[Senate Hearing 109-847]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]



 
                                                        S. Hrg. 109-847

        NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE,
                     FIRST SESSION, 109TH CONGRESS

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

                                HEARINGS

                               before the

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                       ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                   on

                             NOMINATIONS OF

  JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR.; BUDDIE J. PENN; ADM WILLIAM J. FALLON, USN; 
   HON. ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI; HON. GORDON R. ENGLAND; ADM MICHAEL G. 
 MULLEN, USN; KENNETH J. KRIEG; LT. GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, USAF; GEN. 
PETER PACE, USMC; ADM EDMUND P. GIAMBASTIANI, JR., USN; GEN. T. MICHAEL 
MOSELEY, USAF; AMBASSADOR ERIC S. EDELMAN; DANIEL R. STANLEY; JAMES A. 
  RISPOLI; LT. GEN. NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, USAF; RONALD M. SEGA; PHILIP 
  JACKSON BELL; JOHN G. GRIMES; KEITH E. EASTIN; WILLIAM C. ANDERSON; 
 HON. MICHAEL W. WYNNE; DR. DONALD C. WINTER; HON. JOHN J. YOUNG, JR.; 
J. DORRANCE SMITH; DELORES M. ETTER; GEN BURWELL B. BELL III, USA; AND 
                     LT. GEN. LANCE L. SMITH, USAF

                               ----------                              

 FEBRUARY 15, 17; MARCH 15; APRIL 19, 21; JUNE 29; JULY 28; OCTOBER 6, 
                              25, 27, 2005

                               ----------                              

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services


NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, FIRST SESSION, 
                             109TH CONGRESS

                                                        S. Hrg. 109-847

        NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE,
                     FIRST SESSION, 109TH CONGRESS

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

                                HEARINGS

                               before the

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                       ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                   on

                             NOMINATIONS OF

  JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR.; BUDDIE J. PENN; ADM WILLIAM J. FALLON, USN; 
   HON. ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI; HON. GORDON R. ENGLAND; ADM MICHAEL G. 
 MULLEN, USN; KENNETH J. KRIEG; LT. GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, USAF; GEN. 
PETER PACE, USMC; ADM EDMUND P. GIAMBASTIANI, JR., USN; GEN. T. MICHAEL 
MOSELEY, USAF; AMBASSADOR ERIC S. EDELMAN; DANIEL R. STANLEY; JAMES A. 
  RISPOLI; LT. GEN. NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, USAF; RONALD M. SEGA; PHILIP 
  JACKSON BELL; JOHN G. GRIMES; KEITH E. EASTIN; WILLIAM C. ANDERSON; 
 HON. MICHAEL W. WYNNE; DR. DONALD C. WINTER; HON. JOHN J. YOUNG, JR.; 
J. DORRANCE SMITH; DELORES M. ETTER; GEN BURWELL B. BELL III, USA; AND 
                     LT. GEN. LANCE L. SMITH, USAF

                               __________

 FEBRUARY 15, 17; MARCH 15; APRIL 19, 21; JUNE 29; JULY 28; OCTOBER 6, 
                              25, 27, 2005

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services


                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-348 PDF                 WASHINGTON DC:  2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800  
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001


  

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                    JOHN WARNER, Virginia, Chairman

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona                 CARL LEVIN, Michigan
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas                  ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama               JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine              JACK REED, Rhode Island
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada                  DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri            BILL NELSON, Florida
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia             E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina       EVAN BAYH, Indiana
JOHN CORNYN, Texas                   HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota

        Judith A. Ansley, Staff Director, before August 1, 2005

         Charles S. Abell, Staff Director, after August 1, 2005

             Richard D. DeBobes, Democratic Staff Director

                                  (ii)
?

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                    CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

                                                                   Page

                           february 15, 2005

Nominations of John Paul Woodley, Jr., to be Assistant Secretary 
  of the Army for Civil Works; Buddie J. Penn to be Assistant 
  Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment; and 
  ADM William J. Fallon, USN, for Reappointment to the Grade of 
  Admiral and to be Commander, U.S. Pacific Command..............     1

Statements of:

Symms, Hon. Steven D., Former U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Idaho..........................................................     4
Fallon, ADM William J., USN, for Reappointment to the Grade of 
  Admiral and to be Commander, U.S. Pacific Command..............     5
Woodley, John Paul, Jr., to be Assistant Secretary of the Army 
  for Civil Works................................................     6
Penn, Buddie J., to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 
  Installations and Environment..................................     7

                           february 17, 2005

To Consider Certain Pending Civilian and Military Nominations....    67

                             march 15, 2005

Nomination of Hon. Anthony J. Principi to be a Member of the 
  Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission................    73

Statement of:

Principi, Anthony Joseph, to be a Member of the Defense Base 
  Closure and Realignment Commission.............................    80

                             april 19, 2005

Nominations of Hon. Gordon R. England to be Deputy Secretary of 
  Defense; and ADM Michael G. Mullen, USN, for Reappointment to 
  the Grade of Admiral and to be Chief of Naval Operations.......   111

Statements of:

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas.   113
England, Hon. Gordon R., to be Deputy Secretary of Defense.......   116
Mullen, ADM Michael G., USN, for Reappointment to the Grade of 
  Admiral and to be Chief of Naval Operations....................   149

                                 (iii)
                             april 21, 2005

Nominations of Kenneth J. Krieg to be Under Secretary of Defense 
  for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and Lt. Gen. 
  Michael V. Hayden, USAF, to the Grade of General and to be 
  Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence.............   205

Statements of:

Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas.........   206
Sununu, Hon. John E., U.S. Senator from the State of New 
  Hampshire......................................................   207
Krieg, Kenneth J., to be Under Secretary of Defense for 
  Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.........................   211
Hayden, Lt. Gen. Michael V., USAF, to the Grade of General and to 
  be Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence..........   229

                             june 29, 2005

Nominations of Gen. Peter Pace, USMC, for Reappointment to the 
  Grade of General and to be Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; ADM 
  Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., USN, for Reappointment to the 
  Grade of Admiral and to be Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of 
  Staff; Gen. T. Michael Moseley, USAF, for Reappointment to the 
  Grade of General and to be Chief of Staff of the Air Force; 
  Ambassador Eric S. Edelman to be Under Secretary of Defense for 
  Policy; Daniel R. Stanley to be Assistant Secretary of Defense 
  for Legislative Affairs; and James A. Rispoli to be Assistant 
  Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management...............   287

Statements of:

Allen, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia......   290
Pace, Gen. Peter, USMC, for Reappointment to the Grade of General 
  and to be Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff......................   297
Giambastiani, ADM Edmund P., Jr., USN, for Reappointment to the 
  Grade of Admiral and to be Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff   298
Moseley, Gen. T. Michael, USAF, for Reappointment to the Grade of 
  General and to be Chief of Staff of the Air Force..............   298
Dole, Hon. Robert, Former United States Senator from the State of 
  Kansas.........................................................   333
Edelman, Ambassador Eric S., to be Under Secretary of Defense for 
  Policy.........................................................   339
Rispoli, James A., to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for 
  Environmental Management.......................................   341
Stanley, Daniel R., to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
  Legislative Affairs............................................   343

                             july 28, 2005

Nominations of Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, USAF, for Appointment 
  to the Grade of General and to be Commander, U.S. 
  Transportation Command; Ronald M. Sega to be Under Secretary of 
  the Air Force; Philip Jackson Bell to be Deputy Under Secretary 
  of Defense for Logistics and Material Readiness; John G. Grimes 
  to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and 
  Information Integration; Keith E. Eastin to be Assistant 
  Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment; and 
  William C. Anderson to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 
  for Installations, Environment, and Logistics..................   463

Statements of:

Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska.........   464
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado......   466
Schwartz, Lt. Gen. Norton A., USAF, for Appointment to the Grade 
  of General and to be Commander, U.S. Transportation Command....   472
Sega, Ronald M., to be Under Secretary of the Air Force..........   472
Bell, Philip Jackson, to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 
  Logistics and Materiel Readiness...............................   476
Grimes, John G., to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
  Networks and Information Integration...........................   477
Eastin, Keith E., to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
  Installations and Environment..................................   478
Anderson, William C., to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 
  for Installations, Environment, and Logistics..................   479

                            october 6, 2005

Nominations of Hon. Michael W. Wynne to be Secretary of the Air 
  Force; and Dr. Donald C. Winter to be Secretary of the Navy....   591

Statements of:

Wynne, Hon. Michael W., to be Secretary of the Air Force.........   595
Winter, Donald C., to be Secretary of the Navy...................   597

                            october 25, 2005

Nominations of Hon. John J. Young, Jr., to be Director of Defense 
  Research and Engineering; J. Dorrance Smith to be Assistant 
  Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs; Delores M. Etter to be 
  Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and 
  Acquisition; GEN Burwell B. Bell III, USA, for Reappointment to 
  the Grade of General and to be Commander, United Nations 
  Command/Combined Forces Command, and Commander, United States 
  Forces Korea; and Lt. Gen. Lance L. Smith, USAF, for 
  Appointment to the Grade of General and to be Commander, United 
  States Joint Forces Command and Supreme Allied Commander 
  Transformation.................................................   677

Statements of:

Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska.........   678
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from the State of Hawaii....   679
Bell, GEN Burwell B., III, USA, for Reappointment to the Grade of 
  General and to be Commander, United Nations Command/Combined 
  Forces Command, and Commander, United States Forces Korea......   708
Smith, Lt. Gen. Lance L., USAF, for Appointment to the Grade of 
  General and to be Commander, United States Joint Forces Command 
  and Supreme Allied Commander Transformation....................   708

                            october 27, 2005

To Consider Certain Pending Military and Civilian Nominations....   811

APPENDIX.........................................................   817

 
NOMINATIONS OF JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 
ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS; BUDDIE J. PENN, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 
NAVY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT; AND ADM WILLIAM J. FALLON, USN, 
  FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF ADMIRAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, U.S. 
                            PACIFIC COMMAND

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2005

                                       U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:16 p.m. in room 
SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner 
(chairman) presiding.
    Committee members present: Senators Warner, Inhofe, Thune, 
and Levin.
    Committee staff members present: Judith A. Ansley, staff 
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
    Majority staff members present: William C. Greenwalt, 
professional staff member; Gregory T. Kiley, professional staff 
member; Thomas L. MacKenzie, professional staff member; Lucian 
L. Niemeyer, professional staff member; Lynn F. Rusten, 
professional staff member; Scott W. Stucky, general counsel; 
and Richard F. Walsh, counsel.
    Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, 
Democratic staff director; Evelyn N. Farkas, professional staff 
member; Peter K. Levine, minority counsel; and Michael J. 
McCord, professional staff member.
    Staff assistant present: Pendred K. Wilson.
    Committee members' assistants present: Matt Zabel, 
assistant to Senator Thune; Davelyn Noelani Kalipi, assistant 
to Senator Akaka; and William K. Sutey, assistant to Senator 
Bill Nelson.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN

    Chairman Warner. I would like to apologize for the delay. 
The Senate, in my many privileged years to be here, does very 
little or everything at once. We have a vote going on and so 
everybody went. Senator Levin--I met him, and he'll be here 
just as soon as he completes his vote. Therefore, I wanted to 
get underway, because we have lots of wonderful people here 
this afternoon, especially those young people who have come 
from far and wide to visit with us.
    So I welcome you all before the committee this afternoon. 
Admiral Fallon, John Paul Woodley, Buddie J. Penn, we thank you 
very much. Our distinguished colleague, Senator Symms, who--I 
guess we started together, didn't we, in this institution 27 
years ago?
    Senator Symms. I think I was 2 years behind you, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Two years.
    Senator Symms. I came in 1980. That was on the House side.
    Chairman Warner. We welcome you, Senator.
    Particularly, we thank the families--the spouses and the 
children--for being here. I have conducted so many of these 
hearings. As a matter of fact, I sat at that desk myself many 
years ago. It was in February 1969, give or take a day. I was 
right about here. The family support is so essential to these 
individuals who step up and take on these challenging positions 
in our overall structure for the Nation's defense.
    So I thank all of you for joining us today, and I thank you 
for your continuing support as the nominees undertake their 
arduous and challenging duties.
    Senator Symms, again, we welcome you, and I will just 
finish this brief statement, and then we'll turn to your 
introduction.
    Admiral Fallon has been nominated to be Commander, United 
States Pacific Command (PACOM), and is presently serving as 
Commander, Fleet Forces Command, and Commander, U.S. Atlantic 
Fleet, in Norfolk, Virginia. He has compiled an extremely 
distinguished career as a naval officer since his commissioning 
in 1967.
    That's interesting. That does go back. You were a young 
ensign, I expect, when I came aboard, then. So was the CNO. He 
reminds me of that frequently. [Laughter.]
    Well, you've done a lot better than I've done. Look at all 
that gold braid. You've really piled it up.
    Your combat service includes tours of duty during the 
Vietnam War as a naval flight officer with Recon Attack 
Squadron 5, as Commander of Carrier Air Wing 8, deployed aboard 
U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt during Operation Desert Storm, and as 
Commander, Battle Force Sixth Fleet during Operation Deliberate 
Force over Bosnia in 1995. While not flying, the Admiral served 
as Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff of the U.S. Atlantic 
Fleet, Deputy Commander of the U.S. Atlantic Command, and, from 
October 2000 to 2003, the 31st Vice Chief of Naval Operations.
    If confirmed--and I predict he will be--Admiral Fallon will 
become the 22nd navy officer who has been in command of the 
Pacific Command, joining many distinguished predecessors, 
including Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., who held that position 
from 1968 to 1972. In my visits to Vietnam, I would stay at his 
house. They were the most memorable experiences, and he was a 
great teacher.
    So we congratulate you, Admiral, and your lovely wife and 
family, and thank you for your willingness to continue to serve 
in this new capacity.
    Mr. Woodley has been nominated to be the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Mr. Woodley appeared 
before this Committee in February 2003 in connection with his 
earlier nomination for this position. The record shows Mr. 
Woodley received a recess appointment from the President on 
August 22, 2003, and served through the end of the 108th 
Congress.
    Prior to his Federal service with the Department of 
Defense, Mr. Woodley served in senior leadership roles in the 
State Government of Virginia--where I first had the privilege 
of knowing you--as Deputy Attorney General for Government 
Operations, beginning in 1994; and as Secretary of Natural 
Resources, from January 1998 until October 2001.
    Mr. Woodley's military service included active-duty 
assignments in Germany and the Pentagon, with the Army's Judge 
Advocate General Corps, from 1979 to 1985. He continued to 
serve as a member of the Army Reserve component, retiring in 
2003 with the rank of lieutenant colonel.
    Mr. Woodley, we are pleased to have you and your family 
join us again today.
    We also welcome Buddie Penn, who has been nominated to be 
the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and 
Environment. Mr. Penn is presently serving as the Director of 
Industrial Base Capabilities and Readiness with the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense, a position he has held since October 
2, 2001.
    I would note that Mr. Penn is also a naval aviator, albeit 
a retired naval aviator. He flew the renowned A3 Sky Warrior, 
the only strategic bomber ever built for the United States 
Navy, which, because of its size and speed, was--I didn't know 
we referred to it as a ``whale.'' Who dug that up? [Laughter.]
    All I know, that thing came in for a fierce landing and 
popped that chute, and if the chute hadn't opened, he would 
have gone off the end of the runway. I expect you thought of 
that more than once.
    On that basis, alone, Mr. Penn, I believe we can count on 
you to perform with tremendous speed in this new position. 
[Laughter.]
    Mr. Penn flew--what a modest man--all of these wonderful 
men--flew in 16 types of aircraft during his naval career. 
Before retiring at the rank of captain, he held such key 
assignments as Air Officer aboard the U.S.S. America, Special 
Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations, and Deputy Director 
of the Navy Office of Technology Transfer and Security 
Assistance.
    We thank you and your lovely family, again, for taking on 
this responsibility.
    Senator Levin.

                STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN

    Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I, first, join you in welcoming Mr. Woodley, Mr. Penn, 
Admiral Fallon, and their families to the committee today. We 
thank all three of you and your families for your many years of 
service and for your continued willingness to serve.
    I notice our former colleague, Senator Steve Symms, is 
here. It's great to have you back and to see you.
    Mr. Woodley and Mr. Penn share a common background, having 
served first in the military, and, more recently, in civilian 
leadership positions at the Department of Defense.
    Mr. Woodley is in the unusual position of being the nominee 
for a position in which he has already served for almost 2 
years, and that gives him an insight into the challenges he 
will face.
    As our chairman noted, Mr. Penn began his career as a naval 
aviator, then took a series of positions in the defense 
industry after his retirement, and, during the last 2 years, 
has served as the Department of Defense's Director of 
Industrial Base Capabilities and Readiness.
    Admiral Fallon is an outstanding officer with a 
distinguished 38-year career, culminating in his service over 
the last 4 years as the Vice Chief of Naval Operations and the 
Commander of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet.
    Admiral Fallon, we're delighted at your willingness to 
continue to serve, and, if confirmed, you will assume command 
of the United States Pacific Command at a time of crisis and 
change and, hopefully, opportunity.
    We face a nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula, 
highlighted last week by the North Korean Government's 
declaration that they have nuclear weapons and that they did 
not wish to continue the Six-Party Talks. It was compounded by 
the fact that their offer to the United States to meet 
bilaterally was rejected. At the same time, we're seeing in the 
Pacific the emergence of China and India as political military 
powers, the maturation of Japan as a strategic partner, and the 
need to work more closely with the countries in Southeast Asia 
to fight regional and global terrorist groups.
    So I join our chairman in welcoming you, and look forward 
to your testimony.
    Thank you.
    Senator Inhofe [presiding]. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Symms, are you here for the purpose of an 
introduction?
    Senator Symms. Yes, sir.
    Senator Inhofe. Would you please proceed?

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVEN D. SYMMS, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 
                         STATE OF IDAHO

    Senator Symms. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the 
committee. It's a real privilege for me to be here to introduce 
to you the President's nominee for Assistant Secretary of the 
Navy for Installations and Environment, my good friend, Buddie 
J. Penn.
    Mr. Penn was raised in a small town in Indiana, and his 
parents taught him to chase his dreams. For Buddie, these 
dreams were in an airplane. He received his Bachelor's of 
Science from Purdue University in 1960, and was in the United 
States Navy, training to be a pilot, in 1961. He later gained 
his Master's degree from George Washington University. He also 
received certificates in aerospace safety from the University 
of Southern California, and in national security from the 
Kennedy School at Harvard University.
    Some of Buddie's most significant accomplishments were 
during his 30 years as a naval officer and leader. He 
distinguished himself in service to this Nation repeatedly. 
Among other duties he had, he flew over 250 combat missions in 
Vietnam and received numerous decorations and commendations. 
His love of flying was evident as he amassed over 6,500 hours 
in over 16 different aircraft. It was in the EA-6B, that he 
flew in Vietnam, that he was recognized for his ability. In 
1972, he was named the EA-6B pilot of the year.
    Buddie held many significant commands in the Navy, but the 
one that jumps out the most, as it relates to his nomination to 
the position of Assistant Secretary of Installations and 
Environment, is the position he had as commanding officer of 
the Naval Air Station at North Island, near San Diego. This is 
one of the largest bases in the Navy. Buddie had to become 
familiar with every aspect of its operation. This experience 
will serve him well as the new Assistant Secretary.
    It's a real honor for me be here before this committee to 
recommend a gentleman that I believe should be commended highly 
to the committee and to the full Senate.
    Thank you, Senators.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Symms, for that 
excellent introduction.
    Rather than follow a rigid 5-minute rule, since there are 
three of you, and we do want to give you ample time, please 
don't abuse it, but take whatever time you need for opening 
statements. We'll start with you, Admiral Fallon, and then 
you'll be followed by Mr. Woodley and Mr. Penn.
    Admiral Fallon.

 STATEMENT OF ADM WILLIAM J. FALLON, USN, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO 
 THE GRADE OF ADMIRAL AND TO BE COMMANDER, U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND

    Admiral Fallon. Thank you very much, Senator.
    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is really a 
great honor to appear before you today. I am certainly deeply 
honored to serve.
    First, I would like to thank you for your commitment to our 
men and women in uniform. We are really grateful for everything 
you do for our servicemen.
    Senator Inhofe. By the way, if any of you had any family 
members you wanted to introduce, feel free to do that, too.
    Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir.
    I've been privileged to serve in uniform for many years. A 
lot has changed over that time, but one thing that has really 
remained constant, and the strongest support I have, is the 
love and support of my family.
    I am honored to have with me today my wife Mary, behind me, 
and two of my daughters, Susan, and Christy, who is a first-
class midshipman at the Naval Academy. I might add, she was 
just selected for pilot training.
    We are a Navy family. Susan is a development director for 
the Navy League. Her boss, Sheila McNeil, the president of the 
Navy League, is behind me. I can feel her wanting me to make 
sure I put in a plug for that wonderful institution.
    Mary and I are privileged to have two other children, as 
well. One daughter, Barbara, who couldn't be with us, and a 
son, Bill, who is transitioning F-18s out in Lemoore, 
California, and also serving in uniform. He just came back from 
Iraq last year.
    It's also an honor to be here with these two gentlemen, Mr. 
Penn and Mr. Woodley, and to appear before you.
    Mr. Chairman, it is a great privilege for me to be 
nominated by the President to be the Commander of the U.S. 
Pacific Command. I assure you that I intend to work very 
closely with the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and, of course, following a Commander 
like Admiral Tom Fargo is certainly going to be some hard work, 
but I look forward, eagerly, to this opportunity.
    I know that there are many challenges in the Asia-Pacific 
area. If confirmed, I intend to work hard to establish and 
nurture the personal and nation-to-nation relationships that I 
consider essential to the security of the region. It would also 
be a top priority for me to ensure that our forces are prepared 
to execute their operational tasks in a very credible manner, 
that the deterrent value of our force is real and sustainable. 
I certainly intend to support and to sustain our U.S. policy 
objectives in the region.
    There's much for me to learn, but I eagerly look forward to 
working with our superb soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, 
and our friends and allies, should I be confirmed. I recognize 
that the sheer size, vast distances, and immense populations of 
the Asia-Pacific region add a unique challenge to our 
operations in that theater, but I am ready to get underway, 
sir.
    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, if confirmed, I 
look forward to your counsel and guidance and to a regular 
dialogue as we face these challenges in the Asia-Pacific 
region.
    Chairman Warner [presiding]. We look forward to yours, too.
    Admiral Fallon. Thank you, sir. It's a great honor to be 
here. I thank you for the opportunity to appear, and I eagerly 
look forward to your questions.
    Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Warner. We owe an obligation to the President for 
the nomination that he sent forward for your service. Thank you 
very much, Admiral.
    Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Mr. Woodley.

STATEMENT OF JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
                  OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS

    Mr. Woodley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I want, first, to 
express my appreciation for your kindness and to associate 
myself with Admiral Fallon's remarks in the spirit of deep 
humility and appreciation at being able to appear before you in 
the company of these two very distinguished public servants.
    I also wish to acknowledge your kindness in allowing me to 
acknowledge my family members--my wife, Priscilla, and my 
daughter, Elizabeth, who are with me today; my other daughter, 
Cornelia, and my younger son, John Paul, are today a bit under 
the weather, and so, unable to be with us.
    Chairman Warner. They're here in spirit.
    Mr. Woodley. Nothing serious, and they are certainly here 
in spirit.
    I'm also mindful, Mr. Chairman, of the confidence expressed 
in me by President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld in submitting my 
name in nomination for this important post within the 
Department of the Army.
    The Army Corps of Engineers and its civil-works function--
encompassing navigation, flood control, water-resource 
development, and environmental improvement--has, for 200 years, 
contributed greatly to the prosperity and well-being of our 
Nation.
    I deeply appreciate the courtesy of the committee. If 
confirmed, I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, 
and all the Members, to address the vital navigation, flood-
control, water-resource, and environmental challenges of the 
Nation.
    Thank you very much.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Secretary Woodley.
    Secretary Penn.

