to 
streamline and make DOD more efficient and effective to address the 
threats in this new world ``disorder.'' With your past experience at 
the Department of Defense, you know of the challenges that face the 
Department of Defense in this new century. Do you anticipate the need 
to review and implement any of the suggestions?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The Hart-Rudman Commission made an important 
contribution to the debate about the challenges of the evolving 
security environment and how the U.S. government should be aligned in 
order to prepare for future threats, particularly to the U.S. homeland. 
I welcome the insights of the Commission, whose members represent a 
vast wealth of experience in the national security arena, in addition 
to recommendations from other experts both inside and outside the 
Department.

               problem accounting for appropriated funds
    65. Senator Cleland. You noted in your response to an advance 
question that ``damage to modernization programs is best prevented by 
timely funding so that the Department does not have to disrupt 
procurement and RDT&E programs.'' However, my distinguished colleague 
Senator Byrd has recently reminded us that the Pentagon has a 
longstanding problem accounting for the funds appropriated for its use. 
As a two-time veteran of senior positions in the Department of Defense, 
what are your thoughts on the roots of this problem? Do you believe the 
solutions to this problem are internal to the Department, or is there 
something Congress can do to facilitate a solution?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The Department's accounting problems are of a very 
specific nature. We have had no major problem tracking and accounting 
for appropriated funds in terms of ensuring that no more than the 
precise amount is spent on specifically the uses for which those funds 
were appropriated. Indeed, DOD accounting systems were designed exactly 
for this purpose, and that design is one of the root causes of the 
accounting problems referred to by Senator Byrd--that problem being 
that DOD accounting systems cannot yet produce annual financial 
statements that can receive an unqualified (most favorable) audit 
opinion. DOD accounting systems were not designed to produce such 
statements, and now that such statements are required the Department is 
moving expeditiously to transform its accounting systems to do so. This 
is an immense challenge, especially since much of the financial data 
needed for DOD financial statements originates outside the Department's 
accounting and finance systems. The massive effort to achieve 
acceptable financial statements is primarily internal to the 
Department, but as with all genuine reform the support of Congress 
remains essential.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of Dr. Paul D. Wolfowitz 
follows:]
                          Nomination Reference
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                 February 15, 2001.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    Paul D. Wolfowitz, of Maryland, to be Deputy Secretary of Defense, 
vice Rudy F. de Leon, resigned.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The biographical sketch of Dr. Paul D. Wolfowitz, which 
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was 
referred, follows:]

              Biographical Sketch of Dr. Paul D. Wolfowitz

    On February 5, 2001, President Bush announced his intention to 
nominate Dr. Paul Wolfowitz to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. If 
confirmed by the Senate, this will be Dr. Wolfowitz's third tour of 
duty in the Pentagon.
    For the last 7 years, Dr. Wolfowitz has served as Dean and 
Professor of International Relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of 
Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of The Johns Hopkins University. 
SAIS is widely regarded as one of the world's leading graduate schools 
of international relations with 750 students, studying on campuses in 
Washington, DC.; Nanjing, China; and Bologna, Italy. As Dean, he led a 
successful capital campaign that raised more than $75 million and 
doubled the school's endowment. Also under his leadership, the 
curriculum and facilities were modernized and new faculty and programs 
were added to shift the school's focus from the Cold War to the era of 
globalization.
    From 1989 to 1993, Dr. Wolfowitz served as Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy in charge of the 700-person defense policy team that 
was responsible to Secretary Dick Cheney for matters concerning 
strategy, plans, and policy. During this period Secretary Wolfowitz and 
his staff had major responsibilities for the reshaping of strategy and 
force posture at the end of the Cold War. Key initiatives included the 
development of the Regional Defense Strategy, the Base Force, and two 
presidential nuclear initiatives that led to the elimination of tens of 
thousands of U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons. Under his leadership, the 
Policy Staff also played a major role in reviewing war plans for the 
Gulf War, and developing and executing plans that successfully raised 
more than $50 billion in Allied financial support for the war and 
prevented Iraq from opening a second front with Israel.
    During the Reagan administration, Dr. Wolfowitz served for 3 years 
as U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia--the fourth largest country in the 
world and the largest in the Moslem world. There he earned a reputation 
as a highly popular and effective Ambassador, a tough negotiator on 
behalf of American intellectual property owners, and a public advocate 
of political openness and democratic values. During his tenure, Embassy 
Jakarta was cited as one of the four best-managed embassies inspected 
in 1988. Prior to that posting, he served 3\1/2\ years as Assistant 
Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, where he was in 
charge of U.S. relations with more than twenty countries. In addition 
to contributing to substantial improvements in U.S. relations with 
Japan and China, Assistant Secretary Wolfowitz played a central role in 
coordinating the U.S. policy toward the Philippines that supported a 
peaceful transition from the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos to 
democracy.
    Dr. Wolfowitz's previous government service included: 2 years as 
head of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff (1981-82); an 
earlier Pentagon tour as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Regional Programs (1977-80), where he helped create the force that 
later became the United States Central Command and initiated the 
Maritime Pre-positioning Ships, the backbone of the initial U.S. 
deployment 12 years later in Operation Desert Shield; and 4 years 
(1973-77) in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, working on the 
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and a number of nuclear 
nonproliferation issues. His first government service was as a 
Management Intern at the Bureau of the Budget (1966-67).
    Dr. Wolfowitz taught previously at Yale (1970-73) and Johns Hopkins 
(1981). In 1993, he was the George F. Kennan Professor of National 
Security Strategy at the National War College. He has written widely on 
the subject of national strategy and foreign policy and was a member of 
the advisory boards of the journals Foreign Affairs and National 
Interest. Among his many awards for public service are: the 
Presidential Citizen's Medal, the Department of Defense's Distinguished 
Public Service Medal, the Department of State's Distinguished Honor 
Award, the Department of Defense's Distinguished Civilian Service 
Medal, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency's Distinguished 
Honor Award.
    Dr. Wolfowitz received a bachelor's degree from Cornell University 
(1965) in mathematics, and a doctorate in political science from the 
University of Chicago (1972). He is the father of Sara, David, and 
Rachel and lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals 
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a 
form that details the biographical, financial and other 
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. Paul D. 
Wolfowitz in connection with his nomination follows:]
                          UNITED STATES SENATE
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              Room SR-228
                       Washington, DC 20510-6050
                             (202) 224-3871
                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
      BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
    Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If 
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the 
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation 
of your answer applies.
                    Part A--Biographical Information
    Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in 
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for 
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in 
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.

    1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
    Paul Dundes Wolfowitz.

    2. Position to which nominated:
    Deputy Secretary, Department of Defense.

    3. Date of nomination:
    February 15, 2001.

    4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
    [Nominee responded and the information is contained in the 
committee's executive files.]

    5. Date and place of birth:
    December 22, 1943; New York, NY.

    6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
    Separated since January 1999; Frances Clare Selgin Wolfowitz.

    7. Names and ages of children:
    Sara Elizabeth Wolfowitz, 22.
    David Samuel Wolfowitz, 19.
    Rachel Dahlia Wolfowitz, 13.

    8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Dates        Degree
          Institution             attended      received    Date granted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ithaca High School, Ithaca, NY     9/58-6/61  ............  ............
Cornell University Ithaca, NY.     9/61-6/65  AB..........          1965
University of Chicago,            10/65-6/70  Ph.D........          1972
 Chicago, IL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the 
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of 
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Job title                        Employer                 Location           Dates of employment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dean.................................  Johns Hopkins            Washington, DC.........  January 1994-present.
                                        University School of
                                        Advanced International
                                        Studies.
Professor............................  National Defense         Washington, DC.........  January 1993-December
                                        University.                                       1993.
Under Secretary for Policy...........  Department of Defense..  Washington, DC.........  May 1989-January 1993.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, 
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, 
or local governments, other than those listed above. 

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      
    11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an 
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, 
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other 
business enterprise, educational, or other institution. 

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      
      

    12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in 
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and 
other organizations. 

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      

    13. Political affiliations and activities:
    (a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or 
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
    None.
    (b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered 
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5 
years.
    Foreign policy advisor to Bush/Cheney Presidential Committee, 2000.
    Foreign policy advisor to Dole/Kemp Presidential Committee, 1996.
    (c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign 
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar 
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Date                    Amount           Recipient
------------------------------------------------------------------------
01-08-96...........................          $250  Maggie Tinsman.
03-18-96...........................         $1000  Bob Dole.
03-22-96...........................          $250  John W. Warner.
09-16-96...........................          $500  Republican Primary
                                                    PAC.
10-07-97...........................          $500  Dylan C. Glenn.
2000...............................         $2000  George W. Bush--
                                        (in kind)   Primary Campaign.
2000...............................         $1000  George W. Bush--
                                                    General Campaign.
2000...............................          $500  George W. Bush--
                                                    Recount Effort.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions 
for outstanding service or achievements.
    President's Citizen's Medal; Department of Defense Distinguished 
Public Service Medal; Air Force Decoration for Exceptional Civilian 
Service; Department of state Distinguished Honor Award; Department of 
Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Medal; Arms Control and 
Disarmament Agency Distinguished Honor Award; Bangkok Embassy Refugee 
Coordinator's ``Pirate Buster'' Award; 1989 Lempad Prize from 
Indonesian Cultural Foundation; Embassy in Jakarta selected as one of 
four best-managed embassies in 1988; Phi Beta Kappa; National Science 
Foundation Fellow; Woodrow Wilson Fellow; General Motors Scholar; 
Telluride Scholar.

    15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of 
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have 
written. 

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
      

    16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal 
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have 
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have 
been nominated. 

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
      

    17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree, 
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any 
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
    Yes.

                                 ______
                                 
    [The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the 
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set 
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to 
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
                                ------                                

                           Signature and Date
    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete.

                                   Dr. Paul Wolfowitz.
    This 15th day of February, 2001.

    [The nomination of Dr. Paul D. Wolfowitz was reported to 
the Senate by Senator John Warner on February 28, 2001, with 
the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The 
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on February 28, 2001.]