 STATEMENT OF BUDDIE J. PENN TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 
             NAVY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT

    Mr. Penn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, distinguished members of this 
committee, it is a sincere honor and privilege to appear before 
you as the nominee for the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 
Installations and Environment.
    There are several people I would like to thank for helping 
me arrive here. I thank President Bush for his nomination, and 
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Navy Secretary England for the 
opportunity to be a part of their team. I sincerely thank 
Senator Symms, a former member of this august group, for his 
introduction, his friendship, and his support. There are 
several people smiling down on us today that willingly helped 
me without being asked.
    Finally, I would like to thank this committee for all you 
do on behalf of our great Nation and those who serve in its 
defense.
    If confirmed, I pledge to work closely with this committee 
and all of Congress in meeting the main challenges ahead.
    To close, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my family--my wife, 
Loretta, my daughter, Emily, and her husband, Captain Bruce 
Groomes, and my grandsons, Jeff and Jared.
    Chairman Warner. I wonder if the grandsons might stand so 
we can recognize them. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming. 
[Applause.]
    Mr. Penn. I want to thank them for their abiding support 
and love through the years. Their foundation has been a 
mainstay of my life.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my remarks.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
    I will now proceed to committee rules, which we follow very 
carefully with all nominees. We've asked our nominees a series 
of advanced policy questions. They have responded to those 
questions. Without objection, I will make the questions and 
their responses part of the record.
    I also have certain standard questions we ask of every 
nominee who appears before the Armed Services Committee. So, 
gentlemen, if you would please respond to each of the following 
questions:
    Have you adhered to the applicable laws and regulations 
governing conflicts of interest?
    Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Penn. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken 
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of this 
Senate confirmation process?
    Admiral Fallon. No, sir.
    Mr. Penn. No, sir.
    Mr. Woodley. No, sir, I have not. But I should put on the 
record that I am currently serving and performing duties, as 
assigned by the Secretary of the Army, in the capacity of 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary.
    Chairman Warner. Yes. The record so reflects.
    Mr. Woodley. We have taken, I believe, great care, Mr. 
Chairman, to ensure that no action in that capacity is, in any 
way, beyond the scope of, and limits of, that office.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
    Will you ensure your staff complies with the deadlines 
established for requested communications from the Congress of 
the United States, including questions for the record in our 
hearings?
    Admiral Fallon. I shall, sir.
    Mr. Penn. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you.
    Will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in 
response to the congressional requests?
    Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Penn. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from any 
reprisal whatsoever for their testimony or briefings?
    Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Penn. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and 
testify, upon request, before this committee?
    Admiral Fallon. I do, sir.
    Mr. Penn. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree to give your personal views 
and, when asked before this committee, to do so even if those 
views differ from the administration that you are serving?
    Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Penn. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents, 
including copies of electronic forms of communication, in a 
timely manner, when requested by a duly constituted committee 
of Congress, or to consult with the committee regarding the 
basis for any good-faith delay or denial that you feel is 
justified in providing such documents?
    Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Penn. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you.
    All right. Now, that covers all the questions that we have 
of formalities. I apologize for having stepped out for a 
minute, but it was very important that I do so.
    Senator Inhofe, I'm going to be here throughout the 
hearing. Would you like to ask the first questions?
    Senator Inhofe. I would, Mr. Chairman, because I have some 
people in my office.
    Chairman Warner. He's the chairman of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, and I serve on that committee, and I 
understand the demands on his time.
    Senator Inhofe. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you.
    Senator Inhofe. First of all, I'll start with you, Admiral 
Fallon. You and I share a concern that the Navy has had for 
quite some time, and that is the scarcity we have of live 
ranges for training purposes. We went through what I refer to 
now, in retrospect, as the ``Battle of Vieques,'' which I 
fought diligently and lost after 3 years, but you did the Pace-
Fallon report, which expressed your concern, also, about the 
availability of ranges for the future.
    Would you like to fill us in--because you're going to be 
dealing with these issues in your new position--with what your 
feelings are now about how we're doing with our ranges and our 
ability to train our pilots and our sailors?
    Admiral Fallon. Senator, this is still a big challenge, for 
a couple of reasons. One, because of continued encroachment. 
The increasing population in the U.S. and in other places 
around the world constrains a lot of these ranges, many have 
been around for many decades, but people have filled in around 
them, and encroachment is a serious problem.
    The other issue is that the ranges of many of our weapons 
systems today are vastly greater than the weapons from years 
ago. So, we're challenged to find areas in which we can safely 
test and train with these weapons. We're working on it. We're 
making some progress.
    In my current job with the Navy, we have partnered 
extensively with our service comrades, particularly the Air 
Force, in being able to use some of their ranges, and we have a 
couple of efforts underway right now to attempt to get access 
to some other facilities that we think will help us in this 
area. But it's really critical, and we need help overseas, as 
well.
    Senator Inhofe. I know that's true. I think of Southern 
Sardinia, Cape Wrath, and other places that we are looking for 
joint training, and we're unable to do it. One of the reasons, 
of course, I know you're the Pacific Fleet, but the European 
Union now has imposed environmental hardships on a lot of the 
countries where we have customarily been able to use those 
ranges. I know there are some in the Pacific Command, also. I 
would just want you to look at that and let us know.
    One thing that bothers me is that we have the best men and 
women up there flying around, and the best ones training on 
ships, but it is unfair if they don't have the right resources 
to get that live-fire training.
    Mr. Penn, it's just a delight to know that we'll be working 
with you in your new capacity. Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure 
whether you're aware of this or not, but two of my best friends 
in the other body over there are Congressman Chris Cox and 
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. They're currently at odds with 
each other over the potential disposition of El Toro Marine 
Base. The issue seems to be that there are groups who want to 
develop it. An amount of money has been offered. An auction is 
going on right now. It's up to about $630 million, as we're 
speaking now, and it could be a little bit higher. On the other 
hand, those who want to use it for airport purposes actually 
came to visit with me a couple of days ago and convinced me 
that, financially speaking, we might be better off to take that 
option.
    One of the reasons is that, under the sale, it would mean 
the Navy would still have to provide the cleanup, but if it 
goes under a lease type of arrangement, the Navy would not.
    Now, there's not a person, of the three of us up here, who 
hasn't visited some of these base realignment and closure 
(BRAC) closed operations, and always the cost of cleanup is 
much, much more than people expect it to be.
    Have you had time to look at that? I know this is a new 
subject and you may not have.
    Mr. Penn. No, sir, I have not.
    Senator Inhofe. All right. What I would like to ask you to 
do is to look at that situation. I know that there's time now 
to exercise either option, even though the train seems to be 
pulling out pretty fast.
    I only have one concern, and that is, what is it going to 
cost the Navy each way? I am talking about net cost, including 
cleanup. I think that's important. In this time, when we're 
short of money for end strength, we're short of money for all 
of our programs, modernization programs and others, we need 
every nickel we can get. So with that in mind as a goal, which 
I'm sure you share, if you would keep me informed of that as we 
move along, I would appreciate it.
    Mr. Penn. Yes, sir. My pleasure.
    Senator Inhofe. Good, good.
    Mr. Woodley, we went through this once before, about 18 
months ago, and I told you, at that time, it's one of the most 
difficult jobs out there. I'm sure if you didn't realize it 
then, you do realize it now. You've done a great job. The Corps 
has done a great job. Part of the jurisdiction is here in this 
committee, but also the committee that I chair, the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works. We have about half the 
jurisdiction there, too. So I am working very closely on a lot 
of your projects, not just in the United States, but in Africa 
and other places. I would say that, with the number-one 
Superfund site in America, you folks are providing a lot of 
cooperation, and I appreciate that very much.
    From your vast experience now of 18 months on the job, is 
there anything that you'd like to share with us that you did 
not anticipate 18 months ago?
    Mr. Woodley. Senator, the one thing that I could say about 
the position is, as difficult as I knew it would be, I did not 
anticipate how much I would enjoy the opportunity to work with 
the men and women of the Corps of Engineers, who are truly a 
national asset. In the work that they do, mostly civilians, 
every day, in every community from coast to coast and around 
the globe, they make America better and they have now for 200 
years. It's an enormous national treasure that is, I think, 
underappreciated in some quarters. I have come to appreciate it 
much, much more than I did when I sat before the committee 
almost 2 years ago.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, all three of you, and 
I'll be looking forward to working with you in your new 
capacities.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. I know you're too 
modest to say it, but there are two aviators down there. You're 
an aviator in your own right. You still do some rather 
extraordinary things, which I'm not totally approving of. 
[Laughter.]
    You're too valuable a member of this committee.
    Senator Inhofe. I have a new one coming up that you'll 
enjoy.
    Chairman Warner. Oh, yeah. I don't want to hear about it. 
[Laughter.]
    Are we going to read about it in the paper? [Laughter.]
    Senator Levin.
    Senator Levin. First, Mr. Woodley, a couple of questions 
about the Corps. What is your understanding of the law on the 
following issue? Is the Corps not bound by State water-quality 
standards? Apparently there are some circumstances under which 
the State water-quality standards are not binding on the Corps, 
under some legal doctrine. What is your understanding of those 
circumstances?
    Mr. Woodley. Senator, let me say that when I left the 
Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, in 1998, I stopped 
practicing law and have managed to prevent myself, despite all 
temptation to the contrary, from continuing that in the 
meantime.
    I will give you my understanding. I have a representative 
of the General Counsel here today, and we could confer and give 
you a more precise answer for the record.
    Senator Levin. What's your non-legal understanding?
    Mr. Woodley. My understanding is that there is a provision 
of the Clean Water Act, there's a subsection, I believe, of 
section 404 that provides if a Federal project is specifically 
authorized by Congress in a specific way, that clearly 
indicates a congressional intent, under the preemption 
doctrine, to preempt and override the State, that then, and 
only then, is there a so-called exemption. I will say that it 
is the policy of the administration--and of every 
administration I know of, and of the Corps itself--that this 
will not be used and that we will seek, in every case, to 
comply with State water-control policies. This is a policy that 
I endorse. If confirmed, I would seek to enforce this policy.
    I served, as the chairman mentioned, for many years in the 
State Government of Virginia in the role that would have found 
itself overridden by this policy, and I know, from personal 
experience, I would not have appreciated it very much, nor 
would the people of Virginia have appreciated it very much. So, 
that is my understanding of the law in this context.
    Senator Levin. Thank you. For a rusty lawyer, you did 
pretty good. [Laughter.]
    Is that true, what you just said, both where the State 
standards are less strict, or just where they are more strict 
than the Federal standards? I'm just curious now, too, as a 
former lawyer. I think what you just said is that it's the 
Corps' policy to try to abide by the State standards. If the 
State standards are lesser, do you go down to those standards, 
or do you still maintain the higher level of standards?
    Mr. Woodley. We would follow the Federal standard in that 
instance.
    Senator Levin. Gotcha. Okay, thank you.
    Mr. Woodley, just on one other question. I asked you this 
in my office. I appreciated your visit. It's about the Defense 
Contract Audit Agency's (DCAA) memorandum to the Corps of 
Engineers saying that Halliburton--and this was a January 13, 
2004, urgent memorandum--did not have appropriate systems in 
place to estimate the cost of its work in Iraq. Three days 
later, the Corps issued a new $1.2 billion contract with the 
company to continue its work on the reconstruction of the Iraqi 
oil industry.
    The source-selection document that we looked at indicates 
that Halliburton was given a perfect score in the competition 
for its estimating system, even though the DCAA had sent this 
urgent memo saying that it did not have appropriate systems in 
place.
    I know that you were not personally involved in this issue, 
but we've asked the Army Corps to explain why that DCAA 
memorandum was not taken into account during its appraisal of 
Halliburton's estimating system. We have not gotten a 
responsive answer, and I'm wondering whether you might have one 
for us.
    Mr. Woodley. Senator, I have conferred with my colleague 
who has oversight over that matter, Secretary Bolton, and he 
has indicated to me that he will be preparing a responsive 
answer for the committee.
    Senator Levin. Thank you.
    We look forward to it, and we look forward to it promptly.
    Now, Mr. Penn and Admiral Fallon, a couple of questions for 
you. On January 28, the Washington Post reported that 37 whales 
had beached themselves and died along the North Carolina shore, 
``soon after Navy vessels in a deep-water training mission off 
the coast used powerful sonar as a part of the exercise.'' It 
said that scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) were looking into the incident to try to 
determine the cause of the beachings.
    Admiral Fallon, you were Commander of the U.S. Atlantic 
Fleet. You're an expert on the Marine Mammal Protection Act and 
the impact of Navy activities on marine mammals, and I know you 
care about marine mammals. Being a Navy man, can you give us 
your take as to whether or not the Navy has been able to figure 
out whether it had any role in the beachings?
    Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir, Senator. Thanks very much. I 
really do care. I've spent a lot of time in business having to 
do with the Marine Mammal Protection Act in the last several 
years. We're investigating this incident. I can tell you that 
the initial information that was provided to me indicates that 
we had two groups of ships in the western Atlantic that were 
using sonars in that general period of time. I haven't seen the 
timelines to see exactly where they are. One group was several 
hundred miles away. I find it pretty hard to believe that there 
could have been any interaction there, but we're going to check 
it out.
    We had another ship--the closest ship that we know of that 
had any sonar transmission was about 50 miles away. That also 
seems to be an extraordinarily long distance for any 
interaction. This particular ship was doing some maintenance 
testing on its sonar for a very short period of time.
    We are cooperating actively with the National Marine 
Fisheries Services (NMFS) and with the other regulatory 
agencies to try and sift through all the data and to come up 
with the final determination.
    Senator Levin. Okay.
    Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could just ask a couple of more 
questions, then I'll be done, if that's okay.
    Chairman Warner. Go ahead.
    Senator Levin. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Penn, I guess you're going to be involved in that 
issue, and we just would ask you to be working closely in the 
Navy to give us a complete answer to that question.
    In many, many authorization bills we have been struggling 
with this issue of the role of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
and whether or not there should be any loosening of that act, 
in terms of training and so forth. It's important to the Navy 
and it's important to our security, but it's also important to 
our role as stewards of this planet, to the extent we are. So, 
we would appreciate your getting involved in that issue and 
working with the uniformed leaders.
    Mr. Penn. Yes, sir.
    Senator Levin. Mr. Penn, let me just ask you a question. 
It's actually somewhat similar to Senator Inhofe's question, 
except that it's not a specific question about any property; 
it's a general question about the conveyances of property which 
have been taken, under the BRAC process, and you will be 
involved in this.
    Here's the background for this. It has come to our 
attention the Navy and other military departments may be 
interpreting the language about conveying property that's 
available as a result of the BRAC process that there may be 
some misunderstanding here about what criteria are to be 
applied to the conveyance of that property.
    Some people apparently believe that the mandate in the law 
is to sell all that property for as much as they can to anybody 
who is willing to pay, regardless of what the local reuse 
authority wants or what the redevelopment plan calls for. Now, 
that is not what was intended by Congress, nor is it what is in 
the law. First of all, we give authority to the Department of 
Defense to make a below-cost or a no-cost conveyance. It 
doesn't have to be a conveyance that reaps a financial benefit 
to the government. We leave flexibility about that to the 
Department of Defense.
    Whether that authority to convey property for less than its 
highest value is going to depend on whether or not it is going 
to be used for profit or for nonprofit purposes. If it's going 
to be for a public benefit, particularly, then there's an 
understanding reflected in the law that its highest and best 
use may not be a sale at the highest price.
    So, we have given that flexibility to the Department of 
Defense. We permit these conveyances, under certain 
circumstances, where the bid is less than the highest bid and 
perhaps maybe a total non-remuneration to the Federal 
Government.
    I'm wondering if you have any views on that question, and, 
if you're not familiar with that issue, whether you will take a 
look at it, satisfy yourself as to what the law is, and get 
back to the committee as to what your understanding is, if 
you're not familiar with it now. If you are familiar with it 
now, then perhaps you could give us your understanding now.
    Mr. Penn. Sir, I am not familiar with this issue, but, if 
confirmed, I will be glad to investigate it and get back to 
you.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    The base closure law requires the Administrator of General Services 
to delegate to the Secretary of Defense the authority to dispose of 
surplus property at closed or realigned military installations, and 
requires the Secretary to do so in accordance with the regulations 
governing disposal of surplus property under the Federal Property and 
Administrative Services Act of 1949. The disposal authorities under 
this act include public benefit conveyances, negotiated sales at fair 
market value, and public sales. Another section of the base closure law 
provides additional authority to convey property to the local 
redevelopment authority for purposes of job generation on the 
installation. In amending that provision in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Congress directed the DOD to 
seek to obtain consideration in an amount equal to the fair market 
value of the property. The conference report accompanying that change 
stated, ``The conference agreement would require the Secretary of 
Defense to obtain fair market value for economic development 
conveyances in most cases, unless the Secretary determines the 
circumstances warrant a below-cost or no-cost conveyance.'' The base 
closure law also requires that the Secretary of Defense give 
substantial deference to the redevelopment plan prepared by the local 
redevelopment authority in preparing the record of decision under the 
National Environmental Policy Act or other decision document regarding 
property disposal.
    I do not believe that seeking maximum financial return will be the 
overriding Navy goal in disposing of property at closed or realigned 
installations, and I fully expect that Navy will continue to give 
substantial deference to redevelopment plans in making property 
disposal decisions. I expect the Navy to use all of the available 
property disposal authorities in the proper circumstances.
    Property disposal by public sale can be a very effective means of 
assisting a local community with economic development and renewal and 
other property reuse objectives. For example, I understand that the 
Navy's recent sale of property at the former Marine Corps Air Station 
El Toro, where the Navy worked in close partnership with the local 
community, will result in up to 70 percent of the property being 
dedicated by the property purchaser to the local government for public 
purposes, and that developer fees will pay for many of the improvements 
needed to implement the desired public uses.

    Senator Levin. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for yielding the additional time. 
As always, you are courteous.
    I thank these witnesses and their families for their 
service.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin, for 
participating in this.
    Senator Thune, I'm going to be here throughout the 
completion of this hearing. Would you like to ask your 
questions at this time?
    Senator Thune. That would be great, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you.
    Senator Thune. Yes. Thank you very much.
    I thank the witnesses for being here and for your 
willingness to serve your country. Thank you, as well, for the 
opportunity you've given me to visit with you individually on 
some of these issues.
    I have one issue, in particular, Mr. Chairman, that I have 
had conversations with Mr. Woodley about before, but I would 
like to raise it, just for the record.
    One of his responsibilities is the Army Corps of Engineers, 
and we've had a lot of discussion in the past decade over a 
rewrite of the master manual for the Missouri River. That has 
been completed, and is now being implemented. There are some 
unique circumstances right now, as they pertain to the 
Missouri, in that we've had successive years of drought, and 
that has caused a lot of problems, not only for the State of 
South Dakota and its recreation industry, but other States and 
their issues. In fact, so much so that I've had, in the last 
couple of days, the chairs of two of the Indian tribes in South 
Dakota, who have been in my office, and who rely on the 
Missouri for water supply, tell me the intakes now, because of 
the drought, are sucking mud. To me, that's a very immediate 
public-health issue that will need to be addressed.
    I would be interested in getting Secretary Woodley's 
comments with respect to that, and just suggest to him, too, 
that, as I've discussed with you privately, I look forward to 
working with you to address that.
    It is an immediate concern. There are a lot of debates 
about the use of the river that have gone on for long before 
either you or I were on the scene--that continue to go on 
today. But this is one, in particular, now that is a very 
immediate concern that has been caused by the drought.
    We have two tribes, both the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and 
the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, that rely upon the Missouri 
River for water supply and who have pipes and intakes that are 
now not able to reach a pool level where they can pull water 
out of the river, and that creates a lot of problems, as you 
would expect, for the populations in their reservations.
    So if you could respond to that, that would be great.
    Mr. Woodley. I certainly will, Senator. I can tell you that 
during the time I have been privileged to serve with the Corps 
of Engineers in the Secretariat, no single issue has been more 
important to me or more vexing to the Corps, in general, than 
the management of the Missouri River and the many interests 
that rely upon it.
    This is a responsibility that the Corps of Engineers takes 
very seriously, and we are mindful of the fact that the 
reservoirs that the Corps manages on the river are now at their 
lowest point that they have been since they were first 
established, and that is causing hardship of the direst sort 
for the people of South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana.
    Since we discussed the issue about the water intakes, I 
have had occasion, in my capacity as Principal Deputy Secretary 
of the Army for Civil Works, to discuss this matter once again 
with the district engineer at Omaha, and to convey to him, in 
the strongest terms, the need for constant engagement, and to 
receive from him his assurances that he is in constant contact 
with the tribal leaders and other representatives of other 
Federal agencies, bringing them together and serving as the 
convener and actuator, so that all resources of the Federal 
Government--that we can bring to bear--are focused on these 
issues.
    I appreciate the leadership that you have brought to bear 
on this, as well, and the other members of the delegation from 
these drought-stricken States.
    Water intake is very important. Access issues are occurring 
all over the region. We have concerns for cultural resource 
protection. As the levels go down, they expose areas of 
important cultural resources and tribal resources that must be 
identified and protected. We have issues with noxious weeds, 
invasive plants that begin to colonize in these areas. So this 
is a very complex issue, and there is no more important 
challenge that we have than the management of the Missouri 
River in this time of extreme drought.
    So, I will be, if I am confirmed and on a continuing basis, 
working with you and available to you and to all the members of 
the committee and of the delegations of the affected States to 
bring to bear every resource that the Corps of Engineers has to 
ameliorate this suffering.
    Senator Thune. I appreciate that very much and know that 
you have had conversations with our governor, as well. I don't 
envy your job. There are a lot of competing pressures from a 
lot of States. I've talked to some of my colleagues here in the 
Senate who have an entirely different view and perspective on 
the Missouri River than I do. But those of us in the Upper 
Basin have experienced, as you noted, a tremendous amount of 
stress economically in the last few years because of the 
drought, and welcome your assistance and help in making sure 
that the priorities of those States are addressed.
    Furthermore, the most immediate issue, in my judgment, is 
in August, when it hits the lowest level--and it is the lowest 
level, historically, that we've ever seen since the dams were 
built by the Corps--is the water-supply issue on the 
reservations. That is a crisis-type issue, and one that we're 
going to need a lot of help with. So I appreciate your 
willingness to convey your support for helping us address that 
problem.
    Mr. Penn and Mr. Fallon, welcome, as well. We look forward 
to your speedy confirmation.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Senator, if you wish to take additional 
time, I'm going to remain here. Do you have any other 
questions?
    Senator Thune. It's just you and me, I guess.
    Chairman Warner. It is.
    I've been trying to do a little research on this myself, 
and I understand that part of America, while we here in the 
east are flooded out, is experiencing a record drought of some 
proportions for several years. I mean, it's cumulative, is it 
not?
    Senator Thune. It is, and it's gotten to where the pool 
level in the reservoirs is--since the dams were put in, in 
1944, the Flood Control Act, Pick-Sloan Plan, and the Oahe Dam, 
which was built in 1962 in South Dakota, hasn't seen this low a 
level since the dams were built.
    Chairman Warner. The dams were built to collect the water 
for such uses as the immediate environs required, and then to 
release it to maintain a depth of the river itself to permit 
barge traffic, as I understand it, to go up and reach certain 
ports in your State. Am I correct?
    Senator Thune. Actually, the river doesn't come clear up, 
because the dams now are in our State, but it comes up just to 
the border, to Sioux City, which is in Iowa.
    Chairman Warner. Correct. Sioux City.
    Senator Thune. Correct, and the primary purpose was flood 
control.
    Chairman Warner. Flood control.
    Senator Thune. At the time, we had experienced some floods 
that were very devastating, and that led to the passing of the 
legislation and the creation of the dams. The original plan 
called for hydroelectric power, irrigation, water supply, some 
other uses, and it's been the Corps' job to try and balance all 
of those. But in the environment that we're in right now, 
because of the drought, that has become an extremely difficult 
job, and the best thing that we could do now is pray for snow 
in Montana or rain somewhere in the Basin. But this is a real 
serious issue.
    Chairman Warner. I'm glad you brought it up. We're likely, 
this committee, in the course of the confirmation process--we 
will need to engage other Senators who have an active interest 
in this situation. Secretary Woodley has indicated to me, we'll 
just work around the clock to try and establish, to their 
satisfaction, the resources of the Corps of Engineers to try 
and work to alleviate this situation.
    Also, as an outdoorsman myself, I understand it's severely 
impaired the sport fishing and other things that economically 
are very important to the region. Is that correct?
    Senator Thune. That is correct. We have about an $85 
million recreation industry on the lakes in South Dakota, which 
has taken a tremendous hit. You can't launch a boat, with the 
exception of a couple of places, on the entire lake system.
    Chairman Warner. You can't even put a boat in?
    Senator Thune. You can't get a boat in, with a lot of 
places, and that has extreme consequences for some of these 
smaller communities that rely almost exclusively on the 
seasonal recreation industry.
    So it is a very serious issue, Mr. Chairman, and I 
appreciate your willingness to look at it.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you.
    Just one last question. Technically, 100 percent being full 
capacity of the dam, at what percentage do you feel that they 
are filled at now?
    Senator Thune. The Secretary may be better able to answer 
that. I will tell you, in Lake Oahe, that about 1,610 to 1,620 
feet above sea level is considered a fairly full lake; and we 
expect, in August, to hit 1,559 feet, so it's dropped 
significantly. In terms of the acre-feet of water that it 
holds, I think that it's down to about 35 million acre-feet, or 
below that?
    Mr. Woodley. That's the entire system's storage for the 
entire six-reservoir complex.
    Senator Thune. That's the entire system, that's correct. 
Right.
    Mr. Woodley. Mr. Chairman, the entire system has a capacity 
of 72 million acre-feet, making it by far the largest system of 
reservoirs in the Nation and one of the largest in the world. 
We consider a normal or average capacity to be at about 54 
million acre-feet, and the capacity above that is intended to 
absorb the runoff from an extraordinary flood event, which has 
happened well within modern memory. If we look at 1993, there 
was more than enough water. Indeed, rather more water than most 
people would have liked to see in that entire part of the 
country. The reservoirs then served their purpose very well and 
drastically reducing the severity of what was already a very 
significant flooding event.
    At 54 million acre-feet, we would consider a normal pool--
the current level is right at, or about, or perhaps slightly 
below 34 million acre-feet. This is, I would say, at a time 
when we would expect, seasonally, to receive an inflow, very 
soon, from the melting of the mountain and prairie snowpacks. 
However, I am told, by the experts in the field, that those 
runoff levels are not expected to exceed 72 percent of an 
average outflow. So we are not likely to get relief from that 
source in this spring melt season; understanding, of course, 
that these matters are entirely unpredictable, as the weather 
is.
    Chairman Warner. We thank you, Mr. Secretary. I think that 
covers it.
    Thank you, Senator Thune. Anything further?
    Senator Thune. No, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your interest 
in this subject.
    Chairman Warner. I appreciate it, it is an important issue.
    Admiral, to your future assignment here, North Korea 
publicly declared that it had nuclear weapons, and demanded 
bilateral talks with the United States as a precondition for 
resumption of the Six-Party Talks. There has also been 
discussion in the press of evidence that North Korea may have 
exported nuclear-related items to other countries. I think the 
President and his team are handling this very delicate 
situation precisely correctly and--in working in conjunction 
with the other nations--notably, China, South Korea, Japan, and 
others--to try and resolve this. But as to your responsibility, 
in light of these most recent developments, how do you assess 
the current situation, the security situation, on the Korean 
Peninsula? What, if anything, should be done to strengthen the 
deterrents on the Korean Peninsula?
    Admiral Fallon. Thank you, Senator. It's clearly 
disturbing, this assertion that they have nuclear weapons. 
Whether they do or not, I don't know. But the fact that they 
would publicly make this statement is one of serious concern. 
So, I think our response should be in two areas. One is to 
maintain strong deterrent posture to signal our support for 
South Korea and our allies in the region. Second, to do 
whatever we can to facilitate the diplomatic efforts, whether 
it's restarting the Six-Party Talks or to encourage another 
initiative from, not only ourselves, but the other nations in 
the area, I think, would be an appropriate course of action. It 
clearly is something that is disturbing. Not only the nuclear 
revelation or assertion, but the fact that the North Koreans 
have been exporting their missile technology, which may provide 
the means to deliver these types of weapons, is certainly 
something of high concern.
    I'm working hard to get up to speed in this area, to learn 
as much as I can about it. I look forward, if confirmed, to 
engage with our allies in the area, and to our other experts, 
in government and out, to learn as much as we can so that I can 
be of some use in the region.
    Chairman Warner. You may wish to, assuming confirmation of 
the Senate, be in office out there for a while. Before you 
respond, but I would hope that you would keep this committee 
informed if you felt that, at any time, the overall resources 
at your disposal were less than adequate to maintain a strong 
deterrent position on behalf of that peninsula from any 
conflict breaking out.
    Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir, I certainly will.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you.
    As to China, the committee continues to follow, with great 
interest, their expanding capabilities, in terms of military, 
both conventional and strategic. There always remains the 
importance of our Taiwan relationships--and, indeed, with 
mainland China--and we try to follow, I think, quite correctly 
a balanced policy. How do you see these trends unfolding over 
the next few years?
    Admiral Fallon. Sir, I certainly support the idea that we 
maintain a balanced look, keep a close eye on this issue, to be 
maintaining the idea of a status quo, that there not be any 
unilateral action that would upset the situation.
    It is really interesting, I think, to study this challenge, 
because the tremendous dynamic growth of China and the many 
economic interfaces that they have with us and with other 
nations around the world and with Taiwan. It's pretty 
fascinating. At the same time, this pretty much unprecedented 
growth in military capability is something that certainly bears 
watching.
    I know that there have been some initiatives on our part to 
reach out to China, to work with them to try and facilitate 
moving forward on our mutually shared interests.
    Chairman Warner. I think it is important to find common 
grounds of interest.
    You are quite active, then, with the Secretary of State, 
whoever that may be. Right now we're pleased to have Dr. Rice, 
but you also interface with all of the ambassadors in that 
region. You have a unique overall responsibility there. While 
military is your first mission, diplomacy certainly is a second 
one, in many respects, to work with those members of the 
Department of State.
    Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir. I look forward to their insight, 
counsel, advice, and experience in each of these countries.
    Chairman Warner. But your relationships with the chief of 
the military services in each of those countries are very 
helpful.
    Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. That is, unfortunately, with North Korea, 
at the moment, not possible, but who knows what the future may 
hold?
    Mr. Woodley, from 2001 to 2005 the Civil Works budget 
decreased more than 11 percent. The decline contrasts with 
nearly a 29 percent increase in overall Federal expenditures in 
this same period. What has this resulted in, in terms of your 
projects, for the Corps of Engineers?
    Mr. Woodley. Mr. Chairman, comparisons across time of a 
construction budget are often difficult to make, because the 
budget goes up or down depending on the call for new 
infrastructure, and infrastructure modifications, and major 
rehabilitations.
    The budget we have for the current year, which I recently 
presented, represents an increase from last year's President's 
budget of about $200 million. It does represent a decrease from 
the amount appropriated by Congress by about the same amount. 
But we have been able to get more support within the 
President's budget than we had in the prior period.
    We've done that by seeking to concentrate the funds that we 
have, based on the performance of the projects and a rigorous 
ranking of the projects that are being supported, in order to 
proceed with the projects with the greatest cost benefit, as 
our analysis shows them. These are such projects as the harbor 
in New York and New Jersey, on the east coast, and Oakland, on 
the west coast; the very important navigation infrastructure 
projects of locks and dams on the Ohio River; and, in the arena 
of environmental restoration, the critical Everglades 
Restoration Project in Florida to restore the world-class 
ecosystem of the Everglades.
    Chairman Warner. I hope you mention the Chesapeake Bay, 
because, there again, it's a very critical project.
    Mr. Woodley. The Corps will certainly play a leading role 
in the work in and around the Chesapeake Bay, certainly.
    One of my primary goals has been and, if confirmed, would 
continue to be to employ very strict processes of performance-
based budgeting within the Civil Works part of the Corps of 
Engineers.
    Chairman Warner. Let me get a tight answer for the record 
on the following question. Describe to the committee precisely 
your responsibilities, if any, for the oversight and execution 
of contracts managed by the Corps of Engineers for 
reconstruction activities in Iraq.
    Now, this is currently under Ambassador Negroponte.
    Mr. Woodley. I have no responsibility in that.
    Chairman Warner. Then that makes it clear. All right, I 
thank you very much.
    Now, Mr. Penn, in discussions with the Department of 
Defense over the past 2 years, the Global Posture Review, the 
Department has maintained the position that any decisions made 
about the relocation of the home port for a carrier would be 
made within the context of the 2005 round of BRACs scheduled to 
take place this summer. This answer was, again, used by Admiral 
Clark last week in response to a question by Senator Akaka 
about the potential of possibly relocating carriers in Hawaii.
    I would hope that you would watch that process. I don't 
mean, at this point and in this hearing, to reopen the issue, I 
feel it was a very full coverage of the issues with the 
distinguished Chief of Naval Operations. But I do note that 
this is a BRAC-process year. This committee will soon be, 
hopefully, reviewing, in its advise and consent role, the 
nominees made by the President of the United States for the 
BRAC Commission. I have committed so much of my career in this 
committee to moving forward sequentially in BRAC processes. We 
enacted a law, it is in place, it was challenged last year to 
some extent, but, with the support of the President, we kept it 
intact. The process is going forward. We experienced, in years 
past, some problems which I hope we will not have any 
reoccurrence in this cycle. So I don't ask you for any 
commitment but to keep a watchful eye on that BRAC process to 
make sure that it works in accordance with the laws, as written 
by this committee and accepted by the full Congress and the 
House committee--very active in it--to get this behind us.
    You will keep a watchful eye?
    Mr. Penn. Senator, if confirmed, I assure you.
    Chairman Warner. I thank you.
    We now have come to that point where I feel that the 
audience has stayed with us for a long time. There are several 
additional questions, which I will place into the record and 
ask each of you, at your earliest opportunity, to provide your 
responses for the record.
    So I thank our distinguished panel of nominees, their 
families and friends who have gathered for this very important 
day. I'm optimistic about your confirmation process. I wish you 
well.
    The hearing is now concluded.
    [Whereupon, at 5:22 p.m., the committee adjourned.]