  NOMINATIONS OF DR. DOV S. ZAKHEIM TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, 
COMPTROLLER; CHARLES S. ABELL TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR 
FORCE MANAGEMENT POLICY; AND VICTORIA CLARKE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
                     OF DEFENSE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS

                              ----------                              


                        TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2001

                                       U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:40 p.m. in room 
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner 
(chairman) presiding.
    Committee members present: Senators Warner, Thurmond, 
McCain, Inhofe, Hutchinson, Bunning, Levin, Reed, Akaka, Ben 
Nelson, and Dayton.
    Committee staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee, staff 
director; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff director; Scott W. 
Stucky, general counsel; and Ann M. Mittermeyer, assistant 
counsel.
    Professional staff members present: Charles S. Abell, John 
R. Barnes, William C. Greenwalt, Gary M. Hall, Lawrence J. 
Lanzillotta, George W. Lauffer, Patricia L. Lewis, Cord A. 
Sterling, and Eric H. Thoemmes.
    Minority staff members present: David S. Lyles, staff 
director for the minority; Gerald J. Leeling, minority counsel; 
Peter K. Levine, minority counsel; Creighton Greene, 
professional staff member; and Michael J. McCord, professional 
staff member.
    Staff assistants present: Thomas C. Moore, Suzanne K.L. 
Ross, and Michele A. Traficante.
    Committee members' assistants present: Christopher J. Paul, 
assistant to Senator McCain; George M. Bernier III, assistant 
to Senator Santorum; Robert Alan McCurry, assistant to Senator 
Roberts; Douglas Flanders, assistant to Senator Allard; Michael 
P. Ralsky, assistant to Senator Hutchinson; Kristine Fauser, 
assistant to Senator Collins; David Young, assistant to Senator 
Bunning; Menda S. Fife, assistant to Senator Kennedy; Christina 
Evans and Barry Gene Wright, assistants to Senator Byrd; 
Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed; Davelyn Noelani 
Kalipi, assistant to Senator Akaka; Eric Pierce, assistant to 
Senator Ben Nelson; and Brady King, assistant to Senator 
Dayton.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN

    Senator Levin. Chairman Warner has asked me to open up the 
hearing. He has been delayed just a few additional minutes, so 
we will get going. We meet today to consider the nominations of 
Dr. Dov Zakheim to be Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller; 
Charles Abell to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force 
Management Policy; and Victoria Clarke to be Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.
    We want to first welcome all of our nominees, and the 
colleagues of ours who will be introducing them to the 
committee. I know that Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary 
Wolfowitz want us to proceed expeditiously with these 
nominations. I think they are probably feeling a bit lonely in 
the Pentagon these days without the help that you all are going 
to be providing them, assuming you are confirmed. I know he has 
been looking forward to getting that assistance. The Department 
has a lot of important decisions to make. It needs senior 
civilian leadership in place to help make those decisions.
    Dr. Zakheim, we are all anxious to get the Department's 
fiscal year 2002 budget so that we can do our work here in 
Congress. The Comptroller, the chief financial officer for the 
largest department in the Federal Government, is a critical 
leadership position in the Department of Defense. It is an 
awesome responsibility. The financial management challenges 
facing the Department of Defense are enormous. As we've 
discussed, you are going to be in an important position to 
address those.
    It's always a pleasure to see Charles Abell. He is one of 
our own staff, who has been nominated for this important 
position in the administration. His service to this committee 
and to the Personnel Subcommittee for the last 8 years has been 
exceptional. Your committment to the well-being of our military 
members and their families is well known to us. We will miss 
your experience and expertise on this committee, but it will be 
put to good use in the department on behalf of our men and 
women in uniform and the civilians who serve in the Department 
of Defense.
    Ms. Clarke, you've been nominated to the very important 
position of public spokesperson for the Department of Defense. 
If confirmed, the American people will count on you to tell it 
like it is, like the man who sits to your right is famous for 
doing. [Laughter.]
    A lesser known, but just as important, aspect of the duties 
of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, is 
the responsibility to keep the men and women in the military 
well-informed. So if you're confirmed, I am confident you will 
give this duty the attention that it rightfully deserves.
    So we have three well-qualified candidates for positions 
that the Secretary is anxious to fill. We all look forward to 
hearing from our nominees.
    I understand, Dr. Zakheim, your wife, Deborah, and your 
son, Roger, are here today. We welcome them. Mr. Abell, I 
understand that your wife, Kathy, is with you today, and we 
surely welcome her. I understand, Ms. Clarke, that your 
husband, Brian Graham, and children, Colin, Devon, and Charlie 
are here, as well as your parents, Charles and Cecilia Clarke, 
and your sister, Caitlin Clarke. We welcome all of them. Family 
support is essential in these positions. You will all be put 
under great time pressure. There will be too many times when 
you're not going to be able to get home as promised, and we ask 
your families for their service when we confirm you for your 
service.
    At this point, I think before I ask the questions that are 
traditionally asked, I'm going to call upon Senator Thurmond 
for his opening statement. Following that, I will ask the 
nominees the standard questions we ask all our nominees, and 
then we are going to call upon our colleagues to introduce our 
nominees. Senator Thurmond, please proceed.

              STATEMENT OF SENATOR STROM THURMOND

    Senator Thurmond. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I join 
you in welcoming Dr. Zakheim, Mr. Abell, and Ms. Clarke. Each 
of them has had a long and distinguished career, either in the 
private sector or within the government, and I do not expect 
any surprises on their nominations.
    I am especially pleased by Charlie Abell's nomination to be 
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy. 
Charlie has been truly professional in carrying out his 
responsibilities as a staff member of the Armed Services 
Committee. He was instrumental in formulating many of the pay 
and benefit programs that have started to reverse the 
recruiting and retention programs in our military services. I 
only regret that the committee's retention program was not 
enticing enough to keep him here on the committee staff.
    To each nominee, I congratulate you on your nomination and 
on your superb record of public service. Your willingness to 
serve our Nation in the challenging positions for which you 
have been nominated speaks highly of you. I wish you all 
success.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Levin. Thank you, Senator. We're going to move 
directly to the introductions. Let me call first on Senator 
McCain.

                STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN

    Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Senator Levin, Senator 
Thurmond, members of the committee. I have known all three of 
the nominees. Dr. Zakheim and I had a professional relationship 
for many years.
    I am especially here on behalf of Victoria Clarke, who 
will, as you mentioned, be the voice of the Department of 
Defense. This doesn't mean Secretary Rumsfeld can't speak for 
himself, which he does very eloquently, but obviously, the job 
of spokesperson is one that requires talent and skills and a 
certain degree of sensitivity, particularly when we are faced 
with crises, as we have experienced just recently, some of 
which entailed the risk or even loss of American lives.
    I've known Victoria Clarke and have had the privilege of 
working with her since 1983. She has been able to balance the 
responsibilities of a true professional and wife and mother. 
She not only, I believe, will be an excellent member of the 
Bush team, but she will also be a role model to other women in 
America as she has moved up the ladder of success to this very 
important position.
    I recommend her highly. She's a very dear and beloved 
friend of mine, and I'm very proud of her at this moment that 
she will take over these very difficult and awesome 
responsibilities. I hope my colleagues will consider her 
positively and I look forward to working with her in the years 
ahead.
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for allowing me to 
speak.
    Senator Levin. Senator McCain, thank you.
    Senator Hutchinson.

              STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM HUTCHINSON

    Senator Hutchinson. Mr. Chairman, I am very honored today 
to be able to appear before the committee and to introduce 
someone who doesn't need an introduction to this committee, 
President Bush's nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for Force Management Policy, Charlie Abell, one that we all 
love dearly. I understand how lonely Secretary Rumsfeld is 
getting these days, but I seriously considered putting a hold 
on the nomination if it would have given us a chance of keeping 
Charlie around. I would ask unanimous consent that a more 
lengthy introduction be included in the record.
    Charlie served in the Army, in the enlisted ranks, in 1967, 
became an officer, served two tours in Vietnam, and is highly 
decorated. The distinguished medals he's received include the 
Legion of Merit, 4 Meritorious Service Medals, the Purple 
Heart, 2 Bronze Stars for Valor, 14 Air Medals, including 2 for 
valor, the Army Commendation Medal for Valor, and the Combat 
Infantry Badge. So he is highly decorated. But more than that 
is he joined our staff, and I've had the opportunity to serve 
with him for the last 2\1/2\ years.
    We all know him to be knowledgeable, professional, and 
totally dedicated. He is committed to the welfare of our men 
and women in uniform. Having had the opportunity to work with 
him as chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, I am enthused 
about his new opportunities, and I know that he will do an 
outstanding job for those he loves and for the country he 
serves.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Hutchinson follows:]
              Prepared Statement by Senator Tim Hutchinson
    Mr. Chairman, it is an honor for me to appear before the committee. 
Today, I have the privilege of introducing President Bush's nominee to 
be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy, Mr. 
Charles S. Abell.
    In the 2\1/2\ years that I have worked with Charlie, I have learned 
what so many of our colleagues already knew--that Charlie is one of the 
most patriotic, dedicated, and hardworking public servants in the 
Nation's capital.
    For those who do not know Charlie personally, let me tell them 
something about his background.
    Charlie joined the enlisted ranks of the Army in 1967--it was not 
long before he became an officer. He served two tours in Vietnam as 
both a Cobra helicopter pilot and as an infantry platoon leader.
    After Vietnam, Charlie served in numerous command and staff 
positions within the Army, including Congressional Affairs Officer for 
the Deputy Chief of Staff of Personnel and as a member of the Army 
Legislative Liaison Office.
    The decorations he earned during his distinguished career as a 
soldier include the Legion of Merit, 4 Meritorious Service Medals, the 
Purple Heart, 2 Bronze Stars for Valor, 14 Air Medals including 2 for 
valor, the Army Commendation Medal for Valor, and the Combat 
Infantryman's Badge.
    After retiring as a Lieutenant Colonel, after 26 years in the Army, 
Charlie joined the staff of this committee.
    As the lead staffer on the Personnel Subcommittee, which I now have 
the privilege of chairing, he was responsible for issues concerning 
military readiness and quality of life. Included in that not-
insignificant portfolio are the topics of manpower; pay and 
compensation; health care; personnel management issues affecting Active 
Duty, Reserve and civilian personnel; and nominations, both military 
and civilian.
    During his tenure here on the Hill, Charlie has worked with the 
present, and former, members of this committee to achieve great things 
for our men and women in uniform and for our Nation's military 
retirees. Those accomplishments include:

         Significant pay increases for Active Duty and Reserve 
        service members;
         Improving recruiter access to our Nation's high 
        schools; and,
         Enactment of the Warner/Hutchinson Tricare-For-Life 
        plan, with which our Nation will finally fulfill the decade's-
        old promise of lifetime healthcare for those who choose to make 
        a career of the Armed Forces.