    [Prepared questions submitted to John Paul Woodley, Jr. by 
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied 
follow:]
                        Questions and Responses

                            DEFENSE REFORMS

    Question. You previously have answered the committee's advance 
policy questions on the reforms brought about by the Goldwater-Nichols 
Act in connection with your nomination in 2003 to be the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Have your views on the 
importance, feasibility, and implementation of the Goldwater-Nichols 
Act reforms changed since you testified before the committee at your 
confirmation hearing on February 27, 2003?
    Answer. No, my views have not changed. I continue to support full 
implementation of the Goldwater-Nichols Act, which strengthens civilian 
control; improves military advice; places clear responsibility on the 
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensures 
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their 
responsibility; increases attention to the formulation of strategy and 
to contingency planning; provides for more efficient use of defense 
resources; enhances the effectiveness of military operations; and 
improves the management and administration of the Department of 
Defense.
    Question. Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-
Nichols Act provisions based on your previous experience as Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works? If so, what areas do you believe 
it might be appropriate to address in these modifications?
    Answer. Based on my previous experience as Assistant Secretary of 
the Army (Civil Works), I see no need for modification of any 
provisions of the Goldwater-Nichols Act. The Goldwater-Nichols 
Department of Defense Reorganization Act is as relevant today as it was 
in 1986 when enacted.

                                 DUTIES

    Question. In your response to previous advance policy questions 
submitted in February 2003, you stated your understanding of the duties 
and functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 
Based on your experience in the Department since that time, what 
changes, if any would you make to your original response?
    Answer. Section 3016 of Title 10 of the United States Code and 
Department of the Army General Orders No. 3 remain in effect and the 
duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) remain as 
stated in those documents, which I summarized in my previous answer. 
There is one modification to the Assistant Secretary's responsibilities 
with regard to Arlington National Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's 
Home National Cemetery. That change now is codified in Department of 
the Army General Orders No. 13, dated October 29, 2004, which replaces 
an 18-year-old General Order. General Orders No. 13 assigns overall 
supervision of Arlington National Cemetery to the Under Secretary of 
the Army and clarifies that the Superintendent of Arlington National 
Cemetery reports directly to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil 
Works) on the execution of the program of the Cemetery, including 
administration, operation and maintenance. The Assistant Secretary of 
the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) remains responsible for burial 
policy.
    Question. What recommendations, if any, do you have for changes in 
the duties and functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
Civil Works, as set forth in section 3016 of Title 10, United States 
Code, and in regulations of the Department of Defense and Department of 
the Army?
    Answer. I believe the duties and functions of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) are clearly and properly assigned 
in the above-referenced documents. During my previous service as 
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) I recommended changes in 
oversight of Arlington National Cemetery, and those recommendations are 
reflected in the new General Orders No. 13, dated October 29, 2004.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect 
that the Secretary of the Army would prescribe for you?
    Answer. If I am confirmed, I expect to carry out the duties and 
functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) as 
articulated in General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, and General 
Orders No. 13, dated October 29, 2004. In addition, I expect to support 
and assist the Secretary of the Army in carrying out critical 
departmental responsibilities, including Continuity of Operations.

                             RELATIONSHIPS

    Question. If confirmed, what would your working relationship be 
with:
    The Secretary of the Army.
    Answer. I will work closely with the Secretary of the Army in 
furthering the goals and priorities of the President. Consistent with 
the General Orders, I expect the Secretary to rely on me to oversee the 
Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the 
programs of Arlington National Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home 
National Cemetery.
    Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel 
Readiness.
    Answer. I will work through the Secretary of the Army to form a 
close and constructive relationship with the Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense (Logistics, Materiel Readiness) in areas of mutual interest.
    Question. The Under Secretary of the Army.
    Answer. I will work closely with the Under Secretary of the Army in 
furthering the goals and priorities of the President and the Secretary 
of the Army, including Army national cemetery program. Under General 
Orders 13, October 29, 2004, the Under Secretary is responsible for 
overall supervision of the program, and the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army (Civil Works) is responsible for supervision of the program and 
budget.
    Question. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and 
Environment.
    Answer. Having worked for the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 
Installations and Environment, I am very aware of the responsibilities 
of the position and look forward to a constructive relationship, 
working through the Secretary of the Army, in areas of mutual interest.
    Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense.
    Answer. I will work through the Secretary of the Army to form a 
close and constructive relationship with the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Homeland Defense to ensure that the full array of assets of 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is available to support the national 
defense, including the engineering and technical management and 
emergency response and recovery capabilities associated with the Army 
Civil Works Program.
    Question. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and 
Environment.
    Answer. I will work to form a close and constructive relationship 
with the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and 
Environment) in areas of mutual interest.
    Question. The Chief of Staff of the Army and the Army Staff.
    Answer. I will establish and maintain a close, professional 
relationship with the Chief of Staff as he performs his duties as the 
senior military leader of the Army.
    Question. The Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Chief of 
Engineers.
    Answer. I believe the relationship between the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army (Civil Works) and the Chief of Engineers that best serves 
the interests of the Nation is the one based on mutual respect, trust, 
and cooperation. Both positions have enormous responsibilities and 
demand great attention to very complex issues. During my previous 
service, the current Chief of Engineers, LTG Carl A. Strock, and I 
established such a relationship and I fully expect it to grow stronger. 
Our respective abilities to be responsive to the President's priorities 
and to the policy directives of Congress depend greatly on the success 
of this relationship.
    Question. The General Counsel of the Army.
    Answer. My relationship with the General Counsel of the Army must 
involve close and regular consultation, given the legal complexities of 
the Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. During my 
previous service, I had such a close and constructive relationship with 
the General Counsel of the Army and, if confirmed, I will work to 
continue and strengthen that relationship.
    Question. The Judge Advocate General of the Army.
    Answer. If confirmed, I would maintain a constructive relationship 
with the Judge Advocate General of the Army in areas of mutual 
interest.
    Question. The State Governors.
    Answer. The Army and its U.S. Corps of Engineers must remain 
committed to working cooperatively with Governors and local authorities 
for the benefit of local citizens and for sustainable development and 
protection of the Nation's natural resources. These cooperative efforts 
must be undertaken in the context of civil works authorities and legal 
responsibilities. These responsibilities often require a balancing of 
diverse interests. The proper reconciliation of these interests demands 
open communication among all parties. I am committed to establishing 
and maintaining a full and open dialogue with the Governors on all 
issues of mutual interest.

                     MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS

    Question. In your responses to previous advance policy questions 
submitted in February 2003, you identified as major challenges that 
would confront the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works the 
need to maintain the Corps of Engineers' existing infrastructure, the 
need to repair the damaged environment, and the need to ensure the 
physical security of the Corps' infrastructure around the country. What 
do you consider to be your most significant achievements in meeting 
these challenges during your previous service as Assistant Secretary?
    Answer. During my previous service as Assistant Secretary of the 
Army (Civil Works) advances were made in addressing each of the three 
major challenges I identified in February 2003.
    Concerning the need to maintain existing Corps infrastructure, the 
fiscal year 2006 budget includes more funding for Civil Works 
operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and protection than any prior 
Civil Works budget--$2.353 billion. We held down operations costs in 
order to apply more funding to project maintenance, and then 
prioritized potential maintenance expenditures based on its criticality 
to the reliable, safe, and efficient performance of the navigation and 
flood damage reduction facilities operated by the Corps. Finally, we 
have reached agreement within the administration to explore, in 
conjunction with the development of the fiscal year 2007 budget, ways 
to improve the manner in which the budget funds major rehabilitation 
projects at Corps hydropower, inland navigation and flood damage 
reduction facilities, in order to ensure that funding is provided to 
those new and continuing major rehabilitation projects that yield a 
high economic return per dollar invested.
    In my previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil 
Works), we advanced several major ecosystem restoration programs and 
achieved a greater focus on environmental restoration both in planning 
new projects and in operating existing projects. We have finalizing the 
Programmatic Regulations for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 
Plan, produced the Louisiana Coastal Area Restoration Plan, and, after 
more than a decade of difficult work, implemented a new Master Manual 
for the operation of the Missouri River System that includes 
significant ecosystem restoration components. As Assistant Secretary, I 
emphasized that all our restoration efforts must be informed by good 
science and broad public participation.
    Concerning physical security of Corps' infrastructure, I was 
successful in gaining administration support for $84 million in fiscal 
year 2005 and $72 million in fiscal year 2006 to continue implementing 
security measures for Corps of Engineers projects and facilities.
    Question. Have these challenges changed since your appointment in 
August 2003, and, if confirmed, what are your plans for addressing the 
challenges you now anticipate?
    Answer. Those challenges continue, and I would add two more: 
improving the Corps regulatory program and improving the Corps planning 
process.
    In the past 18 months I have gained a much greater appreciation for 
the scope and importance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's 
Regulatory Program. This program protects the Nation's precious aquatic 
resources. In more than 80,000 separate actions each year, hundreds of 
billions of dollars of the Nation's life-sustaining enterprise must 
receive the Corps' scrutiny through its Section 404 permit process. We 
must meet the challenge of serving the economic and environmental 
interests of our Nation with effectiveness and efficiency. As Assistant 
Secretary I have and, if I am confirmed, will continue to emphasize 
predictability and consistency as the hallmarks of a good regulatory 
program. From both my prior experience as Assistant Secretary and my 
experience as Virginia's Secretary of Natural Resources I know that, 
with attention and commitment, business can be conducted in a way that 
makes sense for the environment.
    In my previous service as Assistant Secretary, I began to implement 
a concept of designating one Corps district as lead regulatory district 
in each State, responsible for maintaining a close liaison with the 
State permitting authorities and ensuring State-wide consistency within 
the regulatory program. If confirmed, I intend to pursue interagency 
initiatives to improve the Civil Works business processes, like the one 
recently signed with the Office of Surface Mining that establishes 
parallel, rather than sequential, review of permit applications. 
Finally, where there are common-sense solutions available to help solve 
ecosystem problems like water quality or habitat degradation, we will 
try to create regulatory incentives to getting those solutions 
implemented.
    Our Nation relies on the Corps to protect aquatic resources while 
allowing important economic development activities to proceed. The 
Corps annually performs over 100,000 wetlands jurisdictional 
determinations. As pointed out by the National Academy of Science, 
ensuring jurisdictional practices are consistent across the country has 
been a major challenge, especially since the Supreme Court's decision 
in the ``SWANCC'' case [Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County vs. 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers]. We are working diligently with the Corps 
to collect information on jurisdictional practices to better understand 
the circumstances where consistency issues arise, and address them. If 
confirmed, I will work with the Corps and other agencies in developing 
internal guidance that will improve consistency of jurisdictional 
determinations across the Nation.
    We can improve the Corps' planning process by completing the 
establishment of Centers of Expertise to efficiently handle independent 
technical review of Corps projects, economic model verification, and 
the issues surrounding Corps Reform. If confirmed, I am committed to 
work with the administration and Congress to make business process 
improvements allowing for an orderly and effective water resources 
development program for the Nation.

                               PRIORITIES

    Question. In your responses to previous advance policy questions 
submitted in February 2003, you identified working to ensure effective 
management and administration of the Army Civil Works program and the 
Army's national cemetery program as one priority you would have. 
Additionally, you identified as a priority seeking ways to more 
efficiently use resources in the development and execution of programs 
to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are wisely spent. What do you 
consider to be your most significant achievements in addressing these 
priorities during your previous service as Assistant Secretary?
    Answer. Last year I established three overarching priorities. 
First, identify clear programmatic goals for all major Corps mission 
areas. These goals form the basis for building and defending a 
performance-based budget. Second, seek continuous improvement in the 
analytical tools employed by the Corps to support decisionmaking. While 
the Corps generally does a good job in this area, it can always do 
better. Third, improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the 
regulatory program. This program touches virtually every community in 
America and protects many valuable aquatic resources.
    There have been significant advances in all three areas.
    In March 2004, the Corps issued its Civil Works Strategic Plan, 
setting out the agency's objectives in each of its major mission areas. 
With this Strategic Plan as a guide, the Corps has instituted a 
performance-based budgeting system for the Civil Works program and used 
performance principles in developing of the fiscal year 2006 
President's budget for civil works.
    To streamline project implementation, new model Project Cooperation 
Agreements have been developed, including one for navigation projects 
and one for environmental infrastructure assistance programs. Up-to-
date model Project Cooperation Agreement support the delegation of 
oversight of this process, with resulting efficiency in the process, 
while still preserving national consistency, policy compliance, and 
legal sufficiency.
    The Corps has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the 
American Association of Port Authorities, establishing shared 
partnership principles to guide Army and public ports in developing and 
maintaining the Nation's ports and harbors.
    In May 2004, a cooperative agreement with the Netherlands 
Rijkswaterstaat was reached, leading to great benefits from exchanges 
between two of the world's most respected water resources agencies.
    Corps Divisions have been delegated the authority to approve post-
authorization decision documents that comply with policy and are below 
the threshold requiring reauthorization.
    This past year, I have made the regulatory program a priority by 
encouraging performance based budgeting, participating in memorandums 
of agreement to achieve efficiencies when processing permits for energy 
projects (Deepwater Ports, Linear Transmission Projects, Joint 404-
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) Procedures), 
establishing lead corps districts in each State, and providing guidance 
on compensatory mitigation projects.
    A survey of corps districts has identified key areas of greatest 
variance between their practices on making regulatory jurisdictional 
determinations. The Corps has adopted a new method for reporting 
determinations of non-jurisdiction to enable direct comparisons of 
practices among its districts.
    The Corps has developed and implemented a nine-point plan and 
brochure to help the mining industry in Appalachia comply with the 
Clean Water Act through guidance, educational workshops, and processing 
a large permit application backlog caused by litigation. In the process 
the Corps issued clarifying guidance pertaining to mitigation of the 
effects of mountaintop surface coal mining to promote a watershed 
perspective, allow for consideration of SMCRA features as part of 
overall mitigation plans, and to make it clear that conservation 
easements are not an absolute requirement for every site.
    The past year has also brought to fruition several major actions. 
After 13 years of effort, the Corps has issued a newly revised master 
manual governing operation of the Missouri River system. The revised 
master manual is a marked improvement over the 1979 Master Manual and 
has already sustained judicial scrutiny in one U.S. District Court.
    The Corps also issued programmatic regulations for the 
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program (CERP). These rules 
establish the multi-agency program that will develop, integrate, 
implement, and monitor the extremely complex environmental restoration 
efforts in south Florida.
    The Corps also has advanced important studies concerning both the 
restoration and navigation on the upper Mississippi River, and the loss 
of wetlands in the Louisiana coastal area.
    Under my leadership, the Civil Works program has made great strides 
in improving effectiveness of its use of resources. For the six 
initiatives in the President's Management Agenda that apply to Civil 
Works, progress is ``green'' on four and ``yellow'' on two. This 
signifies that the Corps is improving its management of human capital, 
beginning to achieve efficiencies through competitive sourcing and the 
better use of e-government and real property management tools, basing 
budget decisions on economic returns and other performance metrics, and 
addressing audit and other financial management issues. In particular, 
the Corps has made great strides in basing the fiscal year 2006 budget 
on performance. Funding in the fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 
budgets was allocated by business program with a nation-wide view, so 
that the most important work in each program received funding. In the 
fiscal year 2006 budget, additional steps were taken to concentrate 
funding for studies, design, and construction on the work likely to 
yield the highest returns. In addition, the fiscal year 2006 budget 
includes more funding for Civil Works construction, rehabilitation, 
operation, maintenance, and protection than any other budget in 
history. Finally, the Corps has achieved strong ratings for its 
recreation, emergency management, and regulatory programs, with the 
result that these programs have been budgeted at very healthy levels.
    Question. If confirmed, what priorities would you establish, and 
what would be your plans for addressing them?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to pursue the priorities I 
stated during my prior service: establish clear programmatic goals for 
all major Corps mission areas; improve the analytical tools employed by 
the Corps to support decisionmaking; and improve the effectiveness and 
efficiency of the regulatory program.
    I would pursue the goal of establishing clear performance goals, in 
part, through the initiatives of the President's Management Agenda, as 
follows:

         For human capital, make significant progress in 
        reducing hiring time lags and integrate the accountability 
        system into decisions.
         For competitive sourcing, plan for and carry out 
        competitions as scheduled.
         For financial management, resolve audit issues.
         For e-government, establish an effective Enterprise 
        Architecture, adhere to cost and schedule goals, secure 
        currently unsecured IT systems, and implement applicable e-
        government initiatives.
         For budget-performance integration, improve the 
        linkages between the strategic plan and performance, and 
        improve performance metrics used in budget decisions.
         For real property asset management, develop and obtain 
        approval of an asset management plan, an accurate and current 
        asset inventory, and real property performance measures.

    My plan, if I am confirmed, for addressing the challenge of 
improving the Corps' analytic tools is to place a high priority on 
completing economic modeling efforts now underway and to work closely 
with the Chief of Engineers to address the issues that arose in the 
National Research Council's Reports on the planning process conducted 
under Section 216 of Water Resource Development Act (WRDA) 2000. I also 
would work closely with the Chief of Engineers in further streamlining 
the planning process and establishing a workable framework for 
independent review of complex and controversial Corps' studies.
    We have increased the President's Budget for the Corps regulatory 
program from $144 million for fiscal year 2004 ($140 million of which 
was appropriated), to $150 million for fiscal year 2005 ($145 million 
of which was appropriated), to $160 million for fiscal year 2006. If 
confirmed, I will continue to make the regulatory program a priority by 
supporting the National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan, developing 
regional general permits for mining and aquaculture activities, and 
supporting efforts to develop regional field indicators that will help 
Corps regulators make consistent, predictable jurisdictional 
determinations in the arid southwest and Alaska. Over $200 billion of 
economic development depends upon the work of about 1,200 Corps 
regulators in 38 districts.

           CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

    Question. In your responses in February 2003, you described the 
relative authorities of the Chief of Engineers, the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army for Civil Works, the Secretary of the Army, the Army Chief 
of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense with regard to the civil works 
function of the Army Corps of Engineers. You indicated that you would 
seek ways for the Corps to become more innovative and creative, not 
only in domestic civil works and emergency responses, but also in the 
Nation's vital national security interests. Since your appointment in 
August 2003, what changes, if any, have taken place in the manner in 
which the Chief of Engineers and the Corps and the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army for Civil Works interact?
    Answer. I am extremely pleased with the strong working relationship 
I have with both the Chief of Engineers and the Director of Civil 
Works. My experience during my previous service as Assistant Secretary 
has confirmed my initial belief and confidence in the integrity, 
commitment, and engineering excellence of these general officers.
    Question. Are there additional changes you would seek to implement, 
if confirmed?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would seek to strengthen the vertical and 
horizontal team concept emphasized in the Corps 2012 plan. Under this 
concept, concerns and issues are raised early in the development of 
projects, and a virtual or actual team is convened involving all levels 
of the organization that can contribute to early and final resolution 
of the issues. If confirmed, I would seek to promote this concept 
further by including the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army 
(Civil Works) in more cases, expediting the planning and design of 
projects, developing the administration position on these projects, 
executing project cooperation agreements, and resolving concerns of 
Members of Congress that are brought to my attention.

                        RELATIONS WITH CONGRESS

    Question. The duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
Civil Works often involve issues of great significance to local 
communities, State governments, and the Senators and Congressmen who 
represent them in Congress. What is your assessment of the ability of 
the civilian and military leadership of the Army Corps of Engineers to 
respond to requests for support for State and local projects advanced 
by elected officials?
    Answer. The Corps is unparalleled in providing disaster assistance 
and emergency preparedness. The Corps is well poised to support and 
respond to State and local requests not only in dealing with natural 
disasters, but also in responding to the Nation's water resources 
development needs. Throughout my previous service as Assistant 
Secretary, I often heard praise for the Corps disaster assistance and 
emergency response efforts from leaders in State and local governments.

              ANALYSIS OF ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER PROJECTS

    Question. What is your view of the degree of independence that 
should be provided to the economists charged with assessing the 
economic viability of Corps projects and the role of the senior 
civilian and military leadership of the Corps in reviewing the work of 
those economists?
    Answer. In my previous response, I stated that the technical and 
policy review process followed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 
managing feasibility studies needs to ensure that the many 
professionals who are involved in those studies are afforded an 
appropriate level of independence. I continue to strongly believe that 
Corps professionals at all levels need to follow established 
regulations, procedures, and policies in determining whether a project 
is, or is not, economically justified. Like any other organized system 
of analysis, the integrity of the process is critically dependent on 
all Corps of Engineers professionals doing their jobs in analyzing, 
assessing, and providing the documentation upon which the merits of a 
proposed Civil Works project may be weighed. The role of the senior 
civilian or military leadership is to ensure the integrity of the 
system to provide an independent policy, legal, and technical 
assessment of each proposed project, and then to rely on that 
documentation as the basis for their recommendations to policy 
decisionmakers to accept, reject, or modify a proposed action 
transparently.
    Question. In October 2003, the General Accounting Office released a 
report about a flood protection project in Sacramento, California which 
concluded that the Corps did not fully analyze, or report to Congress 
in a timely manner, the potential for significant cost increases. In 
this case, costs rose from $44 million to over $270 million and 
resulted in a lack of funding to carry out a substantial portion of the 
original scope of work. If confirmed, what steps would you take to 
ensure Congress is properly notified of cost overruns and potential 
changes to the scope of work for specifically authorized projects?
    Answer. This is a matter of keen interest to me. If I am confirmed, 
I will continue to work with the Chief of Engineers to ensure that 
proper risk-based engineering analysis is performed during the 
feasibility phase, commensurate with the degrees of uncertainty that 
could occur in the future with project conditions. Further, if 
confirmed, I will work with the Corps to place as much emphasis on 
costs as is placed on the benefit side of the equation. The Corps has 
made great strides in implementation of its MCACES cost estimating 
system. However, we must continue to provide updated tools that will 
enable the Corps cost estimators to determine, with reasonable 
assurance and during the feasibility phase of the study, the expected 
construction and real estate costs of potential projects. Whenever, 
despite these efforts, cost increases or potentially significant 
changes to the scope of work of projects occur, I will work with the 
Chief of Engineers to ensure that Congress is promptly notified.
    Question. If confirmed, would you adhere to existing Corps policy 
that the Corps seek new spending authority from Congress if it 
determines, before issuing the first contract, that the Corps cannot 
complete the project without exceeding its spending limit?
    Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I would adhere to that policy, which is 
well founded. For projects already underway, the intent behind the 
Corps policy is to ensure that contractual commitments can only be made 
up to the point of the cost limit established pursuant to Section 902 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Any potential contract 
causing the ``902'' cap to be exceeded would not be advertised for bid 
solicitation until new authority was received. Similarly, a contract 
would not be awarded if, at the point of issuing the first contract on 
a new construction project, it is known that the project would exceed 
the ``902'' limit.