    Now, Charlie is in the position, if confirmed, to take the next 
logical step in an already distinguished career of public service. From 
his new vantage point across the Potomac he will be able to build on 
the successes he helped over the last 9 years on behalf of millions of 
men and women in uniform, their families, and military retirees.
    If confirmed, Charlie will serve as Secretary Rumsfeld's senior 
policy advisor on matters concerning the management of military and 
civilian personnel and the welfare of their families.
    He will promulgate policies relating to recruiting, retention, 
career development, compensation, quality of life, equal opportunity 
and other force management concerns.
    By forwarding to us the nomination, President Bush has publically 
declared to the Nation that he has every confidence that Charlie is the 
best man for the job. For someone who's relatively new to this town, 
that decision marks our President as an excellent judge of character 
and a pretty fast learner.
    Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, my fellow 
Americans, I present to you Mr. Charles S. Abell.

    Senator Levin. Senator Hutchinson, thank you very much.
    Senator Reed.

                 STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

    Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome 
all the nominees, but I'm particularly pleased and privileged 
to be able to introduce Dr. Dov Zakheim.
    One of the best ways to take a measure of a person is to 
debate that person on important issues of great consequence to 
the Nation, and I had that opportunity last fall at Duke. I 
became impressed, as we all will become impressed, with Dov's 
intelligence, his patriotism, and his dedication to this 
country. We don't agree on everything, but I believe this 
committee will agree that he is a superbly qualified and 
prepared nominee to become the next Comptroller of the 
Department of Defense.
    Dr. Zakheim has an extraordinary academic record--after 
graduating, summa cum laude, from Columbia University, he 
earned his doctorate in economics and politics from Oxford 
University. Dr. Zakheim's public career began at the 
Congressional Budget Office, where he was an analyst. In the 
1980s, he served in a number of senior Defense Department 
positions. So he takes great experience to this task.
    He became, in 1985, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
for Planning and Resources. He knows the Department of Defense, 
and he will bring that experience and that intellect to bear on 
critical issues of financial management of the Department of 
Defense.
    His skill has been recognized by both Democratic and 
Republican administrations. The Clinton administration 
appointed him in 1997 to the Task Force on Defense Reform, and 
he has had numerous significant positions.
    Dr. Zakheim twice has been awarded the distinguished Public 
Service Medal from the Department of Defense. He received the 
CBO Director's Award for Outstanding Service, the Director's 
Award for Outstanding Service for his present firm, System 
Planning Corporation. He is eminently qualified and prepared 
for the difficult challenges of Comptroller. I know he will 
give his all, and he will be tireless in his efforts to improve 
the management of the Department of Defense. I would urge his 
rapid approval. Thank you.
    Senator Levin. Senator Reed, thank you very much. We will 
start with the opening statements now of our nominees, if they 
have opening statements. Why don't we call on you first, Dr. 
Zakheim?

STATEMENT OF DR. DOV S. ZAKHEIM, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY 
                    OF DEFENSE, COMPTROLLER

    Dr. Zakheim. Thank you, Senator Levin, and thank you so 
much, Senator Reed, for those very kind words.
    Senator Levin, members of the committee, it is an honor to 
come before you as President Bush's nominee to become the next 
Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller. I thank President Bush 
and Secretary Rumsfeld for their confidence in nominating me 
for this important position. Many people made this honor 
possible. I especially want to thank my wife, Deborah, and my 
sons and my parents for their love and support throughout my 
career. I will try to keep my remarks brief, and I ask that my 
full statement be included for the record.
    Senator Levin. It will be. Also, I forgot to mention 
Senator Hutchinson's statement will be made part of the record, 
too.
    Dr. Zakheim. Over the years, it's been my good fortune to 
have been guided by sage mentors and thoughtful colleagues. I 
especially appreciate the opportunities that were afford me by 
President Reagan and Secretary of Defense Weinberger during 
their stewardship over America's security, and Secretary 
Weinberger's support ever since then.
    During my service at the Pentagon, I was also privileged to 
work for and with two especially talented and brilliant men, 
Fred Ikle and Richard Perle, who also afforded me wise counsel 
and support over the years. It was thanks to another good 
friend, Dr. Paul Wolfowitz, that I first joined the Pentagon in 
1981, and I'm delighted that he has returned to the Department 
of Defense as Secretary Rumsfeld's deputy.
    This is an important and challenging time for the 
Department of Defense. The Cold War may be over, but the 
international environment is hardly serene. As leader of the 
free world, the United States bears a special responsibility to 
protect, not only its interests, but to support those of its 
friends and allies. Those responsibilities bear most heavily on 
our military personnel, whose welfare must remain our highest 
priority, as well as on their civilian colleagues at the DOD.
    The office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, 
is especially critical to ensuring a robust national security 
posture. The Comptroller has to budget and manage funds to 
achieve the greatest payoff from every taxpayer dollar. The 
Department faces many tough choices in the area of strategy, 
military capabilities, as well as infrastructure and support 
activities. We have to allocate scarce budget dollars to give 
our fighting forces the greatest advantage on both current and 
future battlefields as they evolve. I assure you that, if I am 
confirmed, I will do everything possible to get our uniformed 
men and women the resources they need to excel in the difficult 
missions assigned to them.
    If confirmed as DOD Comptroller, I also intend to make 
financial management reform a top priority. We have to improve 
our management, including management information and accounting 
systems. Congress and the American people have to have full 
confidence that the Department maintains the very highest 
standards in managing and accounting for its funds. We also 
have to ensure that our planning, programming, and budgeting 
system remains relevant to the demands of the new century, and 
we have to rigorously pursue economies and efficiencies 
wherever we might find them.
    As one who has spent 6 years on Capitol Hill, I recognize 
and profoundly believe that the security of our country depends 
on wise decisions in both the legislative and executive 
branches of our government. If confirmed, a key goal of mine 
would be to foster a close cooperation between the Department 
of Defense and its oversight committees, in particular. My 
years in the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office taught me 
that, on matters of national security, bipartisan cooperation 
is essential.
    Let me close by saying again how honored I am to have been 
nominated by President Bush for a position of such immense 
importance for America's future security. I pledge to do my 
utmost to fulfill the trust placed in me. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Zakheim follows:]
                Prepared Statement by Dr. Dov S. Zakheim
    Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, members of the committee, it is an 
honor to come before you as President Bush's nominee to become the next 
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). I thank President Bush and 
Secretary Rumsfeld for their confidence in nominating me for this 
important position.
    Many people made this honor possible. I especially want to thank my 
wife, Deborah, my sons, and my parents for their unwavering love and 
support throughout my professional career.
    Over the years it has been my good fortune to have been guided by 
sage mentors and thoughtful colleagues. I particularly appreciate the 
opportunities afforded me by President Reagan and Secretary of Defense 
Caspar Weinberger during their extraordinary stewardship over America's 
security. Secretary Weinberger has also been especially supportive to 
me since I left the Pentagon, and I will always be grateful to him for 
writing an exceedingly warm foreword to my book, The Flight of the 
Lavi.
    During my service at the Pentagon, I was privileged to work for, 
and with, two extraordinarily brilliant and talented men, Under 
Secretary Fred Ikle and Assistant Secretary Richard Perle. Both have 
afforded me wise counsel and support when I most needed it. It was 
thanks to another good friend, Dr. Paul Wolfowitz, that I first joined 
the Pentagon in 1981, and I am delighted that he has returned to the 
Department as Secretary Rumsfeld's deputy.
    This is an important and challenging time for the Department of 
Defense. The Cold War may be over, but the international environment is 
hardly serene. As leader of the Free World, the United States bears 
special responsibility to protect not only its interests, but to 
support those of its allies and friends. These responsibilities bear 
most heavily on our military personnel, whose welfare must remain our 
highest priority, as well as on their civilian colleagues at the DOD.
    The Office of Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is 
especially critical to ensuring a robust national security posture. The 
Comptroller must budget and manage funds to achieve the greatest payoff 
from every taxpayer dollar. The Department faces many tough choices in 
the areas of strategy, military capabilities, as well as infrastructure 
and support activities. Scarce budget dollars must be carefully 
allocated to give our fighting forces the greatest advantage on current 
and future battlefields as they evolve. I assure you that if confirmed 
I will do everything possible to get our uniformed men and women the 
resources they need to excel in the difficult missions assigned them.
    If confirmed as DOD Comptroller, I intend to make financial 
management reform a top priority. We must improve our management, 
including management information, and accounting systems. Congress and 
the American people must have full confidence that the Department 
maintains the very highest standards in managing and accounting for its 
funds. We also must ensure that our planning, programming, and 
budgeting system remains relevant to the demands of the new century. We 
must rigorously pursue economies and efficiencies wherever they are to 
be found.
    As one who spent 6 years on Capitol Hill, I recognize, and 
profoundly believe, that the security of America depends on wise 
decisions in both the legislative and executive branches of our 
government. If confirmed, a key goal of mine would be to foster a close 
cooperation between the Department of Defense and its oversight 
committees in particular. My years in the non-partisan Congressional 
Budget Office taught me that on matters of national security, 
bipartisan cooperation is essential.
    Let me close by saying again how honored I am to have been 
nominated by President Bush for a position of such immense importance 
for America's future security. I pledge to do my utmost to fulfill the 
trust placed in me. Thank you.

    Senator Levin. Thank you.
    Ms. Clarke.