               CONTRACTING FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF IRAQ

    Question. Over the last 2 years, the Army Corps of Engineers has 
played a major role in executing and managing contracts for the 
reconstruction of Iraq. The reconstruction effort has run into 
considerable difficulties due in large part to the ongoing insurgency 
and related security problems in Iraq. What lessons have you learned 
about the ability of the Army Corps of Engineers and its contractors to 
execute large-scale construction projects in a dangerous environment?
    Answer. Under General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, Department 
of the Army Secretariat oversight of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
activities in foreign lands that are not directly in support of U.S. 
military forces overseas is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army (Civil Works). However, Department of the Army oversight of the 
reconstruction of Iraq, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
reconstruction activities, has been assigned to the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). During my 
previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I 
received periodic briefings on the Corps' work in Iraq, in order to 
remain aware of the situation.
    Question. Do you believe that the Army Corps has had the full range 
of personnel in the field that it has needed to ensure proper oversight 
of these projects, or has oversight been hampered by the security 
situation on the ground?
    Answer. Under General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, Department 
of the Army Secretariat oversight of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
activities in foreign lands that are not directly in support of U.S. 
military forces overseas is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army (Civil Works). However, Department of the Army oversight of the 
reconstruction of Iraq, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
reconstruction activities, has been assigned to the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). During my 
previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I 
received periodic briefings on the Corps' work in Iraq, in order to 
remain aware of the situation.
    Question. What impact do you believe that security costs have had 
on the ability of the Army Corps of Engineers and its contractors to 
complete their reconstruction mission in Iraq? What additional steps, 
if any, do you believe that Army Corps could take to reduce these 
costs?
    Answer. Under General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, Department 
of the Army Secretariat oversight of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
activities in foreign lands that are not directly in support of U.S. 
military forces overseas is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army (Civil Works). However, Department of the Army oversight of the 
reconstruction of Iraq, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
reconstruction activities, has been assigned to the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). During my 
previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I 
received periodic briefings on the Corps' work in Iraq, in order to 
remain aware of the situation.
    Question. Do you believe that the Department of Defense is in a 
position to ensure the safety of contractor employees working under 
Army Corps contracts in Iraq? What additional steps, if any, do you 
believe that DOD or the Army Corps should take to ensure the safety of 
contractor employees?
    Answer. Under General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, Department 
of the Army Secretariat oversight of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
activities in foreign lands that are not directly in support of U.S. 
military forces overseas is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army (Civil Works). However, Department of the Army oversight of the 
reconstruction of Iraq, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
reconstruction activities, has been assigned to the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). During my 
previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I 
received periodic briefings on the Corps' work in Iraq, in order to 
remain aware of the situation.
    Question. What is your understanding of the current legal status of 
private security employees hired by Army Corps contractors in Iraq? Do 
you believe that additional legislation is needed to clarify the legal 
status and responsibility of security contractors in areas like Iraq?
    Answer. Under General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, Department 
of the Army Secretariat oversight of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
activities in foreign lands that are not directly in support of U.S. 
military forces overseas is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army (Civil Works). However, Department of the Army oversight of the 
reconstruction of Iraq, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
reconstruction activities, has been assigned to the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). During my 
previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I 
received periodic briefings on the Corps' work in Iraq, in order to 
remain aware of the situation.
    Question. What will be the continuing role of the Army Corps of 
Engineers in the execution and management of contracts for the 
reconstruction of Iraq, in view of last month's elections and the 
transition to Iraqi sovereignty?
    Answer. Under General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, Department 
of the Army Secretariat oversight of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
activities in foreign lands that are not directly in support of U.S. 
military forces overseas is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army (Civil Works). However, Department of the Army oversight of the 
reconstruction of Iraq, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
reconstruction activities, has been assigned to the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). During my 
previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I 
received periodic briefings on the Corps' work in Iraq, in order to 
remain aware of the situation.
    Question. In your view, can current practices and processes in 
construction management conducted by the Corps benefit from a study of 
private sector methods and trends to seek innovative ways to improve 
the efficiency and customer response in military design and 
construction?
    Answer. Under General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, Department 
of the Army Secretariat oversight of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
activities in foreign lands that are not directly in support of U.S. 
military forces overseas is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army (Civil Works). However, Department of the Army oversight of the 
reconstruction of Iraq, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
reconstruction activities, has been assigned to the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). During my 
previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I 
received periodic briefings on the Corps' work in Iraq, in order to 
remain aware of the situation.

       CONTRACTS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE IRAQI OIL INDUSTRY

    Question. Two years ago, the Army Corps of Engineers was designated 
the executive agent for Iraqi oil infrastructure reconstruction. 
Because of urgent and compelling circumstances and in compliance with 
the Competition in Contracting Act, an April 2003 sole-source award was 
made for a ``bridge'' contract to reconstruct the Iraqi oil industry 
prior to the award of a competitive follow-on contract in January 2004. 
The Corps of Engineers stated that it would limit orders under the 
``bridge'' contract ``to only those services necessary to support the 
mission in the near term.'' Can you describe the urgent and compelling 
circumstances that led to the award of the ``bridge'' contract, the 
reason why this contract had a 2-year term and an estimated value of $7 
billion, and the steps the Army Corps of Engineers took to limit work 
under this contract prior to the award of the competitive follow-on 
contract?
    Answer. Under General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, Department 
of the Army Secretariat oversight of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
activities in foreign lands that are not directly in support of U.S. 
military forces overseas is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army (Civil Works). However, Department of the Army oversight of the 
reconstruction of Iraq, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
reconstruction activities, has been assigned to the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). During my 
previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I 
received periodic briefings on the Corps' work in Iraq, in order to 
remain aware of the situation.
    Question. On January 13, 2004, the Defense Contract Audit Agency 
(DCAA) sent a memorandum to the Army Corps of Engineers alerting that 
its contractor on the Iraqi oil reconstruction contract did not have 
appropriate systems in place to estimate the costs of its work in Iraq. 
Three days later, the Army Corps awarded a new, competitive $1.2 
billion contract with the company to continue its work on the 
reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry. The source selection document 
indicates that the contractor was given a perfect score in the 
competition for its estimating system. Please explain how the Army 
Corps took into account the DCAA memorandum in its appraisal of the 
contractor's estimating system.
    Answer. Under General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, Department 
of the Army Secretariat oversight of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
activities in foreign lands that are not directly in support of U.S. 
military forces overseas is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army (Civil Works). However, Department of the Army oversight of the 
reconstruction of Iraq, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
reconstruction activities, has been assigned to the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). During my 
previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I 
received periodic briefings on the Corps' work in Iraq, in order to 
remain aware of the situation.
    Question. What steps are being taken to ensure that the Army Corps 
takes into consideration the concerns expressed by other appropriate 
DOD components, such as DCAA, when it evaluates the past performance 
and present capability of offerors? Do you believe that any additional 
steps are needed?
    Answer. Under General Orders No. 3, dated July 9, 2002, Department 
of the Army Secretariat oversight of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
activities in foreign lands that are not directly in support of U.S. 
military forces overseas is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army (Civil Works). However, Department of the Army oversight of the 
reconstruction of Iraq, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
reconstruction activities, has been assigned to the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). During my 
previous service as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I 
received periodic briefings on the Corps' work in Iraq, in order to 
remain aware of the situation.

                               DAM SAFETY

    Question. The Corps of Engineers is a leader in developing 
engineering criteria for safe dams, and conducts an active inspection 
program of its own dams. The Corps has also carried out inspections at 
most of the dams built by others--Federal, State, and local agencies 
and private interests. Most Corps constructed flood protection projects 
are owned by sponsoring cities, towns, and agricultural districts, but 
the Corps continues to maintain and operate 383 dams and reservoirs for 
flood control. Recent press accounts have highlighted concerns for the 
condition, safety, and security of our national dam infrastructure. 
What is your assessment of the safety and security of the current dam 
infrastructure managed by the Corps?
    Answer. The safety and security of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
dams is a major concern. The average age of Corps dams is approaching 
50 years. Many of these dams have a relatively high risk for failure or 
not being able to function as designed, due to the likelihood of major 
or extremely large floods, seepage and piping through embankments and 
foundations, fatigue and fracture of gates, and other problems due to 
damage or deterioration. At a few of the dams (such as the Fern Ridge 
Dam in Oregon), normal operations currently are restricting because of 
dam safety problems that must be corrected. Other dams are being 
modified or restored using operation and maintenance funding.
    The Corps has developed a dam safety strategic plan with specific 
goals, objectives and target dates to address these issues during the 
next 5 years. Dam safety projects and activities receive the highest 
priority in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget for Civil Works.
    Question. What do you view as the greatest challenges facing the 
Corps with respect to the sustainment and protection of our dams?
    Answer. The greatest challenge is to develop a cost-effective risk 
assessment and risk management policy for the Dam Safety Assurance, 
Major Rehabilitation and Major Maintenance programs. It is essential 
that the Corps accelerate the deployment of a Portfolio Risk Assessment 
in fiscal year 2005, in order to shape decisions in fiscal year 2006 
and beyond.
    Performing a Portfolio Risk Assessment will improve the Corps' 
ability to prioritize and justify dam safety investment decisions 
throughout the Corps. The Corps must balance vital dam safety 
requirements against competing needs, and a risk-based process provides 
valuable information for comparing the relative impacts of different 
types of dam safety problems, such as damage due to earthquakes; damage 
due to extremely large floods; erosion damage to spillways; gates that 
do not operate properly; and seepage and piping damage to embankment 
dams and foundations.

                    MILITARY TO CIVILIAN CONVERSION

    Question. The Army has committed to converting billets currently 
being performed by military personnel to civilian positions wherever 
possible in order to enhance combat capability and operational 
readiness. What steps were taken during your previous tenure as 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to convert military 
billets in the Army Corps of Engineers, installations management, and 
other areas affecting the Civil Works mission of the Army to civilian 
position?
    Answer. There were no conversions of uniformed military billets 
associated with the Civil Works program to civilian positions during my 
previous service as Assistant Secretary. I understand that 
approximately 40 uniformed military billets associated with the Corps 
Military Program were converted to civilian positions during the last 
two Total Army Analysis (TAA) reviews.
    Question. What additional steps, if any, are being taken to further 
substitute civilian workers for military personnel and what limitations 
should be observed in doing so?
    Answer. As far as I am aware, no steps are being taken at this time 
to substitute civilians for uniformed military associated with the 
Civil Works program. I understand that review of position requirements 
for the Military Program carried out by the Corps and decisionmaking on 
how best to fill them is a regular, ongoing process that takes into 
account the overall needs of the Army.

             PUBLIC WORKS CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSURANCE

    Question. The U.S Army Corps of Engineers is the DOD lead component 
for Public Works Critical Infrastructure Assurance. In that role, it 
has a unique responsibility for working with the military services, 
other Federal agencies, and commercial sector entities to ensure 
adequate public works (i.e. electricity, water, and public works 
facilities) are available to support the warfighter. How have the Civil 
Works capabilities of the Army Corps of Engineers been used to support 
the Army and DOD in ensuring that these capabilities are available?
    Answer. In the Corps' role as the DOD lead component for Public 
Works Critical Infrastructure Assurance, a close partnership has been 
forged between the combatant commanders, the armed services, and the 
commercial sector in identifying public works assets that support the 
Department of Defense. Working within the existing DOD Directive 3020, 
authorities for Critical Infrastructure Assurance Program, the Corps 
has identified critical assets not only within its national harbor and 
inland waterway networks, but also its dams and reservoir complexes 
supporting critical DOD missions as well. The Corps has worked with DOD 
to identify whether vulnerabilities are evident and to identify means 
to assure these facilities remain available. The Corps shares its 
incident and monitoring activities with the DOD community and works 
closely with the other DOD critical infrastructure protection (CIP) 
infrastructure sector leads. Further, the Corps has built strategic 
relationships with other Federal agencies, to share critical 
infrastructure expertise. For example, protective design experts have 
worked closely with the Bureau of Land Management in conducting 
vulnerability assessments and designing protective design solutions for 
their dams. The Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Headquarters 
of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) are fully aware of the 
comprehensive Critical Infrastructure Assurance Program and rely upon 
the Corps for public works advice.

      DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND PROTECTION OF HOMELAND 
                             INFRASTRUCTURE

    Question. In a typical year, the Corps of Engineers responds to 
more than 30 Presidential disaster declarations, plus numerous State 
and local emergencies. Emergency responses usually involve cooperation 
with other military elements and the Department of Homeland Security in 
support of State and local efforts. What is your view of the current 
level of coordination and support provided between the office of the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and the Department of 
Homeland Security?
    Answer. During my previous service as Assistant Secretary, I had 
only occasional direct, personal interaction with the Department of 
Homeland Security.
    However, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of 
Homeland Security have a very strong relationship and work closely on 
several major initiatives and projects. The Corps has three full-time 
liaisons at the Department of Homeland Security, one with the Coast 
Guard, one with the Science and Technology Directorate, and one with 
the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, which includes the 
former Federal Emergency Management Agency. Close collaboration occurs 
in such areas as protection of critical infrastructure, research and 
development, and disaster response. The Corps constantly strives to 
strengthen and tailor the relationship to leverage resources and 
expertise, and create partnerships that benefit each other and State 
and local agencies. In addition, the Office of the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army (Civil Works) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have 
been involved in the development of Operation Safe Commerce, which is 
now led by the Department of Homeland Security.
    Question. What processes and new programs have been implemented, or 
would you propose if confirmed, to address heightened security and 
resource protection issues in civil works projects?
    Answer. The Corps already is carrying out measures to protect its 
critical infrastructure through the Civil Works Critical Infrastructure 
Security Program. If confirmed, I will seek opportunities to support, 
through the appropriate programs, an increase in research and 
development for critical infrastructure protection. I will promote a 
better understanding of the interdependencies and vulnerabilities of 
key infrastructure sectors, in part through modeling and simulations. 
If confirmed, I also would seek practical and cost effective means to 
rapidly reconstitute critical infrastructure if it fails or is 
attacked. This is an essential cornerstone to any critical 
infrastructure protection strategy.
    Question. How would you characterize the effectiveness of the 
working relationships between the Department of the Army and Federal, 
State, and local agencies responsible for crisis and consequence 
management?
    Answer. I am not in a position to authoritatively characterize the 
effectiveness of the Department of the Army's working relationships 
with other governmental entities responsible for crisis and consequence 
management. However, I can say that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
has an excellent relationship with other local, State, and Federal 
agencies. With over 40 offices across the country, the Corps is 
involved in planning and training exercises on a routine basis. The 
Corps district offices and labs serve as centers of expertise for local 
officials in the areas of disaster planning, response and recovery.
    In addition, the Corps strives to promote Public Private 
Partnerships. For example, The Infrastructure Security Partnership 
(TISP) (the Corps was a founding board member of TISP), has a wide 
variety of members from local, State, and Federal Governments, 
engineering associations and industry. TISP is involved in marshalling 
support of the engineering community in support of global disasters 
such as the Indian Ocean tsunami, to collaborating and facilitating 
knowledge, and technology transfer in protecting the Nation's critical 
infrastructure.
    Question. What are the most significant problems, if any, that must 
be overcome in ensuring appropriate cooperation?
    Answer. Again, I would limit my answer to problems being faced by 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps utilizes funding within the 
Flood Control and Coastal Emergency account, in order to maintain a 
``readiness status'' that allows it to respond to any contingency at 
any time. I am pleased to say that the President's fiscal year 2006 
budget recently transmitted to Congress includes a funding level for 
flood control and coastal emergencies that is adequate to keep the 
Corps' capability available and ready.

                NAVIGATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

    Question. In your responses to previous advance policy questions 
submitted in February 2003, you discussed the challenges facing the 
Army with respect to the execution of its navigation and environmental 
protection and restoration missions. What do you now view as the 
greatest challenges facing the Army with respect to the execution of 
these missions?
    Answer. As I stated in 2002, the Army Corps of Engineers has a 
unique responsibility to balance environment and development in the 
public interest. If confirmed, I will preserve the integrity of Civil 
Works missions to protect and restore the environment and to promote 
national economic development by making environmental sustainability an 
integral part of all Civil Works activities.
    The most significant challenge will be the ability to respond to 
the Nation's water resources needs in the face of scarce resources. 
Tough choices will need to be made. We are a Nation at war, and our 
focus must be on ensuring our security at home and abroad.
    The Nation faces complex navigation and environmental challenges. 
One of the greatest challenges is to ensure that our analyses and 
decisions are backed up by firm science and technology. One example of 
how we are addressing this challenge is a new activity proposed in the 
President's fiscal year 2006 budget for a Science and Technology 
Program supporting restoration of the Coastal Louisiana area. This 
program would provide a platform for data acquisition, management, 
model development, and analysis enhancing Louisiana Coastal Area Plan 
implementation and additional large-scale, long-term planning, and 
project selection efforts.
    Another major challenge is the need to continually seek balance and 
comity with and among States and other Federal agencies, which have 
equally important responsibilities in these areas. There is rarely a 
single, unanimously-supported answer to questions that arise in the 
planning and execution of navigation or environmental restoration 
projects. We must improve our ability to bring all interests to the 
table to address these questions collaboratively.
    Question. Are there aspects of these missions which you believe 
should be transferred from the Department of the Army?
    Answer. No, I do not believe there are elements of these programs 
that should be transferred from the Department of the Army. In my view, 
the Corps has performed and continues to perform effectively in the 
navigation and environmental restoration arena, as well as in its other 
mission areas. The Corps is well equipped with its professional staff 
of economists, environmental scientists, and engineers to continue to 
work with our project sponsors, Federal and State resource agencies, 
the public, and other stakeholders to provide for the Nation's water 
resources needs.

                 MISSION OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

    Question. If confirmed, how would you preserve the integrity of the 
Corps's environmental and civil works mission?
    Answer. From both Civil Works study and project construction 
perspectives, it is absolutely essential that the studies the Corps 
performs, and the projects the Corps recommends for construction, are 
formulated on a watershed basis, recognizing the full range of Federal 
and non-Federal, public and private activities in the watershed and 
bringing into the decisionmaking process all interested parties, many 
of which have their own authorities, independent goals, and resources 
which can contribute to a successful watershed management plan. 
Environmental and infrastructure development goals need to complement 
the goals under the Civil Works regulatory program.
    Question. What are your views about the potential performance of 
regulatory functions presently performed by the Army Corps of Engineers 
by other governmental or non-military entities?
    Answer. Since the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Corps has 
been involved in protecting navigable waters, and as a result of the 
Clean Water Act enacted in 1972, the Corps role was expanded 
considerably to include wetlands and other waters of the United States. 
The Corps has a well-trained, experienced cadre of about 1,200 
regulators and decades of experience. From a purely technical point of 
view, it could be argued that another agency or a non-governmental 
organization could delineate wetlands and process permits. But in 
addition to extensive expertise, the Corps has a long history of 
working with multiple parties and stakeholders with the objective of 
achieving balance. The regulatory authorities granted to the Corps also 
complement its other water resources development missions, such as 
navigation and flood and storm damage reduction.
    My view is that the Corps always should be neither a project 
proponent nor a project opponent. Their goal is to make fair and 
objective permit decisions, taking into account good science, available 
information, and the views of all interested parties. My experience is 
that the Corps culture is well-suited for taking on this tremendous 
responsibility--achieving the objectives set forth by Congress in 
statute while, at the same time, serving the regulated public.

                        CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information. Do you agree, if 
confirmed for this high position, to appear before this committee and 
other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views, 
even if those differ from the administration in power?
    Answer. As a political appointee, I consider it my duty to be an 
advocate for the policies of the administration. However, I will always 
be prepared to provide my best professional judgment when asked.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army for Civil Works?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

               Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner

                   NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITIES

    1. Senator Warner. Mr. Woodley, the mission of the Army Corps of 
Engineers is to provide quality, responsive engineering services to our 
Nation for the planning, design, construction, and operation of water 
resources and other civil works projects, such as navigation, flood 
control, environmental protection, and disaster response. In these 
roles, engineers in the Corps assess the conditions of our national 
infrastructure to determine the need for repairs and maintenance. In 
your view, what are the most urgent infrastructure requirements on 
which we should focus attention and resources?
    Mr. Woodley. Mr. Chairman, the most urgent infrastructure 
requirements are to ensure the structural stability and soundness of 
our aging inland waterways system and the portfolio of dams numbering 
over 600 that the Corps operates and/or maintains. The inland waterway 
system is showing a trend upward for unscheduled closures requiring 
emergency repairs. This is an indicator of the challenge the Corps 
increasingly faces in maintaining the reliability of the system. The 
Corps is pursuing modernization projects and focusing its operation and 
maintenance dollars on actions to reduce the risk of failures in the 
system such as was experienced at Greenup Lock and Dam on the Ohio 
River in the summer of 2003. In that case, the emergency closure cost 
an estimated $25 million to the economy in direct repair costs and 
economic impact of delay in waterway traffic. For the Corps portfolio 
of dams, we must continue to invest in dam safety studies and repairs 
of those dams requiring early attention. The Corps has recently adopted 
an approach on risk assessment of all dams to ensure those requiring 
repairs are prioritized across the Nation.
    The Corps inspection program of federally constructed flood control 
projects that are operated and maintained by local governments is 
another important component of the Corps O&M program. The local 
governments retain responsibility for repairs of these structures, some 
of which have reached or exceeded the useful life to which they were 
engineered.
    The Corps will continue to address those water resources 
infrastructure issues with the highest risk of failure or impacts to 
operational reliability.

                    IMPROVE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

    2. Senator Warner. Mr. Woodley, the Army Corps of Engineers is 
responsible for a significant amount of military construction in the 
Department of Defense. As a way to achieve cost savings, proposals have 
been made to improve construction project management by adopting 
private sector processes for expedient construction completion in order 
to reduce payments for contractor overhead and expenses related to time 
on a construction site. In your view, how can current practices and 
processes in construction management conducted by the Corps benefit 
from a study of private sector methods and trends to seek innovative 
ways to improve the efficiency of military design and construction?
    Mr. Woodley. Your question is timely and very germane to a current 
initiative that is in response to the Army's Transformation imperative. 
The Corps of Engineers in concert with the Army's Office of the 
Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management (OACSIM) and the 
Installation Management Agency (IMA) is working under a mandate from 
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment), to 
also transform the delivery of military construction. The prime drivers 
will be timely delivery at lower cost utilizing commercial practices 
and standards to the maximum extent practicable. To that end the Army 
delivery team will be conducting several industry forums in the near 
future to discuss and gain more private sector input into innovative 
project delivery strategies. One of the major delivery methods will be 
design-build, whereby the total responsibility for both the design and 
construction rests with the contractor. This method allows the private 
contractor to manage schedule and cost to achieve performance 
requirements established by the Government. We plan to incorporate new 
innovative delivery strategies and apply the lessons learned over the 
next several years to execute Army Transformation military construction 
as well as that necessitated by base closures, restationing, and 
regular programs. While I am fully committed and always interested in 
seeking ways to improve the construction practices of the Corps of 
Engineers, the proponent for military construction is the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment), with whom I have 
coordinated this response.
                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed

                 NINIGRET AND CROSS MILLS POND PROJECT

    3. Senator Reed. Mr. Woodley, the New England District of the Corps 
recently informed my office that no further Federal funds are available 
for the habitat restoration components of the Ninigret and Cross Mills 
Pond project in Charlestown, Rhode Island. The Rhode Island Coastal 
Resources Management Council and the Corps have been working 
cooperatively on this project for several years, and the State has 
provided its required 35 percent match. While the Corps is moving 
forward with the dredging components of the project, the New England 
District now says it has no Section 206 funding to plant eelgrass in 
Ninigret Pond or restore a critical fish passage at Cross Mills Pond. 
These two components were the primary justification for the project and 
the reason the Rhode Island General Assembly provided the State match. 
I am concerned that a failure by the Corps to fulfill its commitments 
under this project will discourage the State from participating in 
future ecosystem restoration projects with the Army Corps of Engineers. 
Please describe the circumstances that resulted in a lack of funding 
for the corps to fulfill its commitment on the Ninigret and Cross Mills 
Pond project.
    Mr. Woodley. The Ninigret and Cross Mills Pond project is an 
excellent project providing important ecosystem enhancements to coastal 
Rhode Island.
    The first contract to be awarded was for the dredging at Ninigret 
Pond. Priority for allocation of fiscal year 2005 funding was given to 
projects listed in the committee reports accompanying the 
appropriations act. Ninigret and Cross Mills Pond received $200,000 in 
the fiscal year 2005 report language and $150,000 in fiscal year 2004 
report language. The $684,000 allocated in fiscal year 2005 to support 
the dredging contract enabled the contractor to proceed at a more 
efficient rate during the environmental ``window'' for dredging, that 
closes on March 31, 2005.
    The dredging contractor will be ready to resume work when the 
``window'' reopens in October 2005, assuming that the project continues 
to enjoy the support of congressional appropriators and that sufficient 
fiscal year 2006 funds are made available.
    The eelgrass planting at Ninigret Pond logically should take place 
at the completion of the dredging. This work could also take place in 
fiscal year 2006 should sufficient funds be made available by Congress. 
The fish passage construction at Cross Mills Pond also could take place 
in fiscal year 2006 subject to continued congressional support in the 
fiscal year 2006 appropriations.

    4. Senator Reed. Mr. Woodley, would it be possible for the Corps to 
secure additional section 206 or other funds to bring the Ninigret and 
Cross Mills Pond Project to completion?
    Mr. Woodley. The availability of funds to continue work on the 
project in fiscal year 2006 will depend on committee actions on fiscal 
year 2006 appropriations for energy and water development. Priority for 
allocation of fiscal year 2006 funds will be given to projects named in 
committee reports accompanying the appropriations act. Any funds 
available for the Ninigret and Cross Mills Pond project would be used 
first to complete the previously awarded dredging contract.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of John Paul Woodley, Jr., 
follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                  January 24, 2005.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    John Paul Woodley, Jr., of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary 
of the Army, vice Michael Parker.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The biographical sketch of John Paul Woodley, Jr., which 
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was 
referred, follows:]

             Biographical Sketch of John Paul Woodley, Jr.