STATEMENT OF VICTORIA CLARKE, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
                 OF DEFENSE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS

    Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Senator Levin, and members 
of the committee, thank you very much. It is a real honor for 
me to be here today. I am deeply grateful to President Bush for 
nominating me to this position, and to Secretary Rumsfeld for 
giving me the opportunity to serve. I am very grateful to 
Senator McCain for his remarks. They mean a great deal to me.
    As President Bush has said, the Department of Defense is in 
the business of protecting America's freedom, and the essence 
of that freedom demands that we join the American people in a 
discussion of and commitment to how we defend it. This, for me, 
is a matter of patriotism. It is also my professional 
philosophy. This committee knows far better than I that the 
portrait of international security and national defense is 
vastly different today from what it was even just a few years 
ago.
    As Secretary Rumsfeld has made clear, our challenge is 
building a military that fits in that portrait. We must attract 
and retain the very best people to serve. We must use public 
dollars effectively and efficiently, and we must explore the 
use of innovative technologies and policies that promote peace 
and stability. Our challenges change, changing an institution 
whose roots in our communities and our consciousness runs 
deeper than perhaps any other. That demands an aggressive 
program of outreach and education, a national conversation 
about the challenges, the risk, and the solutions.
    If confirmed, I will embrace that challenge in a spirit of 
openness and honesty with this committee, with our men and 
women in uniform, and with the people of the United States, on 
whose support this life-or-death challenge for our country 
ultimately depends.
    That is my professional philosophy. It is also my patriotic 
feeling. I thank the committee, the President, and the 
Secretary for giving me the opportunity to act on it. Thank 
you, Senator.
    Senator Levin. Ms. Clarke, thank you.
    Mr. Abell.

    STATEMENT OF CHARLES S. ABELL, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT 
        SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR FORCE MANAGEMENT POLICY

    Mr. Abell. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, 
members of the committee, I want to thank you and Senator 
Hutchinson and Senator Thurmond for the kind words this 
afternoon. I really appreciate them. I'm honored to have been 
nominated by the President. I'm honored to appear before this 
committee today.
    If confirmed, I will be privileged to serve in a position 
that provides for the personnel readiness of the force and for 
the quality of life for service members, retirees, and their 
families. It will be an awesome responsibility; however, I look 
forward to the challenge.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to personally 
and publicly thank you for your confidence in my abilities and 
for being a mentor and an inspiration to me during my time here 
on the staff.
    I've had the good fortune to serve with so many of my 
personal heros and those whom I have admired throughout my 
life. I plan to thrill my grandchildren with tales of working 
on important issues with many noted Americans. Being a part of 
this staff--of this great committee--has been a much greater 
experience than I could have ever imagined. I'm excited about 
the opportunity to serve in the Department of Defense and to 
continue to work for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
    As a result of my position here as one of your professional 
staff members, I'm aware of some of the many critical issues 
and important challenges that I will face as the next Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy. I also know 
that there are challenges that are not yet apparent to me. Mr. 
Chairman, if confirmed, I will eagerly accept each of these 
challenges that I will face. I pledge to you and to the men and 
women who serve our nation that I will work hard to meet these 
challenges. I will conduct my dealings with the force, my 
colleagues in the Department of Defense and the administration 
and Congress in an open and direct manner.
    As the members of this committee know, I prefer to be 
forthright and open when dealing with any issue. If confirmed, 
I will be the professional this committee has come to know.
    As excited as I am for the opportunity that awaits me, 
leaving the committee staff will be difficult. I've worked on 
the staff of this committee for more than 8 years. I recall the 
pride and honor I felt when Senator Thurmond hired me. I fondly 
remember my first official trip as a member of the committee 
with you, Mr. Chairman. I've had extraordinary opportunities to 
be a part of history and to meet some of the most influential 
and important people in the world. I've been enriched beyond my 
greatest expectations.
    I will find another occasion to thank my fellow staff 
members, but I would be remiss if I did not publicly 
acknowledge the very positive impact that my staff director, 
Les Brownlee, has had on my life. As everyone knows, this 
gentleman is truly unique, and I owe much of what I am today to 
this friendship and his tutelage.
    If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I will serve the soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines--active, Reserve, retired--and 
their families to the best of this ability. I will also miss 
this committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Abell. Senator Levin, thank 
you for initiating this hearing on time. I had to testify 
before another committee of the Senate. I might just start my 
opening remarks following your very thoughtful, very insightful 
statement to the committee.

           STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN

    Chairman Warner. We are very proud of you, as we are of our 
professional staff. We take pride in this committee. Through 
the 23 years that I've been privileged to be a member--my 
colleague, Senator Levin, and I came to the Senate together 
these many years ago, almost a quarter of a century--this 
committee has enjoyed the finest of professionals on its staff 
throughout these years, and they have gone on to positions of 
great responsibility, not only in the public sector, but the 
private sector. You stand preeminent among those who have 
served this committee.
    I think it would be important for those in attendance today 
just to know a few facts. You started your career as an 
enlisted soldier, a private, and concluded with your retirement 
as a lieutenant colonel. You served as a Cobra attack 
helicopter pilot. You were decorated as an officer who led an 
infantry platoon, an infantry company, and attack helicopter 
units during two tours in Vietnam. I remember that war well 
because I was then Secretary of the United States Navy, and I 
know the personal sacrifice that all those who wore the uniform 
during that period made.
    Your decorations include the Legion of Merit, 4 Meritorious 
Service Medals, the Purple Heart, 2 Bronze Stars for Valor, 14 
Air Medals, the Army Commendation Medal for Valor and the 
Combat Infantryman's Badge. I think that says it all. After 
your 26-year Army career, you joined the committee in 1993, and 
you have been a most valuable member of our team. So we wish 
you well.
    I am confident that the Senate will give you the advice and 
consent the President has sought favorably on your nomination. 
Would you at this time kindly introduce your family who are 
present in the hearing room?
    Mr. Abell. Sir, I am accompanied by my wife, Cathy.
    Chairman Warner. We welcome you. Thank you, sir.
    Now, Dr. Zakheim, I've come to know you, through the years, 
with your distinguished career, and you served with the 
Congressional Budget Office--that's an experience, isn't it?
    [Laughter.]
    --and in the Department of Defense during the Reagan 
administration in a number of senior positions from 1981 to 
1985. From 1985 to 1987, you served as Deputy Under Secretary 
of Defense for Planning and Resources and played an active role 
in the planning, programming, and budget process. In that 
capacity, you successfully negotiated arms cooperation 
agreements with various U.S. allies.
    Subsequently, you served two terms as the President's 
appointee to the United States Commission for the Preservation 
of America's Heritage Abroad. In 1997, former Secretary of 
Defense Cohen named you to the Task Force on Defense Reform and 
later named you to the first Board of Visitors of the 
Department of Defense Overseas Regional Schools and the Defense 
Science Board Task Force on Impact of DOD Acquisition Policies 
and on the Health of the Defense Industry.
    You currently serve as Corporate Vice President of Systems 
Planning Corporation, a high-technology research analysis and 
manufacturing firm. Also, you're Chief Executive Officer of SPC 
International Corporation, which specializes in political, 
military, and economic consulting and international analysis--
again, a very distinguished public service career. Once again, 
you volunteered to go back to serve your country with a most 
exciting team. So I commend you.
    Would you introduce the members of your family, please?
    Dr. Zakheim. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My wife, Deborah, sitting 
right behind me and, next to her, one of my sons, Roger.
    Chairman Warner. We welcome you. As I've said many times in 
the course of these hearings, it is a family affair, serving in 
the Department of Defense. There are no hours. The clock 
knoweth no finality. Days go into nights and nights into day. 
But I must say it was one of the most exciting challenges of my 
life, the 5 years, 4 months, and 3 days I spent in that 
building. So when I speak to each of you, I speak to your 
families, because they are very much a part of the team.
    Now, Ms. Clarke served as Press Assistant to Vice President 
Bush's office early in the 1980s, and later served as Press 
Secretary to Senator McCain. That's a challenge.
    [Laughter.]
    I say that with respect to our colleague--working in both 
the House and Senate offices and then served as Assistant U.S. 
Trade Representative for Public Affairs and the private-sector 
liaison under Ambassador Carla Hills in 1992, Press Secretary 
for President George Bush's re-election campaign in 1992. Ms. 
Clarke is currently the General Manager of the Washington 
Office of Hill and Knowlton, one of the most distinguished and 
venerable institutions of its type in the Nation's capital, and 
we welcome you. Would you kindly introduce those who have come 
to join you today?
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have my parents, Dr. 
and Mrs. Charles Clarke; my sister, Caitlin; my husband, Brian 
Graham; my son, Colin, who is having his sixth birthday 
tomorrow; Devon, who is four; Charlie, who is a little over 
two; and my friend Lorraine Voles, who is graciously helping us 
out today.
    Chairman Warner. That's lovely. Those kids are beautifully 
well-behaved and turned out, as we say in the military, for 
parade dress.
    Well, we thank you for considering, again, public service 
and for undertaking it as an exemplary parent with the duties 
at home and the duties in the office, and all three of you are 
serving on, I think, what will be one of the most exciting 
teams--I don't say this, Republican and Democrat, because I've 
worked with all the teams in these 23 years we've been here--
but you're going to be on an exciting team and the cutting edge 
of history in our Department of Defense. So I wish you well.
    Now, the committee has standard questions which we propound 
to each of our nominees, and I will do so on behalf of the 
committee and ask each of you to respond.
    Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations 
governing conflict of interest? Mr. Abell.
    Mr. Abell. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Dr. Zakheim.
    Dr. Zakheim. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Ms. Clarke.
    Ms. Clarke. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken 
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the 
confirmation process?
    Ms. Clarke. No, sir.
    Dr. Zakheim. No, sir.
    Mr. Abell. No, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Will you ensure your staff complies with 
the deadlines established for requested communications, 
including questions for the record in the hearings? Charlie, I 
want you to answer that loud and clear.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Abell. Yes, sir.
    Dr. Zakheim. Yes, sir.
    Ms. Clarke. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses 
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
    Ms. Clarke. Yes, sir.
    Dr. Zakheim. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Abell. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Would those witnesses be protected from 
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
    Ms. Clarke. Yes, sir.
    Dr. Zakheim. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Abell. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Levin, why don't you start the 
questioning period here on behalf of the membership?
    Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Zakheim, does 
the administration plan to file a detailed budget for defense 
for the year 2002?
    Dr. Zakheim. To the best of my knowledge, they plan to do 
so. I don't have those details myself, obviously.
    Senator Levin. Do you know when they plan to do that?
    Dr. Zakheim. I do not at this time.
    Senator Levin. Do you know whether the administration plans 
to request any supplemental funding for defense for fiscal year 
2001?
    Dr. Zakheim. I believe that is under active consideration, 
but I don't know the final answer to that one, sir.
    Senator Levin. When will that decision be made, whether or 
not to do it? Do you know?
    Dr. Zakheim. I don't know the exact date. If confirmed, I 
suspect that I'll be part of that decision-making process.
    Senator Levin. Do you have any idea as to how much funding 
would be requested, if it's requested?
    Dr. Zakheim. Not at this time, sir, no.
    Senator Levin. You've written in the past, Dr. Zakheim, on 
the need for additional base closures.
    Dr. Zakheim. Yes, sir.
    Senator Levin. Do you believe there is excess 
infrastructure in the Defense Department today? If so, are 
there unfunded needs within the Department that could benefit 
by redirecting resources away from the excess infrastructure?
    Dr. Zakheim. I believe the infrastructure is in excess of 
the force structure, yes, sir.
    Senator Levin. Does that mean it's in excess, you believe, 
of what is needed?
    Dr. Zakheim. I believe that it is. I think we have to look 
closely at the details, of course. But yes, I believe that 
there is an excess.
    Senator Levin. Have previous rounds of base closures, in 
your opinion, resulted in significant reductions in DOD costs 
that have made resources available for higher priorities?
    Dr. Zakheim. As I understand it, GAO and CBO have said as 
much. They have never put a dollar figure on that, though.
    Senator Levin. Do you believe that it is true that there 
have been significant savings over time from previous rounds of 
base closures?
    Dr. Zakheim. I haven't done the analysis. I believe there 
are savings; but since I haven't done the numbers, I don't know 
how big they are.
    Senator Levin. Dr. Zakheim, you've also written that 
peacekeeping is a ``strategically marginal'' use of U.S. 
defense funds. You have advocated, ``withdrawing from much of 
the peacekeeping business,'' so that funds can be used for 
other needs. Do you believe we should withdraw our forces 
unilaterally from the following places: Bosnia, Kosovo, Sinai?
    Dr. Zakheim. With regard to Bosnia and Kosovo, I think that 
it's a function of consultation with allies. The ``unilateral'' 
word is key here. We shouldn't do anything unilaterally. The 
events in the last few months, particularly in Macedonia, 
demonstrated that this is really a very sensitive region. I 
believe the same holds true for the Sinai. Clearly, both Israel 
and----
    Senator Thurmond. Speak a little bit louder. I didn't hear 
you.
    Dr. Zakheim. I'm sorry, Senator. What I just, Senator--can 
you hear me now, sir? What I just said was that the word 
``unilateral'' is key here, that on Kosovo and Bosnia, we can't 
just pull out without consultation with allies. The events in 
Macedonia have indicated how sensitive that region is. So these 
issues are a function of what is happening on the ground.
    I believe the same applies to the Sinai. The Israelis and 
the Egyptians both are deeply concerned about how we approach 
this process. So it will certainly have to involve 
consultation, Senator.
    Senator Levin. I'm glad to hear those answers. It is 
somewhat reassuring, both given prior positions, but, in any 
event, given current circumstances, I think those are 
reassuring answers, at least for me.
    Dr. Zakheim, when there are differences between the amounts 
that are authorized by us and the amounts that are appropriated 
by the appropriators for specific programs, will you work with 
the defense committees of Congress to identify and resolve such 
differences between authorization and appropriation reports 
prior to obligation?
    Dr. Zakheim. We have to, and I know it's been the 
Department's practice all along, to try to work with all the 
oversight committees and resolve these matters as amicably and 
as efficiently as possible, and I am committed to consultation 
with the committees on a case-by-case basis to resolve these 
matters to everyone's satisfaction.
    Senator Levin. Thank you. On the financial management end 
of your work, you and we all know the Department faces serious 
financial management problems. Because these problems are 
widespread, they can't be solved at one time, but require 
higher-level attention. I was pleased to read in your answers 
to the committee's advance questions that you are, in your 
words, fully committed to improve financial management in the 
Department of Defense. Could you give us just an idea, in your 
judgment, as to what needs to be done. What steps do you plan 
to take to improve financial management at the Department?
    Dr. Zakheim. Senator, there really are some very serious 
problems, whether it's a matter of clean audits, whether it's a 
matter of proper training, whether it's a matter of inventory 
management or management information. I'm coming out of the 
private sector, and when you're in the private sector, these 
sorts of matters are second nature. You can't run a business 
without having the kind of information that is being sought 
from the Department of Defense.
    If I were confirmed, it's a top priority for me to do a 
number of things--first, to reorganize the Comptroller's office 
to bring in some first-rate people as deputies to the 
Comptroller so that we can have focus on management reform and 
on management initiatives.
    Second, I would hope, if confirmed, to bring in outsiders, 
people with a financial management background, former CFOs and 
the like, who could provide what you might call mid-term--mid-
course guidance on a regular basis to see how we're doing.
    Finally, I want to work with this committee and with other 
interested Members of Congress who have very valuable input and 
have made a very big difference over the years in passing a 
variety of financial management acts that have to be really 
fulfilled.
    Senator Levin. Just one last question for you and my time 
is up. Do you have any plans to reorganize the Office of the 
Comptroller; and if so, what types of changes would you make?
    Dr. Zakheim. If confirmed, Senator, I would very much like 
to do that. I believe that it would be in everyone's best 
interest to have at least one, and probably two, Deputy Under 
Secretaries who focus specifically on financial management 
issues, and then a third one who focuses on program budget 
issues. Financial management is simply not being dealt with as 
smoothly and as capably, in my view, as has the program budget 
side, and it really needs a lot of work. We need competent, 
excellent people to do this, and I'm committed to doing this, 
if confirmed.
    Senator Levin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin. For the record, 
the chair of this committee, together with the ranking member, 
has the responsibility to review the material that is forwarded 
on all nominees from the White House to the United States 
Senate through this committee. Senator Levin and I have 
reviewed that material. We took it upon ourselves to have a 
briefing in executive session on three nominees, and that has 
been completed. Do you have anything further to add--but we 
reviewed this material and it met our criteria. Am I correct in 
that?
    Senator Levin. There may be an additional executive 
session, if possible.
    Chairman Warner. I'm going to momentarily defer to my other 
senators, but I cannot let go saying that, one, a very valued 
staff member of this committee is to do a transfer from this 
committee to the Department of Defense to work under your aegis 
as your principal deputy. We wish to recommend him very highly. 
He is an extraordinary, able, well-trained professional, and 
it's been my experience--and I think my staff, who share these 
views--that the staff of the Pentagon and your department have 
served their country very well. While you certainly have the 
right to do certain reorganization, we would want you to do so 
knowing that this committee has very high respect for their 
performance in their respective duties.
    Senator Levin, do you have a statement? Then I'll yield to 
Senator Bunning, because I'm going to stay here for a period of 
time. Senator, do you have a statement you'd like to make? Just 
a brief announcement?
    Senator Thurmond. I will pass on the opportunity to ask 
questions of our nominees. I have complete confidence in their 
abilities and will support their nominations.
    Chairman Warner. I thank you.
    Now, Senator Bunning, you take my----
    Senator Bunning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I 
want to thank all of you for coming.
    The most important thing I can convey to you today is the 
importance of providing, here in Congress to the members of 
this committee, timely, accurate information. If an 
administration official is asked a question, we need that 
official to provide us with accurate information or we cannot 
do our jobs. If confirmed, I look forward to working with all 
of you.
    Dr. Zakheim, there have been many reports of the 
deterioration of our readiness in the armed services. Do you 
believe that the proposed budget is sufficient to adequately 
resource our force at their current levels of commitment?
    Dr. Zakheim. Well, Senator, Secretary Rumsfeld is 
conducting the strategic review right now, and the budget 
submission for 2002 is going to reflect that review. So, in a 
sense, I can't really comment on the relationship other than to 
say that, clearly Secretary Rumsfeld is going to take into 
account exactly the concerns you've talked about.
    Senator Bunning. It's my understanding that there's going 
to be a request from the Department of Defense for a 
supplemental appropriation bill. Do you have that same 
understanding?
    Dr. Zakheim. I believe that it is under active 
consideration. I'm not aware yet of any timing or sizing of it.
    Senator Bunning. You're not aware of any sizing or timing.
    Dr. Zakheim. Not yet, no, sir.
    Senator Bunning. Gee, that's funny, because we are, and 
you're about to ask us to confirm you. You're not in any loop 
at all?
    Dr. Zakheim. Well, Senator, again, I'm briefed. People have 
tried to educate and get me up to speed, but on this particular 
decision loop, I am simply not aware of any final decision on 
either of those matters, Senator.
    Chairman Warner. The practice of the Department, Senator, 
is the nominee has to await the confirmation process before the 
Secretary of Defense can call on you to be an active 
participant in the decision making.
    Senator Bunning. I understand that. But, in other words, if 
he's had a briefing on the proposed budget and/or a possible 
supplemental, I thought maybe he might share some of that 
information.
    Today's Washington Times reports the Secretary of Defense 
is forming an executive committee of senior civilian leaders, 
including the Comptroller, to implement the transformation 
policy. What would be the specific function of that committee, 
and what would the Comptroller's role be?
    Dr. Zakheim. Again, I have not been given details as to 
exactly what the committee will do, except in the most general 
sense that you described. The Comptroller is also a chief 
financial officer and, in that respect, obviously has input 
into acquisition policy. I presume that that is what the 
article is alluding to.
    Senator Bunning. Senator Levin brought up BRAC and a 
possibility of another BRAC, and you were pretty firm in your 
statement that you didn't have a handle on any savings, if they 
occurred, from the first two rounds, other than to say that you 
thought that some savings might have occurred.
    Before I ever look at another BRAC, you're going to have to 
convince me that there were actual savings in the first two 
rounds. I don't think there's any question that the size of the 
force doesn't fit the facilities; but sometimes--as I just 
stopped on Midway Island on the way home from Taiwan--sometimes 
what is shut down is still operating. I say that only to point 
out that Midway had been BRAC-ed in 1996; and yet there is a 
big need on Midway for refueling and doing a lot of other 
things that the military needs to have done.
    So I want you to be prepared, if you are ready to recommend 
BRAC to us again, that you show us some substantial savings 
from the first two rounds. Let me ask a couple of other 
questions.
    Chairman Warner. Senator, you take such time as you need 
and then we'll turn to our other colleague momentarily.
    Senator Bunning. Yes, I want to ask our staff member--a 
number of years ago, General Mundy, the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps, proposed to no longer enlist anyone who is 
already married. One of the objectives behind this was to 
reduce the pressure placed on newly-enlisted personnel, 
particularly given the high number of days per year they are 
deployed away from home--and I can speak from personal 
experience, with a son in the Air Force. Do you feel that this 
would be an effective way to reduce stress on our enlisted 
personnel during their initial enlistments?
    Mr. Abell. Senator, the short answer is no. I think it's a 
fact that more and more of our young soldiers, sailors, airmen, 
and marines are enlisting with existing families. Even a 
greater number acquire a family shortly after enlistment. 
You're right, it is stressful. I have a great deal of 
confidence in the abilities of those young men and women to 
handle that stress, and I have a great deal of confidence in 
their chain of command to assist them in that endeavor.
    Senator Bunning. Then why are we falling short in every 
service on our enlistment goals?
    Mr. Abell. Sir, I think recruiting--recruiting especially, 
but retention, as well--is a very tough job. Currently, we 
enjoy a very robust economy. I think that probably contributes 
more. The opportunities available to young men and women today, 
especially the high quality young men and women we seek for the 
military, are probably unmatched. I think that is the 
difficulty, not so much family.
    Senator Bunning. Do you think our current force structure 
is large enough to assume the commitments that we have made 
presently?
    Mr. Abell. Senator, I think there's no doubt the current 
force structure is stressed and overtaxed by its missions. 
Whether it's the right size or not, I think, is going to be one 
of the outcomes that we will see from Secretary Rumsfeld's 
several studies, and I look forward to seeing the details of 
that--of those studies before I could give you a definitive 
answer on that.
    Senator Bunning. OK. Ms. Clarke, the Department of Defense 
usually uses individual Social Security numbers as their 
service-identification numbers. Recently, there have been some 
reports of identity theft from active duty military members. 
Given the Social Security numbers may be more accessible to 
outside parties, Privacy Act requirements notwithstanding, how 
do you plan to minimize the danger to service members from this 
crime?
    Ms. Clarke. Senator, I don't have enough information about 
that particular issue to address today, but I do think, when it 
comes to the Privacy Act, that one of the utmost priorities of 
my department is to respect and protect the privacy of 
individuals. I will do everything possible, if confirmed, to 
ensure that I and my staff are fully trained and sensitized to 
that protection and respect we should give to individual 
privacy. I would be happy to take the question for the record 
and get back to you with an answer.
    Senator Bunning. Well, the question I have is, why does the 
military continuously use the Social Security numbers as an ID 
number, when most of the banks, most of the driver's licenses, 
most other people are starting to phase that out since the 
access to the Social Security number and the maiden name of the 
mother allows access to your Social Security records?
    Ms. Clarke. I don't have an answer for you, Senator, but I 
would be happy to get you one.
    [The information follows:]