    On August 22, 2003, President George W. Bush appointed John Paul 
Woodley, Jr., as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
    Mr. Woodley is responsible for the supervision of the Army's Civil 
Works program, including programs for conservation and development of 
the Nation's water and wetland resources, flood control, navigation, 
and shore protection.
    Prior to his appointment as the Assistant Secretary of the Army 
(Civil Works), Mr. Woodley served as the Assistant Deputy Under 
Secretary of Defense (Environment). In this capacity Mr. Woodley 
oversaw the Defense environmental program, encompassing both 
environmental restoration and compliance and pollution prevention 
efforts. Mr. Woodley was also the principal advisor to the Secretary of 
Defense on environmental, safety and occupational health policy and 
programs.
    Prior to his appointment as the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense (Environment), Mr. Woodley served as Secretary of Natural 
Resources in the Cabinet of Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore from January 
1998 until October 2001. As Secretary of Natural Resources, Mr. Woodley 
supervised eight Virginia agencies responsible for environmental 
regulation, permitting and enforcement, natural and historic 
conservation, and outdoor recreation, including parks, fisheries, and 
wildlife management.
    Mr. Woodley also served as Deputy Attorney General of Virginia for 
Government Operations beginning in 1994. The Government Operations 
Division of the Attorney General's Office represented all state 
agencies in the areas of administration, finance, transportation, 
economic development, and natural resources.
    Mr. Woodley attended Washington & Lee University in Lexington, 
Virginia, on an Army R.O.T.C. scholarship. He received a Bachelor of 
Arts degree from Washington & Lee in 1974, and was elected to Phi Beta 
Kappa. Mr. Woodley also attended the Law School at Washington & Lee, 
where he received his juris doctor degree cum laude in 1977.
    Mr. Woodley served on active duty with the U.S. Army Judge Advocate 
General's Corps from 1979 until 1985 and retired from the Army Reserve 
in August 2003 as a Lieutenant Colonel. He has been awarded the Legion 
of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal (2nd Oak Leaf Cluster), the 
Army Commendation Medal (1st Oak Leaf Cluster), and the Army 
Achievement Medal. His civilian awards include the Secretary of Defense 
Medal for Outstanding Public Service. Mr. Woodley is a native of 
Shreveport, Louisiana.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals 
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a 
form that details the biographical, financial, and other 
information of the nominee. The form executed by John Paul 
Woodley, Jr., in connection with his nomination follows:]

                          UNITED STATES SENATE
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              Room SR-228
                       Washington, DC 20510-6050
                             (202) 224-3871
                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
      BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES

    Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If 
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the 
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation 
of your answer applies.
                    Part A--Biographical Information
    Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in 
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for 
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in 
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.

    1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
    John Paul Woodley, Jr.

    2. Position to which nominated:
    Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).

    3. Date of nomination:
    January 24, 2005.

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

    5. Date and place of birth:
    September 28, 1953; Shreveport, Louisiana.

    6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
    Married to Priscilla Ingersoll.

    7. Names and ages of children:
    Elizabeth, 18.
    Cornelia, 16.
    John Paul, 13.

    8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
    B.A., Washington & Lee, 1974.
    J.D., Washington & Lee, 1977.

    9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the 
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of 
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
    1977-1979, Law Clerk, USDC, Richmond, VA;
    1979-1985, U.S. Army;
    1985-1990, Private law practice;
    1990-1994, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney for Henrico County, 
Virginia;
    1994-1998, Deputy Attorney General of Virginia for Government 
Operations;
    1998-2001, Secretary of Natural Resources for the Commonwealth of 
Virginia;
    2001-2003, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 
Environment;
    1985-2003, Army Reserves, Judge Advocate General Corps, Lieutenant 
Colonel;
    2003-2004, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works;
    2005-present, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
Civil Works.

    10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, 
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, 
or local governments, other than those listed above.
    See 9 above.

    11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an 
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, 
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other 
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
    None.

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

    13. Political affiliations and activities:
    (a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or 
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
    Richmond City Republican Committee, Member.
    Henrico County Republican Committee, Member.
    Third District Republican Committee, Chairman.
    Republican National Lawyer's Association, Board Member.
    Virginia Republican Lawyer's Association, Chairman.
    Candidate for City Council of Lexington, Virginia.
    (b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered 
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5 
years.
    See (a) above.
    (c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign 
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar 
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.

30 October 1997                      Gilmore for Governor           $100
12 November 1997                     Friends of Jerry               $100
                                      Kilgore
12 December 1997                     Republican Black               $100
                                      Caucus
12 September 1998                    Campaign for Honest            $100
                                      Change
19 October 1998                      Bliley for Congress            $100
27 May 1999                          Hord for Delegate              $100
23 March 2000                        Henrico Republican             $100
                                      Committee
07 July 2000                         Republican National            $500
                                      Lawyers Assn.
16 March 2001                        Republican National            $100
                                      Lawyers Assn.
6 May 2003                           Bush-Cheney 2004             $2,000
22 October 2003                      Barbour for Governor           $200
16 January 2004                      Republican Party               $100
2 March 2004                         Fairfax County                 $160
                                      Republican Committee
29 March 2004                        Bush-Cheney 2004             $2,000
24 October 2004                      Council of Republicans         $100
                                      for Environmental
                                      Advocacy



    14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions 
for outstanding service or achievements.
    Legion of Merit; Meritorious Service Medal (2 oak leaf clusters); 
Army Commendation Medal (1 oak leaf cluster); Army Achievement Medal.

    15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of 
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have 
written.
    Published article in ``The Military Engineer,'' May-June 2004 
issue, entitled Civil Works and the Environment.

    16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal 
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have 
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have 
been nominated.
    I have made speeches to numerous groups and conferences. I have 
records of only a few of these, which I will provide. [Nominee 
responded and the information is retained in the committee's executive 
files.]

    17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree, 
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any 
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
    Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the 
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set 
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to 
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
                                ------                                

                           Signature and Date
    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete.
                                             John Paul Woodley, Jr.
    This 3rd day of February 2005.

    [The nomination of John Paul Woodley, Jr., was reported to 
the Senate by Chairman Warner on March 17, 2005, with the 
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination 
was confirmed by the Senate on May 12, 2005.]
                              ----------                              

    [Prepared questions submitted to Buddie J. Penn by Chairman 
Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]

                                                   9 February 2005.
Hon. John Warner, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the 
advanced policy questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me 
to complete.
            Sincerely,
                                         B.J. Penn.
cc: Hon. Carl Levin,
     Ranking Minority Member.
                                 ______
                                 
                        Questions and Responses

                            DEFENSE REFORMS

    Question. Almost two decades have passed since the enactment of the 
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and 
the Special Operations reforms. Do you support full implementation of 
these defense reforms?
    Answer. Yes. The establishment of the combatant commands, the 
definition of responsibilities, and most importantly, the focus on 
``jointness'' has enhanced the readiness and warfighting capabilities 
of the U.S. Armed Forces.
    Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense 
reforms have been implemented?
    Answer. I believe these defense reforms have been fully implemented 
and, judging from the performance of our joint forces in recent 
conflicts, are very effective.
    Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of 
these defense reforms?
    Answer. I consider the most significant value of these reforms to 
be the focus on joint operations. A central tenet of these defense 
reforms is to promote forces working jointly in combat operations. 
Current joint efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq validate the success of 
these reforms.
    Question. The goals of Congress in enacting the Goldwater-Nichols 
Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special 
Operations reforms can be summarized as strengthening civilian control 
over the military; improving military advice; placing clear 
responsibility on the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of 
their missions; ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is 
commensurate with their responsibility; increasing attention to the 
formulation of strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more 
efficient use of defense resources; enhancing the effectiveness of 
military operations; and improving the management and administration of 
the Department of Defense. Do you agree with these goals?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend 
Goldwater-Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe 
it might be appropriate to address in these proposals?
    Answer. I am unaware of any specific proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of the Navy on 
any proposed changes that pertain to naval installations, environmental 
or safety concerns.

                                 DUTIES

    Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of 
the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment?
    Answer. The role of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 
Installations and Environment is to formulate policy and procedures for 
the effective management of Navy and Marine Corps real property, 
housing, and other facilities; environmental protection ashore and 
afloat; occupational health for both military and civilian personnel; 
and timely completion of closures and realignments of installations 
under base closure laws. If confirmed, I will be responsible for these 
duties within the overall priorities of the Secretary of the Navy and 
pursue any other duties he may assign.
    Question. What background and experience do you possess that you 
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
    Answer. As a career naval officer, I bring a significant depth of 
understanding and appreciation of the naval culture and heritage to the 
position. Serving as both the commanding officer of an aviation 
squadron as well as the commanding officer of a major naval air 
station, I understand how installations and facilities serve fleet 
readiness needs. I understand the value safety plays as a critical 
enabler of that readiness. My time in the civilian sector both inside 
and outside of government gives me a unique perspective from which to 
view current Navy and Marine Corps programs. My acquisition experience 
and joint program experience will undoubtedly assist me in working with 
other Service contemporaries in developing effective joint initiatives.
    Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to 
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary 
of the Navy for Installations and Environment?
    Answer. If confirmed, I plan to seek and listen to the concerns and 
needs of the Navy and Marine Corps, as well as those who would appear 
to have alternative views. I have found that successful leaders devise 
practicable solutions that maximize successful outcomes for all 
parties.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do 
you expect that the Secretary of the Navy would prescribe for you?
    Answer. I am not aware of any additional duties at this time beyond 
those outlined above that have traditionally been the province of this 
position.

                             RELATIONSHIPS

    Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the 
following?
    The Secretary of the Navy.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will seek to carry out the goals and 
priorities of the Secretary of the Navy.
    Question. The Under Secretary of the Navy.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will seek the counsel and guidance of the 
Under Secretary of the Navy and support his efforts to carry out the 
goals and priorities of the Secretary of the Navy.
    Question. The Chief of Naval Operations.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will provide the support that the CNO 
requires to execute his duties and responsibilities and achieve the 
mission of the Navy.
    Question. The Commandant of the Marine Corps.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will provide the support that the 
Commandant requires to execute his duties and responsibilities and 
achieve the mission of the Marine Corps.
    Question. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations 
and Environment.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Deputy Under Secretary 
of Defense for Installations and Environment to develop and execute 
policies and initiatives of the President, the Secretary of Defense, 
and the Secretary of the Navy.
    Question. The other Assistant Secretaries of the Navy.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work as part of a team to ensure that 
we present the best efforts to support the Secretary of the Navy's 
goals and priorities.
    Question. The Assistant Secretaries of the Army and Air Force for 
Installations and Environment.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Assistant 
Secretaries of the Army and Air Force for Installations and Environment 
to strengthen the cooperation between the Services. I will work to 
foster a cordial and productive working relationship with these 
colleagues.
    Question. The General Counsel of the Navy.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the General Counsel 
of the Navy on areas of mutual interest.
    Question. The Judge Advocate General of the Navy.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Judge Advocate 
General of the Navy on areas of mutual interest.
    Question. The Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Commander, Naval 
Facilities Engineering Command to identify and implement policies and 
practices that best support the needs of the Department of the Navy.
    Question. The Commander, Navy Installations.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Commander, Navy 
Installations to identify and implement policies and practices that 
best support the needs of the Department of the Navy.

                     MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS

    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that you 
would confront if confirmed as Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 
Installations and Environment?
    Answer. One major challenge will certainly be implementing the Base 
Realignment and Closure 2005 recommendations in a timely and fiscally 
responsible manner that benefits the Navy while working with 
environmental regulators and local communities to expedite 
environmental cleanup and disposal of the property. Another challenge 
will be to continue the Department's environmental stewardship that 
will ensure future access to the seas and land areas requirements 
necessary to maintain military readiness needs. A third will be to 
foster greater awareness for safety while seeking to avoid personal 
injuries and property damage while and maintaining fleet readiness.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for 
addressing these challenges?
    Answer. If confirmed, I plan to work closely with Congress, the 
Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Commandant of 
the Marine Corps, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations 
and Environment), as well as other governmental and non-governmental 
organizations where appropriate.
    Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in 
the performance of the functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy 
for Installations and Environment?
    Answer. I am unaware of any serious problems in the performance of 
the functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations 
and Environment.
    Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines 
would you establish to address these problems?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary of the 
Navy to evaluate the present situation and develop a strategic plan to 
address areas requiring attention.

                               PRIORITIES

    Question. What broad priorities would you establish, if confirmed, 
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary 
of the Navy for Installations and Environment?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will establish priorities consistent with 
those of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy.

                   HOUSING AND BARRACKS PRIVATIZATION

    Question. Congress has repeatedly expressed its support for 
improving military family and unaccompanied housing through a variety 
of methods. One option that has frequently been used to accelerate the 
improvement of family housing is for a military service to enter into 
an agreement with a private entity for the improvement, maintenance, 
and management of family housing inventories at military installations. 
To date this alternate method for the acquisition and improvement of 
family housing has produced very encouraging results, but no projects 
to privatize unaccompanied housing have been accomplished. If confirmed 
for the position of Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations 
and Environment you would have a key role in any decisions regarding 
military family and unaccompanied housing. What are your views 
regarding the privatization of military housing?
    Answer. As a career naval officer, I am well aware of the 
importance of military housing to the morale and welfare of sailors, 
marines, and their families. The ability to leverage government 
resources through partnership with the private sector helps the Navy 
and Marine Corps to obtain better housing faster.
    Question. What is your view of the structure, pace, and general 
goals of the Navy's current housing privatization program? Do you think 
the program should be continued, and if so do you believe the program 
should be modified in any way?
    Answer. I am generally aware of the Navy and Marine Corps housing 
privatization programs and schedules. If confirmed, I will seek to 
ensure the continued success of this effort.
    Question. The Department of Defense has established 2008 as a goal 
to improve the standards of military family housing. Do you believe 
this goal is realistic and achievable for the Department of the Navy?
    Answer. I understand that both the Navy and Marine Corps have 
budgeted programs to eliminate inadequate homes. If confirmed, I will 
work with the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, and 
the Commandant of the Marine Corps to attain this goal.
    Question. What are your views regarding the feasibility of 
privatizing unaccompanied housing?
    Answer. I believe the core benefits of privatization, i.e., use of 
private sector capital to acquire new units or rehabilitate existing 
ones and use of seasoned property management corporations to operate 
and maintain homes, has the potential to greatly benefit housing for 
unaccompanied military members just as it has done for military family 
housing.
    Question. What do you believe must be done to make the 
privatization of unaccompanied housing a viable program?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will pursue implementation of the 
demonstration projects authorized by Congress to validate this 
innovative concept.

                       BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS

    Question. In recent years the Department of Defense has pursued the 
so-called ``1+1'' standard for unaccompanied housing. While building to 
this standard increases costs, many believe the greater privacy the 
``1+1'' standard offers our enlisted personnel is important to 
recruiting and retaining quality personnel. Others argue that the 
``1+1'' standard could reduce unit cohesion and slow the integration of 
new personnel into the military culture. The Marine Corps, and more 
recently the Navy, have sought and received waivers to build to a 
``2+0'' standard that affords less privacy but allows them to build new 
unaccompanied housing faster. What is your view of the ``1+1'' 
standard?
    Answer. I recognize that the ``1+1'' standard represents an effort 
to improve living conditions and privacy for enlisted personnel. If 
confirmed, I will work with the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 
Installations and Environment, the Chief of Naval Operations, the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps, and my counterparts in the Army and Air 
Force to ensure that we have the flexibility to apply the best 
solution, including the option to build to private sector standards, to 
further improve living conditions.
    Question. Do you believe the Navy and Marine Corps should build to 
the same standards as the Army and the Air Force or continue their 
recent waivers of the ``1+1'' standard?
    Answer. I have not yet been fully briefed on the waivers to the 1+1 
standard. If confirmed, I will work to ensure sailors and marines have 
a quality place to live and that we establish adequate housing in a 
timely manner.
    Question. The Navy recently embarked on an investment program to 
construct unaccompanied housing for sailors currently living aboard 
ships while docked in homeports. What goals and priorities has the Navy 
established for this program? Do you believe the goals are realistic?
    Answer. I understand that the Navy has established the goal to 
budget by fiscal year 2008 housing ashore for unaccompanied sailors 
currently living aboard ships while the ship is in homeport. As a 
career naval officer, I applaud this initiative. If confirmed, I will 
work with the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations 
to bring this goal to reality.
    Question. Do opportunities exist for the Navy to use the 
unaccompanied housing privatization program to provide sailors adequate 
barracks while in homeport?
    Answer. I understand that the Navy has a solicitation underway for 
proposals from developers to provide privatized unaccompanied housing 
for sailors in San Diego, California, including those currently living 
aboard ship. It is also seeking approval from the administration to 
proceed with a second project in Hampton Roads, Virginia. If confirmed, 
I will work to bring these demonstration projects to fruition.

                      BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

    Question. The Department of Defense is currently authorized to 
conduct one round of base realignment and closure (BRAC) in 2005. What 
changes to the Navy's locations around the world do you foresee as a 
result of the Department of Defense's global basing strategy review and 
what impact will these changes have on BRAC decisions?
    Answer. I have not participated in the Navy's BRAC analytical 
process and thus I am not in a position to offer an opinion as to what 
impact DOD's global basing strategy review will have on the Navy's BRAC 
decisions. If confirmed, I will look into this question and advise the 
Secretary of the Navy accordingly.
    Question. The Secretary of Defense has stated that ``through base 
realignment and closure we will reconfigure our current infrastructure 
into one in which operational capacity maximizes both warfighting 
capability and efficiency.'' If confirmed for the position of Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment, what role will 
you have in making recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy 
regarding the realignment and/or closure of Navy installations?
    Answer. I have not discussed with the Secretary of the Navy what 
role I will play in the BRAC 2005 process. If confirmed, I will provide 
whatever support the Secretary requires to prepare the Department's 
recommendations for closure and/or realignment of Navy and Marine Corps 
installations.
    Question. The DOD installation closure process resulting from BRAC 
decisions has historically included close cooperation with the affected 
local community in order to allow these communities an active and 
decisive role in the reuse of property. Do you support the current BRAC 
property disposal process and specifically the role of local 
communities in that process?
    Answer. Yes. I have reviewed the base closure law and find that it 
sets forth a clearly defined role for local communities to prepare a 
redevelopment plan for the property. It would seem to provide 
sufficient flexibility for the military department to use a variety of 
property disposal methods based upon individual circumstances.

                      INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE

    Question. Witnesses appearing before the committee in recent years 
have testified that the military services underinvest in both the 
maintenance and recapitalization of facilities and infrastructure 
compared to private industry standards. Decades of underinvestment in 
our installations have led to substantial backlogs of facility 
maintenance activities, created substandard living and working 
conditions, and made it harder to take advantage of new technologies 
that could increase productivity. If confirmed, what recommendations 
would you propose to restore and preserve the quality of our 
infrastructure?
    Answer. Earlier in my career I was fortunate to serve in the Navy 
as a pilot in an A-3 squadron, the commanding officer of a VAQ EA-6B 
squadron, and the commanding officer of Naval Air Station North Island, 
CA. If confirmed, I believe I would bring to the position a unique 
blend of experience in how high quality infrastructure can best serve 
our warfighters and their families.

                         ENCROACHMENT PROBLEMS

    Question. How should the Navy and Marine Corps address encroachment 
problems associated with increased population growth and development 
near Navy and Marine Corps installations and ranges?
    Answer. I believe we need to work closely with local communities as 
they develop land use management plans and zoning restrictions. We need 
to explain how local land use planning can affect our ability to meet 
military training and readiness needs.
    Question. What are the biggest challenges to military readiness 
caused by population encroachment?
    Answer. The number of bases and ranges we use for training and 
readiness is unlikely to increase substantially, so it is critical that 
we maximize effective use of existing facilities. Being qualified to 
fly numerous different military and civilian aircraft, I recognize the 
competing needs for air space and the pressures brought by residential 
and commercial development next to our bases, ranges, and below 
military flight paths. Population encroachment can also destroy 
habitat, driving wildlife, including endangered species, onto military 
bases, thereby increasing stewardship responsibilities and potentially 
affecting military missions performed on the base.
    Question. To what extent should the Navy and Marine Corps turn to 
military buffers and easements to reduce population encroachment?
    Answer. Buffers and restrictive use easements around military bases 
and ranges can be effective tools and we should look for opportunities 
to use those tools where prudent. Buffers and easements alone, however, 
will not solve the problem. We need to work with state legislatures and 
local governments to ensure that land use plans consider military 
training requirements needs and seek to avoid future encroachment 
issues.

                   SUSTAINABLE RANGE MANAGEMENT PLAN

    Question. The Department of Defense is developing a sustainable 
range management plan (SRMP) which helps develop a current and future 
inventory of range requirements and a plan to ensure such requirements 
can be maintained in the future. Please describe how the Navy and 
Marine Corps are involved in developing the Department's SRMP and 
specifically how the SRMP will help maintain testing and training 
capabilities at Navy and Marine Corps ranges.
    Answer. As a former naval aviator, I understand the vital role that 
our ranges serve to train our forces and test our platforms and 
weapons. I also understand that both the Navy and Marine Corps have 
range sustainability programs to develop site-specific range 
sustainment plans, analyses of mission capabilities, and assessments to 
determine if contaminants from training activities will adversely 
affect human health and the environment. The range management plans 
will include actions to apply best range management. If confirmed, I 
will work to ensure that management plans are implemented to ensure the 
long-term viability of our ranges.

                      UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE CLEANUP

    Question. What is the status of the Department of the Navy's 
cleanup of unexploded ordnance at former Navy and Marine Corps ranges?
    Answer. While I do not know the status of programs to clean our 
closed ranges, I do know that we have a legal responsibility to do so 
and that both the Navy and Marine Corps have efforts underway for range 
cleanup. I plan to learn more about these programs if confirmed and 
ensure that the Department's cleanup obligations are fulfilled.

                          COMPETITIVE SOURCING

    Question. Over the past several years, DOD has increased its 
reliance on the private sector to perform activities that are 
commercial in nature, including many functions relating to running and 
maintaining our military installations. What approach would you take, 
if confirmed, to balance the need to maintain necessary decisionmaking 
functions and technical capabilities in the government's civilian 
workforce, including the knowledge necessary to be a ``smart buyer,'' 
and skills such as civil engineering within the military, with the 
savings that may be available from outsourcing?
    Answer. I am aware that the Department has a process to evaluate 
functions to determine whether they are potential candidates for 
outsourcing, however I am unfamiliar with the details of that process. 
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Department obtains the 
optimum balance of private sector and in-house capability to best 
support the operations and maintenance of our military installations. I 
believe that the Department must maintain an objective and transparent 
process for establishing potential candidates for outsourcing.
    Question. Do you support the principle of public-private 
competitions as the preferred means to make the ``sourcing'' decision 
for such function?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of the Navy 
and the Department of the Navy staff to evaluate the issue of public-
private competition and whether it should be the preferred means to 
make the ``sourcing'' decision for such function. I support the 
underlying principle of competition to make sourcing decisions for 
functions that are commercial in nature. Competition requires all 
parties to be innovative and cost effective in the delivery of a 
product or service.
    Question. Do you believe that public-private competition results in 
significant savings to the Department of Defense regardless of which 
side wins the competition?
    Answer. I am aware of data gathered from the Department's official 
tracking system that demonstrates an average 36 percent savings from 
the original cost to perform the competed effort, regardless of which 
side wins the competition. I also understand that the government 
workforce has won the preponderance of public/private competitions the 
Department has conducted.

                        CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information. Do you agree, if 
confirmed for this high position, to appear before this committee and 
other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views, 
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
    Answer. As a political appointee, I consider it my duty to be an 
advocate for the policies of the administration. However, I will always 
be prepared to provide my best professional judgment when asked.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of the 
Navy for Installations and Environment?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

               Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner

                  ENCROACHMENT OF NAVAL INSTALLATIONS

    1. Senator Warner. Mr. Penn, a growing problem facing our military 
is the growing constraints on the use of military bases and ranges due 
to the requirements of environmental laws and regulations and increased 
urban development. In your view, how should this Nation address the 
growing encroachment of our naval facilities in order to meet the long-
term test, training, and readiness needs of the United States Navy in 
the coming decades?
    Mr. Penn. I believe we need to work closely with local communities 
as they develop land use management plans and associated zoning 
restrictions. We need to explain how local land use planning can affect 
our ability to meet military training and readiness needs. I am aware 
of recent initiatives by some states to ensure that land use planning 
consider the impact that new development might have on military bases 
and activities. I am also aware that land conservation authority 
Congress provided in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2003 can help establish buffer zones and restrictive use easements 
to enhance training and readiness and provide insurance against future 
encroachment.

                CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT OF INSTALLATIONS

    2. Senator Warner. Mr. Penn, the Navy decided in recent years to 
centralize the management of naval installations in one agency, 
Commander, Navy Installations (CNI) for the Navy. This reorganization 
removed the control of Operations and Maintenance resources from the 
local installation commander and placed these responsibilities with 
regional offices and a national headquarters. Concerns have been raised 
that the commanders charged with accomplishing the mission no longer 
have insight into where funds are actually needed. What is your opinion 
of centralizing naval installation management?
    Mr. Penn. I was an installation commander of Naval Air Station 
North Island, CA, earlier in my Navy career when the Navy's shore 
infrastructure was managed by as many as 18 different commands. There 
was a lot of duplication among the various bases along the San Diego 
waterfront. For example, each base might have its own offices for 
billeting, security, budget, etc., and develop its own policies and 
priorities that may or may not be consistent with those on another base 
just down the road.
    I believe centralized installation management, as has been 
accomplished with the establishment of Commander, Navy Installations, 
can improve efficiency and consistency, while reducing installation 
support costs, especially as the Navy continues to consolidate and 
transform the way it operates in an electronically connected world.

    3. Senator Warner. Mr. Penn, has this change impacted the ability 
of installations and their commanders to support mission requirements?
    Mr. Penn. I believe the intent of centralized management of 
installations was to improve the Navy's ability to support the 
warfighter while reducing infrastructure costs. I plan to visit Navy 
regional commands and installations to assess for myself how well this 
new organizational structure is performing, and seek to resolve any 
impediments to success that I may encounter.

            ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION FOR BRAC REAL PROPERTY

    4. Senator Warner. Mr. Penn, a major activity within the disposal 
and re-use of property affected by a base realignment and closure 
(BRAC) decision will be the determination of the acceptable amount of 
environmental cleanup and remediation. Historically in prior BRAC 
action, those parties receiving the property have always wanted the 
cleanest site possible, while the government has always strived to 
clean up the site to minimum acceptable standards in order to save 
money. While a difficult problem to rectify, the military departments 
worked diligently in the past rounds to come up with a compromise on 
intended use of the property that was acceptable to all parties. If you 
are confirmed, will you continue the process of working with local 
communities to determine and agree on an acceptable use before 
establishing an environmental remediation plan?
    Mr. Penn. Yes, I expect the Department of the Navy to continue to 
closely coordinate property cleanup and disposal activities with 
Federal and State environmental regulators as well as community based 
Restoration Advisory Boards. It is important to note that, in contrast 
to the installations closed in earlier BRAC rounds 10 to 15 years ago, 
the Department's cleanup program at Navy and Marine Corps bases is much 
further along, with environmental cleanup completed or well underway at 
most sites, and the nature and extent of the contamination much better 
understood on the remaining sites.

                           BRAC RE-USE POLICY

    5. Senator Warner. Mr. Penn, as the president's nominee to be the 
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and the Environment, 
one of your primary responsibilities will be the timely completion of 
closures and realignments of installations in accordance with base 
closure laws. We will have the difficult task of working with 
communities in the coming years to close military bases as a result of 
decisions made in the 2005 BRAC round. You have stated in written 
responses that you agree that current law sets forth a clearly defined 
role for local communities to prepare a redevelopment plan for the 
properties made available by BRAC. That is consistent with 
congressional intent. What is your interpretation of congressional 
intent in relation to the Navy seeking fair market value for the 
property?
    Mr. Penn. I understand that the base closure law requires the 
Administrator of General Services to delegate to the Secretary of 
Defense the authority to dispose of surplus property at closed or 
realigned military installations, and requires the Secretary to do so 
in accordance with the regulations governing disposal of surplus 
property under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
1949. Another section of the base closure law provides authority to 
convey property to the local redevelopment authority for purposes of 
job generation on the installation. In amending that provision in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Congress 
directed the DOD to seek to obtain consideration in an amount equal to 
the fair market value of the property. The conference report 
accompanying that change stated, ``The conference agreement would 
require the Secretary of Defense to obtain fair market value for 
economic development conveyances in most cases, unless the Secretary 
determines the circumstances warrant a below-cost or no-cost 
conveyance.''

    6. Senator Warner. Mr. Penn, in your view, will the Navy's desire 
to seek a maximum financial return interfere or trump the requirement 
to work with the local community, to assist them with economic 
development and renewal?
    Mr. Penn. I do not believe that seeking maximum financial return 
will be the overriding Navy goal in disposing of property at closed or 
realigned installations, and I do not expect it will interfere with or 
trump the requirement to give deference to the redevelopment plan 
submitted by the redevelopment authority for the installation. I expect 
the Navy to use all of the available property disposal authorities in 
the proper circumstances, including economic development conveyances, 
public benefit conveyances, and public sales. In that context, use of 
the public sale property disposal authority can be a very effective 
means of assisting a local community with economic development and 
renewal and other property reuse objectives. For example, I understand 
that the Navy's recent sale of property at the former Marine Corps Air 
Station El Toro will result in up to 70 percent of the property being 
dedicated by the property purchaser to the local government for public 
purposes, and that developer fees will pay for many of the improvements 
needed to implement the desired public uses.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain

                         BASE CONTROL FUNCTIONS

    7. Senator McCain. Mr. Penn, several years ago the Navy chose to 
regionalize many of its bases within geographic areas. This process has 
removed many functions that a base commanding officer used to exercise 
control over and sent them to another base in the region. I have heard 
many commanding officers express their frustration with the process. Do 
you expect the Navy to continue down this path and if so, what do you 
think needs to change with the program to reestablish some element of 
oversight and control to the base commanding officer?
    Mr. Penn. The Navy's efforts to consolidate its shore 
infrastructure under a new Commander Navy Installations has been in 
effect for about 1\1/2\ years, with savings from organizational 
efficiencies projected into the Future Years Defense Plan. I plan to 
visit Navy regional commands and installations to assess for myself how 
well this new organizational structure is performing, and take action 
to resolve any concerns.

                     INSTALLATIONS FUNDING REVIEWS

    8. Senator McCain. Mr. Penn, in the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (under Title XXVII-General Provisions, Items 
of Special Interest p. 441 ``Central management of installations) there 
is a legislative provision that requires the Secretary of the Navy to 
submit a report to the Senate Armed Services Committee by February 1, 
2005 that assesses several elements of the chronic under funding of 
facility sustainment and base operations accounts under Commander, Navy 
Installations. Are you aware of the report? Do you know that it has not 
been submitted on time? If confirmed, would you review it for 
completeness and forward it to Congress after your review?
    Mr. Penn. Yes. The report was signed out to Congress on February 8, 
2005. I will familiarize myself with this report and the trends that it 
portrays.

    9. Senator McCain. Mr. Penn, although the Naval Academy is an 
installation and falls under the purview of CNI--it is very different 
from most installations. It has many historical and cultural buildings 
that are on the National Register and needs more to upkeep and maintain 
because of their age and historical aspects of their infrastructure. 
Additionally, the Naval Academy is the very soul of the Navy, the 
repository of its core values, history and traditions, the benchmark of 
its leadership. Many young men and women and their parents visit the 
Naval Academy and based on their visit determine whether they will make 
the Navy or Marine Corps a career. Since CNI has become responsible for 
the Naval Academy installation, overall funding for Naval Academy 
services has declined by 24-30 percent. Can we continue to afford the 
shortfalls in services, infrastructure maintenance, and construction at 
the Naval Academy and what do you intend to do about it?
    Mr. Penn. The Naval Academy serves a unique role as a beacon of 
naval culture and in shaping the core leadership values of future naval 
warriors. As such, Naval Academy facilities warrant special 
consideration. I am told that CNI and the U.S. Naval Academy have 
developed a collaborative solution that defines certain areas as 
prestige areas that are to be resourced at a capability level above 
comparable areas at other shore stations. The remaining areas of the 
institution will remain resourced similar to other Navy shore stations. 
This will allow the Naval Academy to maintain an appropriate public 
appearance, remain competitive with other service academies, and 
promote pride and professionalism in the present and future leaders of 
the U.S. Navy.
    I will seek to ensure that facilities at the Naval Academy, along 
with facilities at all other Navy and Marine Corps bases, have the 
necessary resources to meet their mission requirements.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey O. Graham

                         JOINT MILITARY COMPLEX

    10. Senator Graham. Mr. Penn, one of the stated goals of the BRAC 
process is jointness, including establishing joint military complexes. 
Our military facilities in Charleston are already informally working in 
that direction. The Charleston Air Force Base Commander and the Weapons 
Station Commanding Officer dialogue on a regular basis and have many 
common goals. They share ranges, explosive ordnance unit support, and 
working dogs to mention a few. Unfortunately, although they have common 
missions and responsibilities that could be combined, no one has 
figured out how to fund this or other joint complexes. What are your 
views on the concept of a joint military complex?
    Mr. Penn. I believe there will be many opportunities in the near 
future to expand joint facilities opportunities across the Department 
of Defense. Many nearby installations, like those you cite in the 
Charleston area, already use interservice support agreements to 
facilitate host-tenant agreements as a first step toward improving 
services and reducing costs. I understand that an effort is underway by 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments to 
facilitate more advanced joint facility opportunities by defining 
common output levels of service. This will allow all components to have 
a common understanding of the level of services that they can expect to 
receive and pay for, or will be expected to provide at a joint base. I 
will join with my colleagues in the Department of Defense to help 
promote greater opportunities for joint facilities where practicable, 
particularly with respect to any joint basing decisions that may emerge 
from BRAC 2005.

                         JOINT MILITARY COMPLEX

    11. Senator Graham. Mr. Penn, how would you apportion the funding 
and what would be the allocation mechanism?
    Mr. Penn. I have no preconceived opinions on apportioning funds for 
joint basing. Some believe that each component should retain its 
installation funding, and negotiate annual agreements with the 
component who will provide the service to include the work to be 
performed and the reimbursement mechanisms. This approach would provide 
greater flexibility to each component. Others believe that designation 
of a single component with overall responsibility, along with a one-
time budget based transfer provides for simpler accountability and 
predictable resources. There are of course many variations between 
these positions. I will work with my colleagues to pursue joint funding 
approaches that are practicable, efficient, and responsive to the needs 
of the components.

                          CONSEQUENCES OF BRAC

    12. Senator Graham. Mr. Penn, as we move forward with BRAC, I have 
a real concern for the impact on people, particularly civil service 
engineers. We have a large shortage of engineers throughout DOD. In 
past BRACs we experienced a loss of 40 to 60 percent of civil servants 
in some cases because they did not want to move to new locations and 
there was available work in the civil sector. You have seen in your 
experience in DOD and the commercial sector that subordinate units and 
workers do not need to be collocated with headquarters to operate 
efficiently and effectively. In many respects we live in a virtual 
world. I would like to hear your view on the shortage of DOD engineers 
and the risks we take to realign units with headquarters simply to have 
them collocated.
    Mr. Penn. Military and civilian engineers play a very important 
role in the Navy, perhaps no more vital than military engineers 
assigned to Navy SEABEE construction battalions that provide forward 
deployed construction support to warfighters. I will work with the 
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs along 
the Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command to ensure that the 
Navy and Marine Corps can continue to attract and retain highly 
qualified military and civilian engineers from a broad array of 
disciplines to support our facilities and environmental mission 
requirements.

    13. Senator Graham. Mr. Penn, along these same lines, commercial 
industry seems to be following a model of locating its operations in 
low labor cost areas, yet we see DOD operating or considering 
consolidating some activities in high labor cost areas such as the west 
coast or the north east that are up to 30 percent more expensive that 
locations in my State. In some instance, the civil service grade level 
is also higher for the same position. Do you think this makes good 
business sense for the DOD?
    Mr. Penn. The cost of operations in a new area is taken into 
account for each BRAC 2005 scenario that is considered. While cost 
efficiencies are certainly desirable, military operational 
considerations and readiness needs, as specified in the BRAC statute, 
will be the primary driver for closure and realignment recommendations 
made by the Secretary of Defense. BRAC law sets out a very fair process 
and requires all bases be treated equally. All recommendations are to 
be based on a 20-year force structure plan, infrastructure inventory 
and published selection criteria; all data used is certified as 
accurate and complete and provided to the Commission and Congress; and 
all DOD recommendations will be reviewed by independent Commission and 
President.

                     SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE MODEL

    14. Senator Graham. Mr. Penn, the Space and Naval Warfare (SPAWAR) 
Systems Center Charleston is the most cost effective engineering center 
in the Navy and is providing a strong return on investment from the 
1993 BRAC consolidation and modernization. It is located on a joint use 
base and operates as a major transformation hub by providing command, 
control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance (C\4\ISR) systems and capabilities to all the Services, 
most combatant commands, and the Department of Homeland Security. All 
of this is accomplished within a working capital fund organization 
operating as the most efficient of all the Navy engineering and warfare 
centers. Do you see this as an effective model for other DOD activities 
to follow?
    Mr. Penn. It appears that this model has worked well in this case; 
however this may not be true in all cases. Other organizations may have 
particular needs or circumstances and might not benefit in the same way 
as Charleston.
                                 ______
                                 
             Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka

                         WAIVING OF DEPOT LAWS

    15. Senator Akaka. Mr. Penn, on November 15, 2002, Secretary of 
Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced the first steps in implementing the 
new 2005 BRAC law. These included development of a force structure 
plan, comprehensive inventory of military installations, and 
establishment of criteria for selecting bases for closure and 
realignment. However, under BRAC law, it is my understanding that the 
conferees of the National Defense Authorization Act did not give the 
DOD the authority to waive the depot laws through BRAC. Does the Navy 
understand that DOD does not have the authority to waive the depot laws 
through BRAC?
    Mr. Penn. Yes, the Navy understands that DOD does not have the 
authority to waive the depot laws through BRAC.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of Buddie J. Penn follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                  January 25, 2005.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    Buddie J. Penn, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the 
Navy, vice H.T. Johnson.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The biographical sketch of Buddie J. Penn, which was 
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was 
referred, follows:]

                 Biographical Sketch of Buddie J. Penn

    Mr. Penn was appointed Director, Industrial Base Assessments on 
October 2, 2001. In this position, he is responsible for the overall 
health of the U.S. Defense industrial base; the Department's policies 
and plans to ensure existing and future industrial capabilities can 
meet the Defense missions; guidelines and procedures for maintaining 
and enhancing and transformation of the Defense industrial base, 
industrial base impact assessments of acquisition strategies of key 
programs, supplier base considerations, and offshore production. He 
provides oversight for several regulatory programs involving the 
defense industrial base such as assessments of domestic mergers, 
acquisitions and takeovers for any anti-competitive impacts under the 
Hart-Scott-Rodino anti-trust statute, national security review of 
foreign acquisitions of defense-related U.S.-located firms under the 
Exon-Florio Amendment to the Defense Production Act, and management of 
a contract priority performance system, the Defense Priorities and 
Allocations System under Title I of the Defense Production Act. He is 
responsible for financial assessments of the defense industrial base 
and interface with Wall Street analysts that manage accounts relating 
to defense firms.
    Mr. Penn began his career as a Naval Aviator. He amassed over 6,500 
flight hours in 16 different types of aircraft. He was EA-6B Pilot of 
the Year in 1972. Significant leadership assignments include: Executive 
Officer/Commanding Officer VAQ 33, Battalion Officer at the U.S. Naval 
Academy (including Officer-in-Charge of the Plebe Detail for the class 
of 1983), Air Officer in U.S.S. America, Special Assistant to the Chief 
of Operations, Commanding Officer of NAS North Island, CA, and Deputy 
Director of the Navy Office of Technology Transfer & Security 
Assistance.
    Mr. Penn joined the Sector staff of Loral Federal Systems in 1995 
as Director, International Business. Primary assignments involved 
airborne Electronic Warfare and Defensive Electronic Counter Measure 
Systems. When Lockheed Martin acquired Loral, he was assigned to the 
Corporate Staff to develop markets in Central and Eastern Europe. In 
1998, he transferred to Naval Electronics and Surveillance Systems 
working Advanced Programs. In this capacity, he supported development 
of the Interoperability Concept of Operations (CONOPs) for JSF, 
technology refreshment for the F-16 and development of Unmanned Aerial 
Vehicle and Autonomous Undersea Vehicle efforts and C\4\ISR 
initiatives.
    Mr. Penn was born and raised in Peru, IN. He received his BS from 
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN and his MS from The George 
Washington University, Washington, DC. He has also received 
certificates in Aerospace Safety from the University of Southern 
California and in National Security for Senior Officials from the 
Kennedy School, Harvard University.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals 
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a 
form that details the biographical, financial, and other 
information of the nominee. The form executed by Buddie J. Penn 
in connection with his nomination follows:]

                          UNITED STATES SENATE
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              Room SR-228
                       Washington, DC 20510-6050
                             (202) 224-3871
                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
      BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES

    Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If 
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the 
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation 
of your answer applies.

                    Part A--Biographical Information

    Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in 
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for 
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in 
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.

    1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
    Buddie Joe Penn.
    B.J. Penn.
    Buddie J. (BJ) Penn.

    2. Position to which nominated:
    Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment).

    3. Date of nomination:
    January 24, 2005.

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

    5. Date and place of birth:
    04-02-38; Peru, Indiana.

    6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
    Married to Loretta Medlock.

    7. Names and ages of children:
    Emily Jeneva Penn Grooms, 40.
    Eric Jeffrey Penn, 40.
    Brian Joseph Penn, 41.

    8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
    Peru High School, 1952-1956, High School Diploma.
    Purdue University, 1956-1960, Bachelor of Science, 1960.
    George Washington University, 1978-1980, Master of Science, 1980.
    Harvard University, 1990, Certificate, National Security.

    9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the 
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of 
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
    Director, Industrial Base Assessment, DOD, 1745 Jeff Davis Hwy., 
Crystal Square 4, Ste. 501, Arlington, VA, 10/01-present.
    Manager, C\4\I Systems, Lockheed Martin Corp., Manassas, VA, 02/98-
10/01.
    Director, NIS Tactical Systems Sector, Lockheed Martin Corp., 1725 
Jeff Davis Hwy., Crystal Sq. 2, Ste 900, Arlington, VA, 06/96-02/98.
    Director Business Development Liaison, Loral Federal Systems, 6600 
Rockledge Dr., Bethesda, MD, 06/95-06/99.
    BJ Penn and Associates, President, B.J. Penn, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 
03/95-06/95.
    Pilot, KALAIR, London Heathrow Airport, London UK, UB35AP, 05/92-
02/95.

    10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, 
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, 
or local governments, other than those listed above.
    Not applicable.

    11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an 
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, 
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other 
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
    None.

    12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in 
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and 
other organizations.
    Bush-Cheney 2000 and Bush-Cheney 2004, Inc.
    Antioch Baptist Church, 1999-present, no office held.
    Antioch Bible Institute, 2003-present, no office held.
    Hopewell Baptist Church, 1993-1996, no office held.
    National Naval Officers Association, 1973-present, President.
    Association of Naval Aviation, 1994-2004, no office held.
    Tailhook Association, 1970-2004, no office held.
    Association of Retired Officers, 1991-2004, no office held.
    The Old Crows, 1972-2004, no office held.
    Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, 1974-present, no office held.
    City Club of Washington, 2002-present, no office held.
    Army Navy Club, 1988-present, no office held.
    Fairfax Rod and Gun Club, 1998-present, no office held.
    National Rifle Association, 2001-present, no office held.
    The Canadian Goose Hunting Club, 1974-present, no office held.
    Quantico Flying Club, 2004, no office held.

    13. Political affiliations and activities:
    (a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or 
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
    Bush-Cheney 2000 and Bush-Cheney 2004, Inc.
    (b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered 
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5 
years.
    Not applicable.
    (c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign 
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar 
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
    Bush-Cheney 2000, $2000.
    Bush-Cheney 2004, Inc., $2004.

    14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, military medals, and any other special 
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
    Legion of Merit (2).
    Meritorious Service Medal.
    Air Medal (10).
    Meritorious Unit Commendation.
    Navy Commendation Medal.

    15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of 
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have 
written.
    Not applicable.

    16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal 
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have 
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have 
been nominated.
    Not applicable.

    17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree, 
if confirmed, to appear and testify upon request before any duly 
constituted committee of the Senate?
    Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the 
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set 
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to 
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
                                ------                                

                           Signature and Date
    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete.
                                                    Buddie J. Penn.
    This 26th day of September 2004.

    [The nomination of Buddie J. Penn was reported to the 
Senate by Chairman Warner on February 17, 2005, with the 
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination 
was confirmed by the Senate on February 17, 2005.]
                              ----------                              

    [Prepared questions submitted to ADM William J. Fallon, 
USN, by Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers 
supplied follow:]
                        Questions and Responses
                            defense reforms
    Question. Almost two decades have passed since the enactment of the 
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and 
the Special Operations reforms. You have had an opportunity to observe 
the implementation and impact of these reforms, particularly in your 
assignments as Commander, Carrier Air Wing EIGHT, in 1991 during 
Operation Desert Storm, as Assistant Chief of Staff for Plans and 
Policy for Supreme Allied Command, Atlantic, from 1993 to 1995, and as 
Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff for United States Atlantic Command 
from 1996 to 1997. Do you support full implementation of these defense 
reforms?
    Answer. Yes. I support full implementation of the Goldwater-Nichols 
Act reforms.
    Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense 
reforms have been implemented in the Navy vis-a-vis the other Services?
    Answer. In my experience, the Department of Defense and the Armed 
Services have embraced these reforms. The Navy, like the other 
Services, went through some difficult adjustments in the initial stages 
of implementing the Goldwater-Nichols reforms. Traditional attitudes 
and approaches had to give way to innovation and change. The Services 
work and operate together much better today than pre-Goldwater-Nichols. 
The Navy faces a unique challenge in that our people operate at sea and 
the premium we place on gaining experience in that environment has made 
it difficult for some officers to complete the joint educational 
requirements of Goldwater-Nichols. Recently, there has been substantial 
progress in this area.
    Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of 
these defense reforms?
    Answer. First and foremost, the reforms have improved our 
collective warfighting effectiveness and efficiency. In addition to 
strengthening civilian control of the military and clarifying chain of 
command relationships, they provided a clear delineation of the 
combatant commanders' responsibilities and authorities as they relate 
to the planning and execution of their missions. We have made 
significant progress in joint training, exercises and experiments.
    Question. The goals of Congress in enacting the Goldwater-Nichols 
Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special 
Operations reforms can be summarized as strengthening civilian control 
over the military; improving military advice; placing clear 
responsibility on the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of 
their missions; ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is 
commensurate with their responsibility; increasing attention to the 
formulation of strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more 
efficient use of defense resources; enhancing the effectiveness of 
military operations; and improving the management and administration of 
the Department of Defense. Do you agree with these goals?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you believe that legislative proposals to amend 
Goldwater-Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you think it 
might be appropriate to address in these proposals?
    Answer. I do not have any recommendations to amend Goldwater-
Nichols at this time; however, if confirmed, I would not hesitate to 
offer proposals in the future should I see something that might be 
helpful.

                                 DUTIES

    Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of 
the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command?
    Answer. The duties and functions of Commander, U.S. Pacific Command 
include exercising command authority over commands and forces assigned 
to the Pacific Command and prescribing, organizing, and employing 
subordinate commands and forces to carry out the Pacific Command's 
assigned mission. Fundamentally, that mission is to deter attacks 
against the United States and its territories, possessions, and bases, 
and to protect Americans and American interests and, in the event that 
deterrence fails, to fight and win.
    As a combatant commander, the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command is 
responsible to the President and the Secretary of Defense for the 
performance of these duties, the preparedness of assigned forces, and 
the execution of its missions.
    Question. What background and experience do you possess that you 
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
    Answer. I have benefited from a broad range of assignments during 
my nearly 38 years in uniform, from tactical to operational command, 
and have considerable experience with joint and coalition operations, 
including combat operations. I was privileged to command Carrier Air 
Wing EIGHT in U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt in 1991 during Operation Desert 
Storm. In 1995, as a flag officer, I served as Commander, Carrier Group 
EIGHT and Commander, Battle Force, U.S. SIXTH Fleet during NATO's 
Operation Deliberate Force in Bosnia. During these operations, I worked 
closely with joint U.S. and combined forces in planning, coordinating, 
and executing sustained combat operations. I also served as Deputy 
Director for Operations, Joint Task Force Southwest Asia in Riyadh, 
Saudi Arabia, directing air operations in the Iraqi No-Fly Zones. I 
have additional experience in joint and combined planning and 
operations at both the operational and strategic levels through 
assignments as Assistant Chief of Staff, Plans and Policy, for Supreme 
Allied Commander, Atlantic and as Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff 
for the U.S. Atlantic Fleet and the former U.S. Atlantic Command, the 
predecessor to U.S. Joint Forces Command. For nearly 3 years, I served 
as Commander, U.S. Second Fleet and NATO Striking Fleet Atlantic, 
working directly with all U.S. armed services as well as those of our 
NATO allies in training and in developing and testing joint and 
combined tactics for the entire spectrum of combat operations. As Vice 
Chief of Naval Operations from 2000 to 2003, I worked in close 
cooperation with OSD, the Joint Staff, and the other armed services 
developing transformational strategies and joint requirements. In my 
current assignment as Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command, I serve as 
Naval component commander to U.S. Joint Forces Command, and support 
U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Strategic Command. The widely varied 
opportunities I have had during my career have given me a deep 
appreciation of, and experience with, all branches of our Armed Forces 
and many of our allies.
    Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to 
take to enhance your expertise to perform the duties of the Commander, 
U.S. Pacific Command?
    Answer. I intend to solicit the experience, advice and counsel of 
members of this committee, the U.S. Government, specifically, 
Department of Defense and Department of State personnel, as well as 
leaders and knowledgeable people throughout the Asia-Pacific region in 
order to broaden my understanding of U.S. positions and relationships 
in the region. I will meet with U.S. Pacific Command staff divisions, 
subordinate organizations and component commanders to understand fully 
the issues and challenges they face. I intend to develop personal 
working relationships with the military and civilian leadership of the 
nations throughout the Pacific region, to better understand their 
concerns while continuing to represent U.S. national interests.

                             RELATIONSHIPS

    Question. Section 162(b) of title 10, United States Code, provides 
that the chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of 
Defense and from the Secretary of Defense to the commanders of the 
combatant commands. Other sections of law and traditional practice, 
however, establish important relationships outside the chain of 
command. Please describe your understanding of the relationship of the 
Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, to the following officials because the 
question is related to PACOM, relations to other than the SECDEF and 
Chairman are reasonably inferred:
    The Secretary of Defense.
    Answer. Commander, U.S. Pacific Command performs his duties under 
the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, and 
is directly responsible to him to carry out its assigned missions.
    Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
    Answer. The Deputy Secretary of Defense performs duties as directed 
by the Secretary, and performs the duties of the Secretary in his 
absence. Commander, U.S. Pacific Command is responsible to ensure that 
the Deputy Secretary has the information necessary to perform these 
duties, and coordinates with him on major issues.
    Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
    Answer. Under secretaries are key advocates for combatant commander 
requirements. Commander, U.S. Pacific Command coordinates and exchanges 
information with the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy on strategic 
policy issues involving the Asia-Pacific region.
    Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
    Answer. Commander, U.S. Pacific Command coordinates and exchanges 
information with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence as 
needed to set and meet the U.S. Pacific Command's priorities and 
requirements for intelligence support.
    Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    Answer. The Chairman is the principal military advisor to the 
President, National Security Council, and Secretary of Defense. Section 
163 of title 10, U.S. Code, allows communication between the President 
or the Secretary of Defense and the combatant commanders to flow 
through the Chairman. As is custom and traditional practice, and as 
instructed by the Unified Command Plan, I would communicate with the 
Secretary through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
    Answer. The secretaries of the military departments are responsible 
for the administration and support of forces assigned to the combatant 
commands. Commander, U.S. Pacific Command coordinates closely with the 
secretaries to ensure that requirements to organize, train, and equip 
Pacific Command forces are met.
    Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.
    Answer. Commander, U.S. Pacific Command communicates and exchanges 
information with the Service Chiefs to support their responsibility for 
organizing, training, and equipping forces. Successful execution of 
U.S. Pacific Command's mission responsibilities requires close 
coordination with the Service Chiefs. If confirmed, I intend to work 
closely with the Service Chiefs of Staff to understand their service 
capabilities and to effectively employ those capabilities as required 
to execute the missions of U.S. Pacific Command.
    Question. The other Combatant Commanders.
    Answer. Commander, U.S. Pacific Command maintains close 
relationships with the other combatant commanders. These relationships 
are critical to the execution of our National Military Strategy, and 
are characterized by mutual support, frequent contact, and productive 
exchanges of information on key issues.

                     MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS

    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will 
confront the next Commander, U.S. Pacific Command?

         Stability on the Korean Peninsula, complicated by 
        North Korean development of WMD and proliferation of these 
        weapons and delivery systems.
         China/Taiwan cross-strait tensions, combined with 
        China's emergence as a regional power and the increase in 
        Chinese military capabilities.
         Terrorism and other transnational threats. 
        Narcoterrorism, piracy, proliferation, and human trafficking, 
        linked through illegal banking and finance, threaten the 
        region. This is a particular challenge in the southeast Asian 
        archipelagos where extremist Islamic ideology and terrorist-
        linked movements exist.
         Transforming U.S. global force posture to respond to a 
        complex security environment that includes irregular, 
        catastrophic, traditional, and disruptive challenges to our 
        national interests.
         The scope and span of the region, which encompasses 
        the three most populous countries in the world--China, India, 
        and Indonesia--and the vast expanse of the Pacific and Indian 
        Oceans, an area of 100 million square miles.