    The Department of Defense shares your concern about the potential 
misuse of social security numbers and the need to protect the privacy 
of the men and women of our Armed Forces. While Defense Department 
policies and practices do not appear to have contributed to misuse, we 
will continue to be vigilant in safeguarding such information.
    The issue of using the social security number (SSN) as the service 
identification number, a practice first begun in the 1960s, was 
recently studied by both the Defense Department and the General 
Accounting Office. In addition to identity theft, we studied the 
potential use of the SSN to obtain information that could be used 
against captured or detained personnel. However, given the ubiquitous 
access to personal information via the Internet, the senior officials 
who studied this issue determined that removal of the SSN and 
substitution of another number would not remove or even markedly reduce 
this threat. Further, any such attempts would likely waste hundreds of 
millions of dollars while not providing any significant protection for 
servicemembers.
    This issue poses a difficult challenge, but we remain committed to 
protecting the privacy of servicemembers and will vigilantly safeguard 
personal information. We take very seriously our responsibility to 
protect social security numbers and limit access to only those uses 
permitted by law.

    Senator Bunning. OK. During the recent incident with the 
U.S.S. Greeneville, the Navy was criticized for initially 
providing misleading and inaccurate information. How do you 
plan to address this in similar situations in the future?
    Ms. Clarke. Senator, if confirmed, I hope one of the mottos 
of my department will be ``maximum disclosure with minimal 
delay.'' I think one of the priorities for the Department is to 
disseminate news and information, the good and bad, as quickly 
and as accurately as possible.
    Senator Bunning. We are counting on you to do just that.
    Ms. Clarke. Yes, sir.
    Senator Bunning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. I thank you, Senator, and particularly for 
the question about Social Security. I think that this committee 
will follow your lead on that issue and look into that question 
with some thoroughness.
    Senator Bunning. Thank you, because, as Chairman of the 
Social Security Subcommittee in the other body, that was one of 
my primary concerns, and that now you can tell the bank to go 
you-know-where if they ask for your Social Security number.
    Chairman Warner. We will look into that.
    Senator Akaka.
    Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, am pleased 
to be participating in this hearing and want to welcome the 
families of the nominees here to the hearing, and to tell you I 
was impressed with introductions that were given by our 
Senators of each one of you, which tells me that the President 
made some good choices of well-qualified people, and I look 
forward to working with you as we move forward with this new 
administration.
    In advance questions that we received, Dr. Zakheim, you 
provided the committee--you indicated that you expect Secretary 
Rumsfeld to charge you--and I'd like to quote this loud and 
clear--``to do everything possible from every budget dollar.'' 
That is a high calling, and I agree with your assessment that 
accurate and timely financial management information is 
critical for managers across the Department to ensure 
accountability and the most effective use of taxpayers' 
dollars, and I then realize why you suggested reorganization of 
some of the top-level people under you.
    My question is a large one that has been around. I would 
just ask you one question, and then ask some of each of the 
others. My question to you, Dr. Zakheim is, how long do you 
think it will take before the Department can provide Congress 
with an accurate accounting of DOD expenditures?
    Dr. Zakheim. I can answer it the following way. I have been 
told that it will take many years to do that. Many years is not 
a good enough answer for me. I would hope that Congress will be 
in a position to receive cleaner audits, far more timely 
information, certainly within the next few years--in other 
words, hopefully, if confirmed, while I'm still around there.
    Senator Akaka. I do, too. I've enjoyed working with you, 
Mr. Abell, during the past few years, when I was not a member 
here on this committee, but we worked in other ways, and I 
really appreciate what you've done to help me in other ways. 
I'm sure that you will do your best to address the challenges 
facing the Assistant Secretary for Force Management and Policy.
    I agree with your assessment that, while recruitment is 
essential, retention is critical to force readiness. In your 
answers to questions by the committee, you referred to 
``balancing deployments and military training requirements with 
the stability necessary for long-term health of military 
families.'' I took that off--a quote. So my question to you is, 
if confirmed, how would you address this issue?
    Mr. Abell. Well, Senator, this is a tough issue. It is one 
that the military services have talked to us about while I've 
served on the committee for many years. We--the committee and 
Congress--have put into effect some legislation requiring that 
the deployments now be tracked on an individual basis and that 
the individuals be apprised of how many days they have been 
deployed, and that those deployments be managed by senior 
officers.
    I think as this procedure gets implemented, just getting 
visibility on the subject will help a lot. But as we do get the 
visibility of how many days soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
marines are actually deployed, we will get a good feel for the 
types of units, the types of military specialties and the types 
of missions that are consuming these service members' time. I 
think then we'll be able to make some judgments as to how to 
better balance the needs of the family, the needs of the 
individual, and the needs of the service.
    Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. Ms. Clarke, I liked 
your proposal that, if confirmed, your motto would be, and I 
quote, ``maximum disclosure exposure and minimum delay.'' I 
agree that accuracy is very important in dealing with the 
dissemination of information, as evidenced by recent events 
that have occurred in the past few months. In my case, many of 
these have occurred in the Pacific and Asian areas. How do you 
propose to engage and gain the support of the public as the 
Department of Defense addresses the threats of the 21st 
century?
    Ms. Clarke. I think there are two answers, Senator. The 
first part is to make sure, on a regular, consistent basis, in 
as timely and accurate a fashion as possible, you give them 
complete information, the good and the bad, about what is going 
on. I think that is an absolute priority.
    At the same time, I think it's critical that we do 
something that probably hasn't been done for quite some time. 
That is, on an ongoing basis, engage the American people, not 
just the men and women in uniform and their families, although 
I think they're absolutely critical as well, but engage the 
American people in a conversation and a dialogue, if you will, 
about the risks we face in the 21st century, about the kinds of 
changes that might be appropriate. The challenges are too 
great, and the issues too serious, not to engage all of them in 
that.
    So if the first motto of the Department, I hope, will be 
``maximum disclosure and minimum delay,'' I hope another motto 
that people will come to think about is ``outreach, outreach, 
outreach.'' I think we should be talking to and responding to 
and educating and making aware everyone we can find. Talk to 
them about the risks, about the solutions, talk to them about 
the commitments these men and women make. It's very telling, 
you asked many questions about the people who are actually 
serving, and the stresses and the pressures on them. I think 
it's very important the American people see, up close and 
personal, the kind of commitment these men and women are 
willing to make, the kinds of challenges they face and the 
kinds of risks they face, as we've seen over the last few 
weeks. Increasingly, there are few people in society who have 
much real-life experience with the military. So I think it's 
really important that we focus on that outreach so they can see 
what's going on.
    Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your responses, and 
I congratulate you on your nominations. Thank you very much, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Reed, I'm going to be the wrap up, 
so I'm going to let all members go ahead. You go right ahead.
    Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Then to Senator Dayton, and then we'll go 
into another round of questions if there are others.
    Senator Reed. Let me first address a question to Mr. Abell. 
But before I do that, let me associate myself with all the high 
praise that you richly deserve. You've been a key member of 
this committee's staff, and you've served every member with 
great diligence and professionalism, Charlie. It's a mixed 
blessing; we're glad for you, but sorry to see you go.
    Let me address a question. We often spend a great deal of 
time about the recruitment and retention within the uniformed 
services, but I think you're going to be facing a real 
challenge with respect to recruitment of civilian Department of 
Defense officials and retaining a very qualified workforce. I 
wonder if you've given any thought to what you might do.
    Mr. Abell. Yes, Senator, I have. I'm concerned about that. 
There are a number of senior civilians who will be retiring. 
I'm concerned about the developmental programs that enable 
folks to be developed professionally to fill those positions. 
I'm concerned about whether or not Federal civil service is 
attractive to men and women out in America, just like the 
military service is, and I look forward to getting into those 
issues. I'm not as familiar with those as I am with the 
military personnel policies, and so it is going to be a matter 
of some focus to me to roll up my sleeves and get involved in 
it.
    Senator Reed. Well, we have every confidence you will roll 
up your sleeves.
    Dr. Zakheim, again, welcome. One of the major initiatives 
that has been taking place over the last two decades has been 
an attempt to foster more ``jointness'' in the Department of 
Defense, and we have made some progress with uniformed officers 
serving in joint assignments with a requirement for promotion 
to have a joint assignment. But I think in the area of 
management systems and procurement systems, in the financial 
guts of DOD, we have made very little progress in 
``jointness.'' Could you mention how you perceive the problem 
and what your instincts are at this moment?
    Dr. Zakheim. Certainly, Senator. First, again, thanks so 
much for the very kind words. I really do appreciate them.
    Certainly, one cannot say that on financial management 
we've received anything like a Goldwater-Nichols. Of course, it 
was this committee that was very much behind that. We have 
``jointness'' in the military that was unprecedented when I 
came to the Pentagon in 1981. I believe that the only way one 
can achieve anything remotely like that in the financial 
management side of the Department is by conveying the sense of 
high-level attention. The Secretary of Defense is personally 
committed to making this happen. If I am confirmed, I'm 
personally committed to making this happen. I hope to work with 
the team of people who will focus on this full-time.
    In addition, the Secretary of Defense has made it clear 
that he wants the service secretaries to work as a team. One of 
the highest priorities in that team effort is getting 
coordinated financial management. So I believe with that degree 
of top-level involvement, we will make some progress.
    Senator Reed. I know it's very early. In fact, I presume 
you really have been barred from any significant discussions 
about planning as it goes on today in the Pentagon. That is a 
correct presumption, isn't it?
    Dr. Zakheim. Yes.
    Senator Reed. But do you anticipate, given your background, 
that legislation would be required to effectuate the kind of 
integration of financial measures and systems that you 
anticipate?
    Dr. Zakheim. It may well be, in certain respects, and I 
would hope to work with this committee and with other cognizant 
committees to identify those sorts of requirements. It's very 
important that the Department work very closely with Congress 
on these matters. Certainly, if I'm confirmed, I intend to make 
this not just an occasional practice, but a regular one.
    Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Dr. Zakheim. Ms. Clarke, 
best wishes. I'm sure you're going to do a fabulous job.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you.
    Senator Reed. You also have a problem of ``jointness,'' 
which is you have three services that have their own public 
affairs operations. Do you have a plan at the moment to either 
do more integration or more decentralization, or less?
    Ms. Clarke. Sir, I've actually had the opportunity to meet 
with the heads of public affairs from the three services in my 
private-sector life, and----
    Chairman Warner. Let me interrupt. There are four 
services----
    Ms. Clarke. Yes.
    Chairman Warner. The United States Marine Corps, I say to 
my graduate of the West Point Academy here----[Laughter.]
    Excuse me for the interruption.
    Senator Reed. Mr. Chairman, I obviously stand corrected. I 
don't know what came over me. [Laughter.]
    Chairman Warner. All right. What came over Ms. Clarke? She 
picked right up on the same response. [Laughter.]
    Senator Reed. Well, she's in an awkward position. She has 
to be polite. I should be accurate. Forgive me.
    Senator Levin. Actually, you were really testing Ms. 
Clarke, and she came through.
    Senator Reed. She came through. She was wonderful.
    Senator Levin. It was a very conscious effort. I've seen 
him do that before. He really knew there were four services, 
but he wanted to see just how much you knew. [Laughter.]
    Senator Reed. Well, what I--I misspoke. There are three 
service secretaries. Chairman Warner is right--I misspoke. 
Chairman Warner is always right. That's a good rule on this 
committee, by the way. [Laughter.]
    Ms. Clarke. As I've been told many times by those in the 
Navy, there is no secretary of the Marines, is there--but there 
are four heads of Public Affairs, and they are all very 
talented, very professional people, and I have had the 
opportunity to meet with them. If confirmed, I look forward to 
working with them closely. I think the focus on ``jointness'' 
is absolutely appropriate and absolutely vital, so I look 
forward to working with them.
    I have not thought through--because I did not want to 
presume anything--I haven't thought through the structure, but 
I have thought, in general terms, about trying to find a 
process, trying to find a way to work more closely together.
    Senator Reed. Thank you. Just one final question. Dr. 
Zakheim, you have spent a lifetime studying strategic issues 
and bringing to that study, not just academic theoretical 
instincts, but also the knowledge of budgets and how they work, 
how they're put together. I'm just wondering about your view, 
as we look ahead, the budget you're seeing emerging, is that 
adequate to do modernization and then attempt, if feasible, to 
do some very expensive projects, like national missile defense?
    Dr. Zakheim. Well, the Secretary of Defense wants very much 
to have a top-down approach to this whole matter--that is to 
say, to lay out the strategy and then to coordinate the budgets 
with that strategy. So, in fact, right now, he has a strategic 
review that is ongoing; and hopefully, the budgets and the 
program would then reflect that review. If confirmed, I would 
hope very much to participate in that activity, but we're 
putting first things first.
    Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Dayton.
    Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Clarke, I 
won't use any numbers in my questioning or comments, but I want 
to second what Senator Bunning said about--I'm new to this 
committee, and when I read your remarks there that there is a 
Principles of Information, I made a note to myself to get a 
copy of that, because I'm not aware that--what I imagine they 
must be, and what your remarks have suggested is followed in 
practice. The U.S.S. Greeneville incident, to me, was a classic 
case of providing as little information as absolutely 
necessary. Except for watching the television news, 
investigative reports, and the newspapers, I don't think a lot 
of it would have come to light. So I certainly support his 
comments and urge you to act accordingly.
    Similarly with the bombing of the Iraq radar installations, 
I remember my staff picking that up on CNN and trying to find 
somewhere to call and inquire as I was about to walk into a 
Minnesota defense establishment and not being able to even get 
a courtesy of reply. So I would say good luck to you. You have 
a long way to go.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Senator. I will need the support. 
The Principles of Information, which I'd be happy to provide, 
do state clearly that it's the utmost responsibility to release 
news and information in as timely and accurate a fashion as 
possible. The only time you withhold information, according to 
the Principles, is if it would adversely affect national 
security or it would threaten the privacy or the safety of the 
men and women in uniform.
    I absolutely believe that, as many people say, bad news 