    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for 
addressing these challenges?
    Answer. Specifically, I intend to:

         Support U.S. national interests and policies.
         Work in close consultation with U.S. agencies and 
        military commanders, and with our many friends in the region to 
        develop a clear understanding and appreciation of U.S. national 
        interests and the issues facing the nations in the U.S. Pacific 
        Command region.
         Identify steps that can be taken to signal the strong 
        resolve of the United States to support U.S. national interests 
        and to enhance regional stability.
         Posture U.S. forces to ensure readiness, agility, 
        flexibility, and readiness, emphasizing the ability to respond 
        and deploy rapidly if required.

                            HOMELAND DEFENSE

    Question. What is your understanding of the role and responsibility 
of U.S. Pacific Command in homeland defense?
    Answer. The Secretary of Defense's Contingency Planning Guidance 
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Strategic 
Capabilities Plan direct PACOM to deter attacks against the homeland as 
early and as far away as possible, defend the PACOM domestic AOR, and 
to work with and provide support to civil authorities. (Specific 
taskings within these documents are classified.) As part of the larger 
effort, U.S. Pacific Command's plan complements and is integrated with 
the ongoing global war on terrorism, combating weapons of mass 
destruction, homeland security, and relevant contingency planning and 
activities.
    Question. What is your understanding of how U.S. Pacific Command 
and U.S. Northern Command work to ensure that their overlapping 
missions in this area do not create ``seams'' that might be exploited 
by our adversaries and how this process might be improved?
    Answer. In October 2003, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command and 
Commander, U.S. Northern Command signed a Command Arrangement 
Agreement, to ``establish procedures and delineate responsibilities'' 
between the two commands. This agreement also prescribes employment of 
U.S. Pacific Command forces in support of U.S. Northern Command 
missions and the control of forces operating in Northern Command's area 
of responsibility. Both commands, by conducting Joint Exercises, have 
validated the arrangements, demonstrating commitment to homeland 
defense. We will continue to develop a close working relationship 
between the two commands.
    Question. What is your assessment of the Regional Maritime Security 
Initiative, and what steps should be taken to improve upon it?
    Answer. The Regional Maritime Security Initiative offers an 
opportunity to address transnational threats collectively with 
participating states. The initiative is gaining momentum in the Asia-
Pacific region. Its effectiveness can be increased through better 
information sharing and investing the time and effort to improve 
understanding of the challenges and needs of the partner nations. This 
will remain a high priority effort.
    Question. How could U.S. Pacific Command forces and expertise 
contribute to more effective homeland defense capabilities?
    Answer. U.S. Pacific Command's military and intelligence activities 
in the western approaches to the continental United States contribute 
to the Nation's active, layered defense. Improvements in our ability to 
collect actionable intelligence and maintain situational awareness are 
critical to our ability to combat threats. Active regional engagement 
is a key to success. We will facilitate this effort by maintaining and 
building on Pacific Command's Theater Security Cooperation Program.

                     GLOBAL DEFENSE POSTURE REVIEW

    Question. Perhaps more than in any other combatant command, 
military exigencies in the U.S. Pacific Command are subject to the 
``tyranny of distance'' in getting forces to points of conflict. How 
important is the forward homebasing strategy to the ability of U.S. 
Pacific Command to execute its operational contingencies, and is the 
ongoing Global Posture Review taking this into account?
    Answer. The forward basing and presence of rotational forces is key 
to U.S. Pacific Command's ability to assure allies and friends in the 
region, deter potential adversaries, and execute operational 
contingencies when required. U.S. Pacific Command is fully integrated 
into the ongoing Global Posture Review, adjusting our posture from a 
static Cold War orientation to one that is more agile and flexible, 
with improved capabilities to better address current and potential 
threats.
    Question. What are the implications of the proposed global force 
structure changes with respect to U.S. Pacific Command's AOR, 
particularly in Korea and Japan?
    Answer. The objective of the proposed changes is to better position 
U.S. forces to respond to present and future challenges. I intend to 
study the proposed changes immediately so that I fully understand the 
details of the proposals, and their implications for our global and 
regional defense strategies.
    Question. What impact, if any, will the proposed changes in posture 
have on our ability to defend South Korea and Japan, and to react to a 
crisis in the Taiwan Strait?
    Answer. As I understand the proposed posture changes, U.S. forces 
will continue to be in a position to defend South Korea and Japan, and 
to react to a crisis in the Taiwan Strait.

                              NORTH KOREA

    Question. North Korea represents one of the greatest near term 
threats to U.S. national security interests in Asia. What is your 
assessment of the current security situation on the Korean peninsula 
and the diplomatic efforts to persuade North Korea to verifiably 
dismantle its nuclear weapons program?
    Answer. North Korea's nuclear weapons and missile programs remain a 
serious concern. Additionally, the North Korean conventional force 
posture, particularly the forward basing of a large percentage of its 
most-capable forces, creates a volatile threat environment. U.S. 
Pacific Command's job is to facilitate ongoing diplomatic efforts aimed 
at addressing the threat, while maintaining a credible deterrent 
posture.
    Question. What is your assessment of the threat posed to the United 
States and its allies by North Korea's ballistic missile and WMD 
capabilities and the export of those capabilities?
    Answer. North Korea's continuing development and proliferation of 
WMD and ballistic missile capabilities pose a serious threat to the 
U.S. and our allies.
    Question. What, if anything, should be done to strengthen 
deterrence on the Korean peninsula?
    Answer. While diplomatic efforts continue, PACOM will maintain a 
strong deterrence together with our ROK ally through demonstrated 
capabilities and exercises.

                        REPUBLIC OF SOUTH KOREA

    Question. Since the end of World War II, the U.S.-ROK alliance has 
been a key pillar of security in the Asia Pacific region. This 
relationship has gone through periods of inevitable change. What is 
your understanding of the current U.S. security relationship with South 
Korea?
    Answer. The U.S.-ROK security relationship is robust and strong. It 
has been the key to deterrence on the Korean peninsula over the past 50 
years. Adapting to new security challenges, the Republic of Korea has 
become the third largest contributor of forces in Iraq, while also 
sending support forces to Afghanistan, the Western Sahara and East 
Timor. They have continued an aggressive effort to modernize their 
military forces to improve interoperability.
    Question. If confirmed, what measures, if any, would you take, in 
conjunction with the Commander of U.S. Forces Korea, to improve the 
U.S.-South Korean security relationship?
    Answer. The Commander in Chief, U.N. Command/Combined Forces 
Command's primary focus is on deterrence of a North Korean attack 
specifically on the Korean peninsula, and should that deterrence fail, 
the ability to fight and win against that threat. He is also a sub-
unified commander to U.S. Pacific Command as the Commander of U.S. 
Forces Korea. If confirmed, I will work closely with him to ensure 
transformation initiatives enhance readiness and deterrence.
    Question. Do you support expanding the number of personnel assigned 
to Korea for 2 or 3 years of duty?
    Answer. I generally support the idea of longer tours, which would 
provide better staff continuity, stability within our units, and 
improve morale for our troops accompanied by their families. However, 
it should be noted that this brings with it the costs of providing 
additional base infrastructure, housing, medical/dental facilities, and 
schools. If confirmed, I intend to consult with the Commander of U.S. 
Forces Korea as soon as possible to study this matter so that I fully 
understand it and can make informed recommendations. Increasing the 
tour length of married personnel stationed in Korea on unaccompanied 
orders from 1 year to 2 or 3 years would, in my judgment, have a 
negative impact on morale.

                                 CHINA

    Question. Many observers believe that one of the key national 
security challenges of this century is how to manage China's emergence 
as a major regional and global economic and military power. How would 
you characterize the U.S. security relationship with China?
    Answer. The U.S. relationship with China is constructive. We seek 
to promote shared interests with China as a growing regional and 
economic power. Although the economic relationship between the U.S. and 
China is expanding, we must gain greater insight into China's growth in 
military spending, its intentions towards Taiwan, and its regional 
strategy in Asia and the Pacific.
    Question. What is the current state of U.S.-China military-to-
military relations, and do you favor increased military-to-military 
contacts with China?
    Answer. Our military-to-military relations are limited to non-
warfighting venues, such as high-level and academic exchanges and ship 
visits. I support continued contact to promote a constructive 
relationship with China, to gain greater insight into its intentions, 
and to impart a clear understanding of our defense strategies.
    Question. How do you assess the current cross-strait relationship, 
and how can we help to prevent miscalculation by either side?
    Answer. The cross-strait relationship between China and Taiwan is a 
concern. It is in the U.S. interest to prevent miscalculation and to 
maintain a steady signal of deterrence with ready, credible forces. The 
foundation of our discourse is and will continue to be the Taiwan 
Relations Act and the three U.S./China Joint communiques. As stated by 
the President, the United States opposes any attempt by either side to 
unilaterally change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.
    Question. China's economy is growing by as much as 10 percent per 
year, and China is using that economic growth to fund a substantial 
military modernization. In your view, what is China's intent in 
pursuing such a rapid military modernization?
    Answer. I believe that China is rapidly pursuing military 
modernization in order to determine its own destiny without undue 
influence from other nations. China desires greater influence over the 
course of events within the Asia-Pacific region and to be recognized as 
a global power.
    Question. On April 1, 2001, a Chinese jet collided in mid-air with 
a U.S. Navy EP-3 aircraft endangering the U.S. personnel and resulting 
in the death of the Chinese pilot. Describe the steps that have been 
taken to prevent incidents of this nature in the future.
    Answer. The Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA) was 
established in 1998 to promote common understanding regarding 
activities undertaken by U.S. and PRC maritime and air forces when 
operating in accordance with international law. The MMCA has addressed 
the issues of surveillance aircraft and interceptors and separation 
distances. Compliance with the MMCA is closely monitored by U.S. 
Pacific Command and they are working with OSD policy to improve 
implementation with China.
    Question. What other areas, both geographic and operational, 
present potential problems for conflict with Chinese military forces, 
and what steps, if any, still need to be taken to prevent incidents?
    Answer. Whenever our forces operate in close proximity, there is a 
need for vigilance and adherence to safe and professional operating 
procedures.

                                 TAIWAN

    Question. What are the priorities, in your view, for U.S. military 
assistance to Taiwan?
    Answer. It is important that the U.S. assist Taiwan in 
strengthening its defensive posture through improvement of their joint 
operating capacity and modernization of their military capabilities.
    Question. What is the relationship between the type of assistance 
we offer and regional stability?
    Answer. U.S. assistance is primarily aimed at systems that improve 
Taiwan's ability to defend itself without being characterized as 
offensive in nature. A strong defensive capability enhances regional 
stability. We need to continue to make it clear that the U.S. opposes 
any attempt by either side to unilaterally change the status quo in the 
Taiwan Strait.

                      REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    Question. What is the current state of U.S.-Philippine military-to-
military relations and activities?
    Answer. The U.S.-Philippine military relationship is based on the 
Mutual Defense Treaty of 1952 and is characterized by small-scale 
exercises and advisors to Philippine military. Our military-to-military 
relationship is substantive. It is focused on enhancing their ability 
to defeat insurgencies and to promote long-term institutional change 
through the Philippine Defense Review.

                               INDONESIA

    Question. Indonesia is a key Asian power, and is the largest Muslim 
country in the world. Consequently, it is important to build on 
opportunities to improve and expand U.S. relations with Indonesia where 
possible. To what extent is the Indonesian Government cooperating with 
the United States in the global war on terrorism?
    Answer. The Government of Indonesia has cooperated with the U.S. 
and our Australian allies in investigating and prosecuting the 
perpetrators of the October 2002 Bali bombing and the subsequent August 
2003 Marriott and the September 2004 Australian Embassy bombings. Since 
the Bali bombing, Indonesia has captured or detained over 100 suspected 
terrorists, passed a new anti-terror law and worked with the U.S. in 
creating a new anti-terror police unit.
    Question. Is the Indonesian Government cooperating in the 
investigation into the American deaths in Papua in August 2002?
    Answer. My understanding is the government of Indonesia is working 
closely with the FBI on the Timika investigation.
    Question. If confirmed, would you recommend more or less military-
to-military contacts with Indonesia? Why? If yes, under what 
conditions?
    Answer. The U.S. would benefit from increased military contacts in 
areas such as civil-military reform and countering transnational 
threats. The Armed Forces of Indonesia (TNI) is important to the 
stability, unity and future of Indonesia as it consolidates its 
democracy. In turn, Indonesia's continued democratic development is 
important to U.S. interests in combating terrorism and the security and 
stability of Southeast Asia. Increasing TNI professionalism and 
commitment to democratic rule of law should lead to increased U.S.-
Indonesian military-to-military contacts.

                                 INDIA

    Question. What is the current state of the U.S.-India military-to-
military relationship, and what specific priorities would you establish 
for this relationship?
    Answer. Our military-to-military relations with India are good and 
improving.
    If confirmed, my priorities for the U.S.-India military-to-military 
relationship will be to expand contacts and discussion with an 
objective of a deeper and more substantive relationship. We will seek 
increased levels of cooperation and interoperability between our 
forces, the value of which has been highlighted in recent tsunami 
relief operations.

                U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND TSUNAMI ASSISTANCE

    Question. U.S. Pacific Command has made enormous contributions to 
tsunami recovery and relief efforts since the tragic events of December 
26, 2004. Do you believe there is a continuing role for U.S. Pacific 
Command in the long-term recovery effort?
    Answer. Yes, but U.S. Pacific Command's extensive and successful 
relief efforts are essentially complete. Pacific Command does have a 
role in the long-term recovery of the region. We shall be prepared to 
offer whatever follow-on assistance may be desired by affected nations 
and agreed to by the U.S. Government.
    Question. Due to the massive number of killed and injured, the 
evacuation of severely injured U.S. citizens from nations affected by 
the tsunami was sometimes a problem. How did military forces under U.S. 
Pacific Command participate in evacuation efforts and otherwise lend 
assistance to injured U.S. citizens?
    Answer. Pacific Command did not receive any request for assistance 
from U.S. country teams in the disaster area for evacuation or medical 
support for U.S. citizens. The welfare of U.S. citizens was certainly a 
principal concern, and in coordination with our Embassies, U.S. forces 
were always prepared to provide transportation and medical assistance.
    Question. What improvements, if any, would you recommend to ensure 
that U.S. citizens who have been injured are promptly assisted?
    Answer. Concurrent with the execution of tsunami relief efforts, 
Pacific Command has initiated a comprehensive lessons learned program 
to capture both the successes and deficiencies of the relief effort. 
This effort is ongoing and the lessons regarding assistance and support 
to U.S. citizens will be incorporated into our disaster relief 
procedures.
    Question. Do you believe new opportunities for strengthening 
military-to-military ties and advancing U.S. interests in the AOR have 
been created as a result of the tsunami tragedy and the relief effort? 
If so, how do you expect to build on such opportunities?
    Answer. Despite the tragic consequences of the tsunami, the spirit 
of cooperation and the successful combined response of many nations and 
governments in affected countries, provides an opportunity to improve 
the relationships between the militaries of the U.S. and affected 
nations. Conditions have been set for greater cooperation and the U.S. 
Pacific Command will continue to enhance the relationships, common 
operating procedures, and trust developed during the course of the 
relief operation.

                            MISSILE DEFENSE

    Question. What is your understanding of the current relationship 
between U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), and 
U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with respect to ballistic missile 
defense deployment and operations?
    Answer. All three commands have responsibilities that collectively 
address the missile defense threat across the Unified Command Plan 
boundaries. STRATCOM has overarching responsibility for planning, 
integrating, and coordinating global ballistic missile defense. 
STRATCOM develops enabling capabilities for BMD. PACOM shares 
responsibility for defense of the homeland with NORTHCOM; specifically 
the defense of Hawaii and the U.S. territories in the Pacific. PACOM 
closely coordinates with NORTHCOM and STRATCOM in the performance of 
the missile defense mission.
    Question. What is your understanding of the arrangement whereby 
Aegis-class destroyers and cruisers of the U.S. Pacific Fleet will be 
made available, or dedicated, to ballistic missile defense missions, 
and what impact will this arrangement have on the capability of U.S. 
Pacific Command and U.S. Pacific Fleet to fulfill their other missions 
involving Aegis-class ships?
    Answer. We will employ our emerging capabilities in missile defense 
where they can best be utilized in support of our national interests. 
Through an established rotational ship schedule and a system of 
readiness conditions for missile defense, our forces, to include Aegis-
capable ships, will be prepared to meet mission requirements.
    Question. How would you propose to strike an appropriate balance 
between missile defense and non-missile defense missions for ships of 
the U.S. Pacific Fleet (USPACFLT)?
    Answer. I will solicit the recommendations of Commander, USPACFLT 
about how best to address the issue and ensure the command's capability 
to employ available forces is balanced between missions.

                       SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND

    Question. What is your understanding of the relationship between 
Special Operations Command teams working to fulfill the global 
terrorism mission, U.S. Pacific Command, and the Ambassadors in the 
relevant countries?
    Answer. The relationship among Special Operations Command teams, 
U.S. Pacific Command and Ambassadors in relevant countries has been 
positive and productive. U.S. Pacific Command maintains operational 
control of special operations deployments throughout the AOR. All 
activities concerning PACOM's efforts in the global war on terrorism 
are fully coordinated with U.S. Ambassadors in relevant countries. If 
confirmed, I intend to maintain that close relationship.

                         TECHNOLOGY PRIORITIES

    Question. U.S. Pacific Command has been active in the Advanced 
Concept Technology Development (ACTD) process and currently has several 
projects on the transition list, including the future tactical truck 
system and theater effects based operations. What processes, contacts, 
and tools will you use to make your requirements known to the 
Department's science and technology community to ensure the 
availability of needed equipment and capabilities in the long term?
    Answer. U.S. Pacific Command analyzes major operations plans, and 
global war on terrorism and homeland defense responsibilities to 
determine the capabilities needed to execute assigned plans and to 
identify any gaps in current and programmed capabilities. These gaps 
form the basis for U.S. Pacific Command's annual Integrated Priority 
List, which identifies priority capability needs to the Department of 
Defense's science, technology, and acquisition communities.
    The U.S. Pacific Command is active in the ACTD process. If 
confirmed, I would continue participation in this program. ACTD 
projects offer our warfighters direct impact on technology development 
and acquisition, potentially speed acquisition of needed capabilities, 
and sometimes provide capabilities to directly support current 
operations. For example, in Operation Iraqi Freedom today, U.S. Pacific 
Command ACTD projects are providing capabilities for explosive ordnance 
disposal operations, medical information management, sniper detection, 
and language and document translation.

                         EXERCISES AND TRAINING

    Question. What is your assessment of current U.S. Pacific Command 
exercises and training for peace and stability operations? Are they 
sufficient in your opinion, and, if not, how would you change them, if 
confirmed?
    Answer. U.S. Pacific Command conducts about 20 joint exercises a 
year, with service components adding an estimated 200 service-specific 
exercises every year. I assess the U.S. Pacific Command exercise 
program as extremely valuable. The success of relief operations under 
Operation Unified Assistance can be directly attributed to U.S. Pacific 
Command's annual Cobra Gold exercise in Thailand (focused on peace and 
stability operations), in which several nations, including Thailand, 
Singapore, and the U.S., train together.
    U.S. Pacific Command strives to focus limited training resources to 
enhance readiness, sustain and improve theater security cooperation, 
deter potential adversaries, and win the global war on terrorism. Due 
to the vast distances in the Pacific theater, significant amounts of 
strategic lift, including military air, sealift, and commercial 
carriers, are required for operations and large-scale exercises. This 
means the strategic lift necessary for the Chairman's Exercise Program 
(CEP) is very important, especially for large-scale joint and combined 
exercises
    Question. How might U.S. Pacific Command work with U.S. Joint 
Forces Command (JFCOM) to improve or augment training and exercises for 
peace and stability operations?
    Answer. JFCOM provides Joint Warfighting Center support to several 
PACOM joint exercises every year, and JFCOM has assigned a full-time 
liaison officer at PACOM. The Pacific Warfighting Center (PWC) will be 
integrated into JFCOM's global grid of warfighting centers that will 
make up the Joint National Training Capability (JNTC). The PWC and JNTC 
will allow PACOM and JFCOM to cooperatively develop transformational 
training concepts and infrastructure.

                       POW/MIA ACCOUNTING EFFORTS

    Question. The Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command, U.S. Pacific 
Command, is critical to the recovery and identification of remains of 
missing military members. Recovery of remains of U.S. service members 
from World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam war continue to be a 
very high priority. What is your understanding of the responsibilities 
of the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and its 
relationship to the Defense Prisoner of War and Missing Personnel 
Office?
    Answer. I fully understand the priority our Nation places on the 
identification and recovery of missing Americans. The Joint POW/MIA 
Accounting Command (JPAC) conducts operations to support a full 
accounting of personnel unaccounted for as a result of hostile acts. 
U.S. Pacific Command provides higher headquarters support and 
direction, and the interface between JPAC and the Joint Staff and/or 
OSD, as necessary. The Defense POW/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO) 
exercises policy, control, and oversight within the Department of 
Defense for the entire accounting process. DPMO and JPAC coordinate 
directly with one another on routine POW/MIA issues.
    Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have, if any, to enhance 
POW/MIA recovery efforts in the AOR of the U.S. Pacific Command?
    Answer. JPAC's resources and accounting efforts are focused not 
only in the Pacific Command region, but throughout the world. I will 
encourage full cooperation by the host nations where we conduct POW/MIA 
activities and continue to reinforce U.S. Government priorities in our 
accounting and recovery efforts.
    Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take, if any, to 
assess the adequacy of resources available for this work?
    Answer. I will provide JPAC the full support of the U.S. Pacific 
Command in the conduct of their mission, and continuously assess the 
adequacy of resources in the performance of this important mission.

                            QUALITY OF LIFE

    Question. Combatant commanders are responsible for establishing and 
sustaining a high quality of life for military personnel and their 
families assigned within their AOR. If confirmed, how would you define 
and ensure appropriate resources are available for quality of life 
programs for military members and their families within the U.S. 
Pacific Command?
    Quality of service (QOS) for our men and women is one of my top 
priorities. Inseparable from combat readiness, QOS is more than just 
good quality of life. It means providing the high quality operating 
facilities, the tools and information technology necessary for our 
personnel to achieve their goals and execute their missions effectively 
and efficiently.
    QOS requires continuous assessment of housing, schools, commissary 
and exchange services, medical/dental facilities, morale, welfare and 
recreation (MWR) programs/facilities, pay and entitlement programs, 
spousal employment opportunities and childcare facilities.
    Question. What are the potential effects and challenges associated 
with global rebasing on the quality of life of members and their 
families in the U.S. Pacific Command AOR?
    Answer. Implementation of global rebasing must and will reflect our 
commitment to our peoples' QOS.

                   POLICIES REGARDING SEXUAL ASSAULT

    Question. As a result of deficiencies in DOD and Service policies 
regarding sexual assault in the Armed Forces, the Department and the 
individual Services are required under section 577 of the Ronald W. 
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 to 
develop comprehensive policies aimed at preventing and responding to 
sexual assaults involving members of the Armed Forces and ensuring, 
among other things, appropriate law enforcement, medical, and legal 
responses, integration of databases to report and track sexual 
assaults, and development of victim treatment and assistance 
capabilities. If confirmed as Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, what 
steps would you take to ensure the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine 
Corps forces under your command are appropriately implementing policies 
aimed at preventing sexual assaults and appropriately responding to 
victims of sexual assault?
    Answer. I am strongly committed to implementing comprehensive 
measures to prevent sexual assault, provide responsive care and 
treatment for victims of sexual assault, and hold accountable those who 
commit the crime of sexual assault. If confirmed, I will take all 
actions to protect our people from assault, and direct consistent and 
appropriate responses to victims of sexual assault.

                        CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information. Do you agree, if 
confirmed for this high position, to appear before this committee and 
other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. I agree.
    Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views, 
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
    Answer. I agree.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as Commander, U.S. Pacific 
Command?
    Answer. I agree.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. I agree.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
             Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka

                           CARRIER PLACEMENT

    1. Senator Akaka. Admiral Fallon, at the full committee hearing on 
February 10, 2005, Admiral Vernon Clark said that the Department was 
still reviewing the possibilities for basing a carrier in Hawaii or 
Guam. It is my understanding that the report titled ``Strengthening 
U.S. Global Defense Posture,'' submitted to Congress by DOD in 
September 2004, states that DOD intends to carry out ``the forward 
deployment of additional expeditionary maritime capabilities and long-
rate strike assets'' in the Pacific regions. Is it still the strategy 
for the Navy? If so, does the Navy still plan to forward base another 
carrier in Hawaii or Guam?
    Admiral Fallon. Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs) remain critical to 
ensuring effective dissuasion, capable deterrence, and rapid 
contingency response in the Asia-Pacific region. We continue to examine 
options to determine the optimum basing posture for these very capable 
assets. Both Hawaii and Guam have been studied as a potential location 
for a CSG forward in the Pacific.

    2. Senator Akaka. Admiral Fallon, at the full committee hearing on 
February 10, 2005, Admiral Clark stated that the basing of carriers in 
the Pacific would be determined by BRAC. Are all decisions pertaining 
to home porting of carriers dependent on the BRAC? If not, then what is 
the criteria used to determine if the BRAC applies to one situation 
over another?
    Admiral Fallon. Carrier basing decisions depend upon many factors 
including strategic considerations, joint readiness, cost, 
infrastructure, contingency response time, and the recommendations of 
the BRAC Commission. It is my understanding that any basing issues this 
year will be considered as part of the BRAC process.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of ADM William J. Fallon, USN, 
follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                  January 31, 2005.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    The following named officer for appointment in the United States 
Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance 
and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601:

                             To be Admiral

    ADM William J. Fallon, 0304.
                                 ______
                                 
     Transcript of Naval Service for ADM William Joseph Fallon, USN
    30 December 1944 - Born in East Orange, New Jersey.
    16 September 1963 - Midshipman, U.S. Naval Reserve, Naval Reserve 
Officers Training Corps.
    15 May 1967 - Ensign to rank from 7 June 1967.
    01 July 1968 - Lieutenant (junior grade).
    01 July 1970 - Lieutenant.
    01 July 1976 - Lieutenant Commander.
    01 April 1982 - Commander.
    01 September 1988 - Captain.
    23 August 1993 - Designated Rear Admiral (lower half) while serving 
in billets commensurate with that grade.
    01 October 1994 - Rear Admiral (lower half).
    01 January 1997 - Rear Admiral.
    20 September 1996 - Vice Admiral.
    06 October 2000 - Designated Admiral while serving in billets 
commensurate with that grade.
    01 November 2000 - Admiral, service continuous to date.