doesn't get better with age; so get it out there, and get it 
out there accurately.
    Senator Dayton. Well, I would like to receive a copy of the 
Principles. My solution would be to get a direct phone number 
for your office. But in either respect, I'm----
    Ms. Clarke. You can have it.
    Senator Dayton.--encouraged by what you said.
    Mr. Abell, I note your comments about the importance of 
recruiting and retaining top-qualified military personnel, and 
I assume that applies to the Department, as well. Could you 
elaborate a bit on what you propose to do, or what you 
contemplate, in terms of--especially in making life better for 
the families of men and women in our service and improving the 
retention of them?
    Mr. Abell. Senator, I think, first, recruiting and 
retention are a matter of constant vigilance. It is my 
experience that anytime that a service takes its eye off of 
either of those two tasks, it is inevitable that they have 
suffered. So I will be, if confirmed, one who pushes for 
maintaining that constant vigilance.
    I also believe that the services are now--have responded 
well to some problems in the recent past and are being very 
innovative and visionary in their approaches to recruiting and 
to retention, and they are to be congratulated. I think the 
results, both last year and the projected results for this 
year--we just had a hearing this morning in the Personnel 
Subcommittee--are very encouraging, and they reflect well on 
the hard work of a lot of people. I think we need to keep 
looking for the fresh way to address these problems with a 
crisp delivery of a good message.
    As for the quality of life of our families--again, very 
important for retention--it is one of the focuses of Secretary 
Rumsfeld's strategic review. I have not been briefed on their 
progress, and I look forward to receiving that brief, if 
confirmed.
    Senator Dayton. I would just note that, in the budget 
process, there were a couple of amendments, including the 
Chairman's, which was adopted, which provided additional funds 
which could be used for, among other purposes, those 
improvements.
    I was at the National Training Center in California during 
the recess and asked a couple of the commanding generals there 
what they thought were the greatest needs. They both--one said, 
``I'm an armaments expert, but the quality of life for the pay 
benefits and standards of living for our families is what would 
be most valuable and supportive of my mission.'' So I look 
forward to your returning and to the administration coming 
forward, whether it's a supplemental appropriation or future 
requests, and really take advantage of the support of the 
members of this committee for those kinds of improvements.
    Mr. Abell. Thank you, sir.
    Senator Dayton. I would add, as part of that--and I noted 
with interest your referencing the health benefits dilemma that 
many reservists and National Guard members face. In Minnesota, 
we have reservists and members of the Guard who were called up 
for a period of 3 to 5 months, and the economic hardships which 
they and their families encountered, health being one of them--
again, I would hope and urge that they not be forgotten when it 
comes to these kinds of financial and other improvements.
    Mr. Abell. I assure you, Senator, I will look at the total 
force.
    Senator Dayton. Thank you. Dr. Zakheim, when Secretary 
Rumsfeld has met with us, he has cited his concern about the 
length of time and increasing length of time from the 
authorization and design of these weapons systems to their 
deployment now, some getting to be some 8 to 10 years. I wonder 
if you've had the chance to think about what kind of financial 
procedures--I know from the standpoint of military contractors 
in Minnesota, it's often very time consuming and contributes to 
these overall delays, getting swift billing and receipts and 
the like.
    Conversely, on the other side, according to Senator Byrd 
and others that have longer experience than I, it's almost 
astronomical amounts of money that can't be accounted for 
within the system. So we have this anomaly that, on the one 
hand, it seems that many of the procedures and requirements 
just extend delays, but they don't end up accounting for the 
money. Do you have a way to reconcile and solve those problems?
    Dr. Zakheim. Well, it's not an easy challenge, Senator. I 
understand that, in the matter of what Senator Byrd is very 
concerned about--and he mentions, I think, $4\1/2\ trillion--
there are technical answers to that question, but I think there 
is more than a germ of truth to his concern. If confirmed, one 
of my highest priorities would certainly be to, in particular, 
work to make sure that the various different sources of 
information are all congruent, because it is my impression--and 
I do have to study this more, Senator--but it is my impression 
that the various--what are called feeder systems and various 
sources of information simply don't speak to each other, and 
that is where a lot of this falls between the cracks.
    As to your first point, Senator, regarding the acquisition 
cycle, I am fully aware of Secretary Rumsfeld's concerns. There 
are some studies going on, as part of the overall strategic 
review, to look at this particular question. Obviously, how one 
deals with the funding of these programs is an integral part of 
it.
    So, if confirmed, I very much would hope to be involved in 
reconciling the financial side to the pure mechanics of the 
acquisition side so that the program can be speeded up.
    Senator Dayton. Thank you. I would appreciate your sharing 
those reports with me when they become available. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. Senator Bunning, do 
you have a question, too? Senator Levin? All right. You go, 
then I'll do wrap-up.
    Senator Levin. Thank you. I appreciate your yielding to me, 
Mr. Chairman, so I could leave in a few minutes.
    First, Ms. Clarke, last year, the editor of Stars and 
Stripes resigned because he was not allowed to publish a story 
even after the story was published in the Washington Post. I'm 
wondering whether or not you believe that Stars and Stripes 
should enjoy the same freedom to publish as other U.S. 
newspapers.
    Ms. Clarke. Absolutely, Senator. I think Stars and Stripes 
should be as independent and as credible as possible. It 
provides a very valuable service to the men and women in 
uniform and their families who serve overseas. It gives them 
news and information that they want, and they need and deserve 
to know that it is absolutely credible and independent. I think 
the safeguards are there. If confirmed, I would make sure the 
safeguards are enforced.
    Chairman Warner. That's encouraging to hear that. I concur 
in your response.
    Senator Levin. There is some real concern about that here, 
which you've just alleviated.
    Mr. Abell, what actions are you going to take to enhance 
recruiter access to secondary schools? This is a big part of 
our recruiting issue.
    Mr. Abell. Yes, sir. As you're aware, sir, as you recall, 
in last year's defense authorization bill, there was a 
provision that actually requires recruiter access unless the 
local school board takes some action. That provision is not 
effective until July 2002. This morning in the hearing, 
recruiters reported to us that their access was improving as a 
result of that, but they still sought more support. I think 
there are some things that we can do to encourage school 
systems to be more open to recruiters between now and 2002. 
Then in 2002, we'll follow the implementation of that 
provision.
    Senator Levin. What initiatives would you propose to 
improve the employment of spouses of our service members? That 
also is a big part of retention.
    Mr. Abell. Yes, sir. It's a difficult problem and one that, 
as I've traveled on the committee's staff, we find, at almost 
every location, is brought to our attention. There are a number 
of things that could be done, Senator--more education, tuition 
assistance for spouses. I, if confirmed, look forward to 
working with local civic organizations and chambers of commerce 
on initiatives like that to see what we can do.
    Senator Levin. There's been some evidence at least--
perhaps, anecdotal evidence--that we're beginning to lose the 
support of employers of our Reserve component personnel because 
of the deployments that we have seen. Any plans to address 
those concerns?
    Mr. Abell. Senator, I've heard the same anecdotes. I, if 
confirmed, would like to work very closely with the Assistant 
Secretary for Reserve Affairs to examine this and try to 
determine the causal factors and actually determine--change it 
from anecdote to evidence to find out what the real problem is 
and then address that problem. It may be one of communication, 
it may be one of over-deploying certain units and not others.
    Senator Levin. If confirmed, will you recommend a medal for 
children who sit through these confirmation hearings? 
[Laughter.]
    Ms. Clarke, I must tell you, you have really extraordinary 
children. They have been wonderful. I can't take my eyes off 
them. We will call it the ``Clarke Medal,'' if Mr. Abell is 
able to produce that. I just want to thank all of you. I 
shouldn't single out family members. You're all really 
deserving of medals for many reasons, but your children have 
really been extraordinary. So please give them all of our 
thanks.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin. The committee 
really enjoys its responsibilities in the confirmation process. 
It gives us an opportunity to share, not only views and elicit 
responses, but we really are appreciative of the overall family 
contribution to this public service. I thank you, Senator 
Levin.
    I will start with you, Ms. Clarke. Crisis management--it's 
just remarkable how your predecessors from time to time really 
are on the point at all hours of the day and night. Secretary 
Rumsfeld, I think, has a very good policy. He's been very 
careful in keeping Congress informed, certainly this 
committee--I can speak for the Senate side--in consultation 
with members of this committee and others about decisions that 
he's making.
    But then we have the tragic incident of the accident with 
the Chinese aircraft. I was called early in the morning, as 
were other members of this committee. I'm sure those 
responsibilities will fall on you. Tell us a bit about how 
you're going to go about this, because often you are the point 
person, particularly when the military families had their loved 
ones, at the end of the long voyage, or flight, whatever the 
case may be, at some remote part of the world and trouble is 
there--the anxiety in their hearts--you recognize that, being a 
family person, yourself.
    Ms. Clarke. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Tell us a bit about how you're going to 
approach that responsibility.
    Ms. Clarke. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I hesitate to quote 
from somebody from just one service, but I think it was General 
MacArthur who said, ``The key to success and victory is 
preparation.'' I think that holds true across the board, 
including crisis management, including being prepared for the 
inevitable crises.
    If confirmed, one of the first things I want to do is to 
look into what is the planning, what processes do we have in 
place, and who is responsible for making sure the public 
affairs aspect of these incidents is addressed at the earliest 
possible position. I know there are some things in place, but I 
want to give it the utmost attention to ensure, when things do 
happen, the right people know, and the American people know as 
quickly as possible. So it's a matter of planning and process.
    Chairman Warner. Would you elaborate a little bit? By the 
way, I don't question General MacArthur's quote, but Admiral 
Jellico used to say, ``All preparation for naval battles starts 
in the engine room.'' In those days, they battened the hatches, 
and everybody in the engine room knew they were not going to 
come out and they had better stoke those old coal boilers and 
get full power for the captain to maneuver his ship. I've 
always enjoyed military history, and I hope that you share that 
curiosity and find a few moments to probe the magnificent 
contributions, certainly of those who have worn the uniform of 
this country for generations past. Congress--how do you propose 
to deal with Congress? Now, there's a long history about 
relationships with Congress and I would hope this Department 
sets a new high record for fairness and firmness, when 
necessary.
    Ms. Clarke. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will work closely with my 
legislative counterpart to make sure that you, this committee, 
the staff, and 535 Members of Congress get as much information 
as quickly as possible. Just by way of insight to how 
passionately I feel about this, I did work for John McCain for 
6\1/2\ years, and every day was a delight; but I know how 
important it is to be kept informed by the agencies, so I'll 
make that a priority.
    Chairman Warner. Also, I must say, you had the privilege of 
working with our former president, George Bush. I know of no 
finer American. I really have the greatest admiration for him, 
and I envy you for your close relationship with him.
    Ms. Clarke. It was an honor to work for him.
    Chairman Warner. It was mentioned in the hearing today, the 
problems that we're having with recruiting and retention, and 
the stories you relate and how you relate them will have a 
direct impact. I'm sure the secretary-to-be Abell can work with 
you on that, because he has studied it from afar, and now he 
will be in the responsible position on that. Do you have any 
special insights into that problem?
    Ms. Clarke. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Two years ago, I was 
fortunate to work on a recruiting study. It started out as a 
very narrow look at the advertising that was being used by the 
recruiting commands, and then it became a broader look at the 
recruiting marketing. We spent 6 very intense months working 
with the services, working with everybody, from the Secretary 
on down, on how we could improve the marketing on recruiting 
efforts. One of the things that was so extraordinary to us--we 
came about it by chance, and we made part of the research--is 
we interviewed everybody from the Secretary on down to the rank 
and file to the general public. There was very little 
consistency expressed about the role of the U.S. military--very 
little consistency. It's very hard to go out there and recruit 
when people, including people in uniform, don't have a real 
clear picture of what they're about, about what their mission 
is.
    So I think it's absolutely critical, and part of my agenda 
will be, to make sure the American people do know what the role 
of the U.S. military is in the 21st century. I think that will 
help with recruiting and retention.
    Chairman Warner. Well, that's a good response, because that 
is a key thing that we're going to have to deal with. There's a 
tremendous investment the American taxpayers make in the 
training of our service persons. We're so fortunate, when 
numbers of them decide to repeat their tours of duty, in the 
case of enlisted or, indeed, in the case of the officers, to go 
ahead and accept another promotion with the obligation of 
active duty associated. So I wish you luck.
    The other--and I think I'd better speak and you just 
listen--but, again, having had some experience in the 
Department and watching it from this side now for these many 
years, there's a certain degree of independence that a 
Secretary of Defense should and does accord to the Service 
Secretaries and their respective chiefs, but from time to time, 
we see examples of how a military department will go out on an 
issue and then problems begin to arise.
    I'm not being critical, but recently the Army made 
decisions with regard to the simplest of things, the beret, and 
we were besieged on Capitol Hill. Then, of course, they could 
not have foreseen the tragic problem with China. That 
exacerbated it. Then had to go back through a reassessment. I 
would hope that the Secretary and yourself can work with these 
departments on certain decisions which have a high profile of 
public interest and do everything possible to go ahead and 
implement that decision and do it by laying a careful base of 
understanding before it is rolled out.
    Ms. Clarke. Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I hope that one of 
the things I can do is inject the public affairs sensitivities, 
if you will, at the earliest stages to prevent just those sorts 
of problems.
    Chairman Warner. Well, that's wonderful. I'm very reassured 
by your responses. We haven't heard a peep from the back row 
yet, so I guess----
    Ms. Clarke. Well, my colleagues are actually being very 
patient, because we're hearing lots of peeps back here. They're 
being very patient. [Laughter.]
    Chairman Warner. Dr. Zakheim, we had a marvelous 
conversation the other day--it's always enjoyable to have those 
calls from the nominees--and you reflected, and I would like to 
have the record reflect, your comments to me about one of your 
predecessors, Dr. John Hamre. He is just so respected by this 
committee. My parting comment was to you, call him up every now 
an then when things are going tough and say, ``How did you deal 
with this?''
    Dr. Zakheim. Mr. Chairman, for the record then, I have 
known John Hamre since he left graduate school, and I know he 
served this committee with distinction. John Hamre is one of 
the finest people--not just public servants, but people who I 
have ever come across. The man has truly a heart of gold. He 
demonstrates that in very quiet