Assignments and Duties:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     From         To
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Air Basic Training Command, U.S. Naval Air    May 1967   Nov. 1967
 Station, Pensacola, FL (DUINS).................
U.S. Naval Air Technical Center, Glynco, GA        Nov. 1967   Dec. 1967
 (DUINS)........................................
U.S. Naval Station, New York, NY................   Dec. 1967   Jan. 1968
Reconnaissance Attack Squadron THREE (DUINS)....   Jan. 1968   Dec. 1968
Naval Justice School (DUINS)....................   Dec. 1968   Feb. 1969
Reconnaissance Attack Squadron FIVE,               Feb. 1969   Oct. 1970
 (Reconnaissance Attack Navigator)..............
Commander, Reconnaissance Attack Wing ONE,         Oct. 1970   July 1972
 (Administrative Officer).......................
Staff, Commander Fleet Air, Jacksonville, FL       July 1972   July 1973
 (Flag Lieutenant/Flag Secretary)...............
DEP COMNA V AIRLANTTACAIR (Aide/Administrative     July 1973   June 1974
 Officer).......................................
Attack Squadron FOUR TWO (DUINS)................   June 1974   Dec. 1974
Attack Squadron SEVEN FIVE (Avionics/Armament      Dec. 1974   July 1977
 Officer/Training Officer)......................
Naval War College (DUlNS).......................   July 1977   July 1978
Attack Squadron FOUR TWO (DUINS)................   July 1978   Oct. 1978
Attack Squadron SIX FIVE (Operations Officer/      Oct. 1978   Feb. 1981
 Executive Assistant)...........................
Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force   Feb. 1981   July 1982
 (Operational Test Coordinator of Attack Weapons
 Systems).......................................
Attack Squadron FOUR TWO (DUINS)................   July 1982   Nov. 1982
XO, Attack Squadron SIX FIVE....................   Nov. 1982    May 1984
CO, Attack Squadron SIX FIVE....................    May 1984   Sep. 1985
Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet    Sep. 1985   Dec. 1985
 (DUlNS)........................................
Carrier Air Wing EIGHT (Deputy Air Wing            Jan. 1986   July 1987
 Commander).....................................
Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet    July 1987   Jan. 1989
 (Air Wing Training and Readiness Officer)......
Commander, Medium Attack Wing ONE...............   Jan. 1989   Feb. 1990
Commander, Carrier Air Wing EIGHT...............   Mar. 1990   Aug. 1991
National Defense University (DUINS).............   Aug. 1991   June 1992
Office of the CNO (Deputy Director, Aviation       July 1992   Sep. 1993
 Plans and Requirements Branch) (N880B).........
Commander, Joint Task Force Southwest Asia         Aug. 1992   Nov. 1992
 (Deputy Staff Operations Officer, J-3).........
SACLANT (Assistant Chief of Staff for Plans and    Sep. 1993   June 1995
 Policy)........................................
Commander, Carrier Group EIGHT..................   June 1995   Feb. 1996
COMLANTFLT (Deputy and Chief of Staff)..........   Feb. 1996   Sep. 1996
U.S. Atlantic Command (Deputy Commander in Chief   Sep. 1996   Nov. 1997
 and Chief of Staff)............................
Commander, SECOND Fleet/Commander, Striking        Nov. 1997   Oct. 2000
 Fleet Atlantic.................................
Vice Chief of Naval Operations..................   Oct. 2000   Oct. 2003
Commander, U.S. Atlantic Fleet and Commander,      Oct. 2003     To Date
 Fleet Forces Command...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Medals and awards:
    Defense Distinguished Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster
    Defense Superior Service Medal
    Legion of Merit with three Gold Stars
    Bronze Star Medal with Combat ``V''
    Meritorious Service Medal with two Gold Stars
    Air Medal with Bronze Numeral ``6'', Gold Star, and Combat ``V''
    Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with one Gold Star, and 
Combat ``V''
    Joint Service Commendation Medal
    Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal
    Joint Meritorious Unit Award
    Navy Unit Commendation with two Bronze Stars
    Meritorious Unit Commendation with one Bronze Star
    Navy ``E'' Ribbon with two Es
    Navy Expeditionary Medal with one Bronze Star
    National Defense Service Medal with one Bronze Star
    Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal with one Bronze Star
    Vietnam Service Medal with two Bronze Stars
    Southwest Asia Service Medal with two Bronze Stars
    Sea Service Deployment Ribbon with one Silver Star
    Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation
    Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device
    Kuwait Liberation Medal with Device (Saudi Arabia)
    Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kuwait)
    NATO Medal

Special qualifications:
    BA (Social Science) Villanova University, 1967
    MA (International Studies) Old Dominion University, 1982
    Graduate of Naval War College, 1978
    Graduate of National War College, 1992
    Designated Naval Flight Officer, 1967
    Designated Joint Specialty Officer, 1995
    Language Qualifications: French (Knowledge)

Personal data:
    Wife: Mary Elizabeth Trapp of Scarsdale, New York
    Children: Susan K. Fallon (Daughter), Born: 1 March 1971
    Barbara L. Fallon (Daughter), Born: 21 November 1973
    William P. Fallon (Son), Born: 31 July 1976
    Christina A. Fallon (Daughter), Born: 4 March 1983

Summary of joint duty assignments:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Assignment                         Dates             Rank
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Commander, Carrier Air Wing EIGHT....          Jan. 91-Apr. 91    Capt.
SACLANT (Assistant Chief of Staff for         Sep. 93-June 1995     RDML
 Plans and Policy)....................
USCINCLANT (Deputy Commander in Chief           Sep. 96-Nov. 97     VADM
 and Chief of Staff)..................
Commander, SECOND Fleet/Commander,              Nov. 97-Oct. 00     VADM
 Striking Fleet Atlantic..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Desert Storm

                                 ______
                                 
    [The Committee on Armed Services requires certain senior 
military officers nominated by the President to positions 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a 
form that details the biographical, financial, and other 
information of the nominee. The form executed by ADM William J. 
Fallon, USN, in connection with his nomination follows:]

                          UNITED STATES SENATE
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              Room SR-228
                       Washington, DC 20510-6050
                             (202) 224-3871
                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
      BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES

    Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If 
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the 
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation 
of your answer applies.
                    Part A--Biographical Information
    Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in 
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for 
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in 
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.

    1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
    William J. Fallon.

    2. Position to which nominated:
    Commander, United States Pacific Command.

    3. Date of nomination:
    January 31, 2005.

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

    5. Date and place of birth:
    December 30, 1944; East Orange, NJ.

    6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
    Married to Mary E. Trapp Fallon.

    7. Names and ages of children:
    Susan K. Fallon, 33.
    Barbara L. Fallon, 31.
    William P. Fallon, 28.
    Christina A. Fallon, 21.

    8. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, honorary 
or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local 
governments, other than those listed in the service record extract 
provided to the committee by the executive branch.
    None.

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

    10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in 
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and 
other organizations.
    American Automobile Association.
    American Meteorological Society.
    Army and Navy Club.
    Association of Naval Aviation.
    Deer Run Condominium Owners Association Board (Big Sky, MT).
    Bishopsgate (Virginia Beach, VA) Civic League.
    Hampton Roads World Affairs Council.
    Knights of Columbus.
    Mercedes Benz Club of America.
    National Geographic Society.
    National War College Alumni Association.
    Navy Federal Credit Union.
    Old Dominion University Alumni Association.
    Smithsonian Institute.
    Our Lady Star of the Sea (Virginia Beach, VA) Catholic School 
Board.
    Tailhook Association.
    U.S. Naval Institute.
    Veterans of Foreign Affairs.
    Villanova University Alumni Association.
    Villanova University Varsity Club.
    Villanova University Wildcat Club.

    11. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, military medals, and any other special 
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements other than those 
listed on the service record extract provided to the committee by the 
executive branch.
    Villanova University Alumni Loyalty Award.
    Old Dominion University Distinguished Alumnus Award.
    Naval War College Distinguished Alumnus Award.
    Camden Catholic High School Distinguished Alumnus Award.

    12. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree, 
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any 
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
    Yes.
    13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly 
constituted committee of Congress, to give your personal views, even if 
those views differ from the administration in power?
    Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-E of the 
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set 
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to 
Parts B-E are contained in the committee's executive files.]
                                ------                                

                           Signature and Date
    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete.
                                                 William J. Fallon.
    This 27th day of January 2005.

    [The nomination of ADM William J. Fallon, USN, was reported 
to the Senate by Chairman Warner on February 17, 2005, with the 
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination 
was confirmed by the Senate on February 17, 2005.]

 
     TO CONSIDER CERTAIN PENDING CIVILIAN AND MILITARY NOMINATIONS

                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2005

                                       U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:49 a.m. in room 
SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner 
(chairman) presiding.
    Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain, Inhofe, 
Sessions, Collins, Ensign, Talent, Chambliss, Graham, Dole, 
Thune, Levin, Kennedy, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Bill Nelson, E. 
Benjamin Nelson, Bayh, and Clinton.
    Committee staff members present: Judith A. Ansley, staff 
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
    Majority staff members present: Charles W. Alsup, 
professional staff member; Ambrose R. Hock, professional staff 
member; Gregory T. Kiley, professional staff member; Thomas L. 
MacKenzie, professional staff member; Elaine A. McCusker, 
professional staff member; Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional 
staff member; Stanley R. O'Connor, Jr., professional staff 
member; Paula J. Philbin, professional staff member; Lynn F. 
Rusten, professional staff member; Robert M. Soofer, 
professional staff member; Scott W. Stucky, general counsel; 
Diana G. Tabler, professional staff member; and Richard F. 
Walsh, counsel.
    Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, 
Democratic staff director; Daniel J. Cox, Jr., professional 
staff member; Evelyn N. Farkas, professional staff member; 
Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member; Creighton 
Greene, professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling, minority 
counsel; Peter K. Levine, minority counsel; Michael J. McCord, 
professional staff member; and William G.P. Monahan, minority 
counsel.
    Staff assistants present: Alison E. Brill, Bridget E. Ward, 
and Nicholas W. West.
    Committee members' assistants present: Cord Sterling, 
assistant to Senator Warner; Christopher J. Paul, assistant to 
Senator McCain; John A. Bonsell, assistant to Senator Inhofe; 
Chris Arnold, assistant to Senator Roberts; Arch Galloway II, 
assistant to Senator Sessions; Mackenzie M. Eaglen, assistant 
to Senator Collins; D'Arcy Grisier, assistant to Senator 
Ensign; Lindsey R. Neas, assistant to Senator Talent; Clyde A. 
Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Meredith Moseley, 
assistant to Senator Graham; Christine O. Hill, assistant to 
Senator Dole; Russell J. Thomasson, assistant to Senator 
Cornyn; Bob Taylor, assistant to Senator Thune; Sharon L. 
Waxman, Mieke Y. Eoyang, and Jarret A. Wright, assistants to 
Senator Kennedy; Terrence E. Sauvain, assistant to Senator 
Byrd; Frederick M. Downey, assisant to Senator Lieberman; 
Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed; Richard Kessler, 
assistant to Senator Akaka; William K. Sutey, assistant to 
Senator Bill Nelson; Eric Pierce, assistant to Senator Ben 
Nelson; Todd Rosenblum, assistant to Senator Bayh; and Andrew 
Shapiro, assistant to Senator Clinton.
    Chairman Warner. A quorum being present, I ask the 
committee to consider one civilian nomination, one flag officer 
nomination, and a list of 2,598 pending military nominations.
    First I ask the committee to consider the nomination of 
Buddie Penn to be the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 
Installations and Environment. His nomination has been before 
the committee the required length of time. No objections have 
been brought to the attention of the chairman or the ranking 
member. Is there a motion to favorably report Mr. Penn's 
nomination to the Senate?
    Senator Levin. So moved.
    Chairman Warner. Second?
    Senator Dole. Second.
    Chairman Warner. All in favor say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    Opposed? [No response.]
    The ayes have it. Mr. Penn's nomination is confirmed by 
this committee and will be reported to the floor.
    Next I ask the committee to consider the nomination of 
Admiral William Fallon, USN, to be Commander, U.S. Pacific 
Command. His nomination has been before the committee the 
required length of time. Is there a motion to favorably report 
Admiral Fallon's nomination to the Senate?
    Senator Levin. So moved.
    Chairman Warner. Second?
    Senator Dole. Second.
    Chairman Warner. Opposed? [No response.]
    All in favor say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    Finally, is there a motion to now consider the list of 
2,598 military nominations?
    Senator Levin. So moved.
    Chairman Warner. Second?
    Senator Dole. Second.
    Chairman Warner. Any opposed? [No response.]
    All in favor say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    Thank you very much.
    [The nomination reference of Buddie J. Penn follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                  January 24, 2005.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    Buddie J. Penn, of Virginia to be an Assistant Secretary of the 
Navy, vice H.T. Johnson.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of ADM William J. Fallon, USN, 
follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                  January 31, 2005.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    The following named officer for appointment in the United States 
Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance 
and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601:

                             To be Admiral

    ADM William J. Fallon, 0304.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The list of nominations considered and approved by the 
committee follows:]
 Military Nominations Pending with the Senate Armed Services Committee 
 which are Proposed for the Committee's Consideration on February 17, 
                                 2005.
    1. Rear Admiral Terrance T. Etnyre, USN to be vice admiral and 
Commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet (Reference No. 14).
    2. In the Army there is one appointment to the grade of Colonel 
(Robert A. Lovett) (Reference No. 15).
    3. In the Army there is one appointment to the grade of Lieutenant 
Colonel (Martin Poffenberger, Jr.) (Reference No. 16).
    4. In the Army there is one appointment to the grade of Lieutenant 
Colonel (Timothy D. Mitchell, Jr.) (Reference No. 17).
    5. In the Army there are three appointments to the grade of 
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with William F. Bither) (Reference No. 
18).
    6. In the Army there is one appointment to the grade of Colonel 
(William R. Laurence, Jr.) (Reference No. 19).
    7. In the Army there are five appointments to the grade of Colonel 
(list begins with Megan K. Mills) (Reference No. 20).
    8. In the Army there are four appointments to the grade of Colonel 
(list begins with Timothy K. Adams) (Reference No. 21).
    9. In the Army Reserve there are two appointments to the grade of 
Colonel (list begins with Joseph W. Burckel) (Reference No. 22).
    10. In the Army Reserve there is one appointment to the grade of 
Colonel (Frank J. Miskena) (Reference No. 23).
    11. In the Army Reserve there are eight appointments to the grade 
of Colonel (list begins with Rosa L. Hollisbird) (Reference No. 24).
    12. In the Army Reserve there are two appointments to the grade of 
Colonel (list begins with Bruce A. Mulkey) (Reference No. 25).
    13. In the Army Reserve there is one appointment to the grade of 
Colonel (Matthew R. Segal) (Reference No. 26).
    14. In the Army Reserve there are two appointments to the grade of 
Colonel (list begins with Casanova C. Ochoa) (Reference No. 27).
    15. In the Army Reserve there are two appointments to the grade of 
Colonel (list begins with Kenneth R. Greene) (Reference No. 28).
    16. In the Army Reserve there are six appointments to the grade of 
Colonel (list begins with James E. Ferrando) (Reference No. 29).
    17. In the Army Reserve there are nine appointments to the grade of 
Colonel (list begins with Billy J. Blankenship) (Reference No. 30).
    18. In the Army Reserve there are nine appointments to the grade of 
Colonel (list begins with Mark E. Coers) (Reference No. 31).
    19. In the Army Reserve there are eight appointments to the grade 
of Colonel (list begins with Jeffery T. Altdorfer) (Reference No. 32).
    20. In the Army Reserve there are four appointments to the grade of 
Colonel (list begins with David C. Barnhill) (Reference No. 33).
    21. In the Army Reserve there is one appointment to the grade of 
Colonel (David B. Enyeart) (Reference No. 34).
    22. In the Army Reserve there is one appointment to the grade of 
Colonel (David A. Greenwood) (Reference No. 35).
    23. In the Army Reserve there is one appointment to the grade of 
Colonel (Sandra W. Dittig) (Reference No. 36).
    24. In the Army Reserve there is one appointment to the grade of 
Colonel (John M. Owings, Jr.) (Reference No. 37).
    25. In the Army Reserve there is one appointment to the grade of 
Colonel (Daniel J. Butler) (Reference No. 38).
    26. In the Army there are 21 appointments to the grade of Colonel 
(list begins with Scott W. Arnold) (Reference No. 42).
    27. In the Army there are 33 appointments to the grade of Colonel 
(list begins with Paul T. Bartone) (Reference No. 44).
    28. In the Army Reserve there are 10 appointments to the grade of 
Colonel (list begins with Cynthia A. Chavez) (Reference No. 45).
    29. In the Army Reserve there are 17 appointments to the grade of 
Colonel (list begins with Francis B. Ausband) (Reference No. 46).
    30. In the Army Reserve there are 34 appointments to the grade of 
Colonel (list begins with Loretta A. Adams) (Reference No. 47).
    31. In the Army Reserve there are 60 appointments to the grade of 
Colonel (list begins with Robert D. Akerson) (Reference No. 48).
    32. In the Army Reserve there are 37 appointments to the grade of 
Colonel (list begins with Priscilla A. Berry) (Reference No. 49).
    33. In the Army Reserve there are 856 appointments to the grade of 
Colonel (list begins with George A. Abbott) (Reference No. 50).
    34. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of 
Lieutenant Colonel (Thomas S. Hoffman) (Reference No. 51).
    35. In the Air Force there are two appointments to the grade of 
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with Herbert L. Allen, Jr.) (Reference 
No. 52).
    36. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of 
Lieutenant Colonel (Leslie G. Macrae) (Reference No. 53).
    37. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of Major 
(Omar Billigue) (Reference No. 54).
    38. In the Air Force there are three appointments to the grade of 
Major (list begins with Corbert K. Ellison) (Reference No. 55).
    39. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of Major 
(Gretchen M. Adams) (Reference No. 56).
    40. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of 
Colonel (Michael D. Shirley) (Reference No. 57).
    41. In the Air Force there are three appointments to the grade of 
Major (Gerald J. Huerta) (Reference No. 58).
    42. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of major 
(Michael F. Lamb) (Reference No. 59).
    43. In the Air Force there are 11 appointments to the grade of 
major (list begins with Dean J. Cutillar) (Reference No. 60).
    44. In the Navy there is one appointment to the grade of Captain 
(Steven P. Davito) (Reference No. 61).
    45. In the Navy there is one appointment to the grade of Commander 
(Edward S. Wagner, Jr.) (Reference No. 62).
    46. In the Navy there are 36 appointments to the grade of 
Lieutenant Commander (list begins with Samuel Adams) (Reference No. 
63).
    47. In the Marine Corps there are 346 appointment to the grade of 
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with Jason G. Adkinson) (Reference No. 
65).
    48. In the Air Force Reserve there are 21 appointments to the grade 
of major general and below (list begins with Mark W. Anderson) 
(Reference No. 124).
    49. Major General Karl W. Eikenberry, USA, to be lieutenant general 
and Commander, Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan (Reference No. 127).
    50. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of 
Colonel (James S. Shaffer) (Reference No. 129).
    51. In the Air Force Reserve there are 207 appointments to the 
grade of Colonel (list begins with Thomas William Acton) (Reference No. 
130).
    52. In the Navy there are 14 appointments to the grade of 
lieutenant commander (list begins with Jason K. Brandt) (Reference No. 
133).
    53. Vice Admiral Robert F. Willard, USN, to be admiral and Vice 
Chief of Naval Operations (Reference No. 134).
    54. Admiral John B. Nathman, USN, to be admiral and Commander, U.S. 
Fleet Forces Command (Reference No. 135).
    55. In the Marine Corps there are 10 appointments to the grade of 
Major General (list begins with BGEN Thomas A. Benes) (Reference No. 
139).
    56. In the Marine Corps there are 12 appointments to the grade of 
Brigadier General (list begins with Col. George J. Allen) (Reference 
No. 140).
    57. In the Air Force there are two appointments to the grade of 
Colonel (list begins with Barbara S. Black) (Reference No. 141).
    58. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of 
Colonel (Glenn T. Lunsford) (Reference No. 142).
    59. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of 
Colonel (Frederick E. Jackson) (Reference No. 143).
    60. In the Air Force there are two appointments to the grade of 
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with Robert G. Pate) (Reference No. 
144).
    61. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of 
Captain (Kelly E. Nation) (Reference No. 145).
    62. In the Air Force Reserve there are seven appointments to the 
grade of Colonel (list begins with Lourdes J. Almonte) (Reference No. 
146).
    63. In the Air Force there are 128 appointments to the grade of 
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with Brian F. Agee) (Reference No. 
147).
    64. In the Air Force there are 63 appointments to the grade of 
Major (list begins with Michelle D. Allenmccoy) (Reference No. 148).
    65. In the Air Force there are 355 appointments to the grade of 
Major (list begins with James R. Abbott) (Reference No. 150).
    66. In the Air Force there are 45 appointments to the grade of 
Colonel (list begins with Joseph B. Anderson) (Reference No. 151).
    67. In the Air Force there are 22 appointments to the grade of 
Colonel (list begins with Jeffery F. Baker) (Reference No. 152).
    68. In the Air Force there are 45 appointments to the grade of 
Major (list begins with Corey R. Anderson) (Reference No. 153).
    69. In the Air Force there are 16 appointments to the grade of 
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with Janice M. Allison) (Reference No. 
154).
    70. In the Army there are 47 appointments to the grade of 
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with Jan E. Aldykiewicz) (Reference No. 
155).
    71. In the Marine Corps there are two appointments to the grade of 
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with Jorge E. Cristobal) (Reference No. 
156).
    72. In the Marine Corps there are two appointments to the grade of 
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with Ronald C. Constance) (Reference 
No. 157).
    73. In the Marine Corps there is one appointment to the grade of 
Lieutenant Colonel (Frederick D. Hyden) (Reference No. 159).
    74. In the Marine Corps there is one appointment to the grade of 
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with Kathy L. Velez) (Reference No. 
160).
    75. In the Marine Corps there is one appointment to the grade of 
Major (John R. Barclay) (Reference No. 161).
    76. In the Marine Corps there are four appointments to the grade of 
Major (list begins with Matthew J. Caffrey) (Reference No. 162).
    77. In the Marine Corps there are five appointments to the grade of 
Major (list begins with Jeff R. Bailey) (Reference No. 163).
    78. In the Marine Corps there are two appointments to the grade of 
Major (list begins with Jacob D. Leighty III) (Reference No. 164).
    79. In the Marine Corps there are four appointments to the grade of 
Major (list begins with Steven M. Dotson) (Reference No. 165).
    80. In the Marine Corps there are eight appointments to the grade 
of Major (list begins with William H. Barlow) (Reference No. 166).
    81. In the Marine Corps there are two appointments to the grade of 
Major (list begins with Andrew E. Gepp) (Reference No. 167).
    82. In the Marine Corps there are five appointments to the grade of 
Major (list begins with William A. Burwell) (Reference No. 168).
    83. In the Marine Corps there are five appointments to the grade of 
Major (list begins with Kenrick G. Fowler) (Reference No. 169).
    84. In the Marine Corps there are two appointments to the grade of 
Major (list begins with James P. Miller, Jr.) (Reference No. 170).
    85. In the Marine Corps there is one appointment to the grade of 
Major (David G. Boone) (Reference No. 171).
    86. In the Marine Corps there is one appointment to the grade of 
Major (Michael A. Lujan) (Reference No. 172).
    87. In the Marine Corps there are two appointments to the grade of 
Major (list begins with Michael A. Mink) (Reference No. 173).
    88. In the Air Force Reserve there is one appointments to the grade 
of Colonel (Eloise M. Fuller) (Reference No. 175).
    89. In the Marine Corps there are two appointments to the grade of 
Lieutenant Colonel (list begins with John T. Curran) (Reference No. 
176).
    Total: 2,598.

    [Whereupon, at 9:51 a.m., the nomination hearing adjourned 
and the committee proceeded to other business.

 
 NOMINATION OF HON. ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI TO BE A MEMBER OF THE DEFENSE 
                BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMISSION

                              ----------                              


                        TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2005

                                       U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:48 p.m. in room 
SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner 
(chairman) presiding.
    Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain, Inhofe, 
Dole, Cornyn, Thune, Kennedy, Lieberman, Akaka, E. Benjamin 
Nelson, and Clinton.
    Committee staff members present: Judith A. Ansley, staff 
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
    Majority staff members present: Gregory T. Kiley, 
professional staff member; Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional 
staff member; Scott W. Stucky, general counsel; Diana G. 
Tabler, professional staff member; and Richard F. Walsh, 
counsel.
    Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, 
Democratic staff director; Michael J. Kuiken, professional 
staff member; Peter K. Levine, minority counsel; and Michael 
McCord, professional staff member.
    Staff assistant present: Nicholas W. West.
    Committee members' assistants present: Cord Sterling, 
assistant to Senator Warner; John A. Bonsell, assistant to 
Senator Inhofe; Arch Galloway II, assistant to Senator 
Sessions; Mackenzie M. Eaglen, assistant to Senator Collins; 
Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Christine 
O. Hill, assistant to Senator Dole; Russell J. Thomasson, 
assistant to Senator Cornyn; Bob Taylor and Matt Zabel, 
assistants to Senator Thune; Mieke Y. Eoyang, assistant to 
Senator Kennedy; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to Senator 
Lieberman; Darcie Tokioka, assistant to Senator Akaka; William 
K. Sutey, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; and Eric Pierce, 
assistant to Senator Ben Nelson.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN

    Chairman Warner. The committee meets this afternoon to 
consider the nomination of the Honorable Anthony J. Principi to 
be a member of the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
Commission. If confirmed, Mr. Principi will be the President's 
choice to chair this very important commission.
    We congratulate you on your nomination and I note today the 
President announced the remaining eight individuals to complete 
the membership of the commission. The President has moved 
timely on this because we have a very strict time line. It is 
the intention of this Senator and I think all Senators to 
adhere to that time line.
    It is a great pleasure to welcome you back before this 
committee, which was once your home away from home for many 
years as a senior member of our staff, as you prepare to embark 
on yet another opportunity in public service. You have an 
impressive legacy of service to our Nation, ranging from your 
appointment to the United States Naval Academy, followed by 10 
years of military service as a combat decorated naval officer, 
with a tour in Vietnam, followed by years of service on this 
committee, as I said, and on the Committee on Veterans Affairs, 
and culminating in your recent outstanding service to the men 
and women of the Armed Forces and their families as Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs (VA).
    I want to thank you, Mr. Principi, and I thank your family, 
who I understand could not be here today, but their hearts are 
with us. I hope they are, because you have a tough job ahead. 
You better have that support, Mister, or you have a problem.
    I think I will just put the balance of this very well 
prepared statement in the record. It all reads just about like 
the first page.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]

               Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner

    The Armed Services Committee meets this afternoon to consider the 
nomination of the Honorable Anthony J. Principi to be a member of the 
2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission. If 
confirmed, Mr. Principi will be the President's choice to chair the 
Commission. We congratulate you on your nomination. I note that today, 
the President has announced the remaining eight individuals to complete 
the BRAC Commission.
    Mr. Principi, it is a distinct pleasure to welcome you back before 
this committee as you prepare to embark on yet another opportunity of 
public service. You have an impressive legacy of service to our Nation, 
ranging from your appointment to the United States Naval Academy, 
followed by 10 years of military service as a combat decorated Naval 
officer with a tour in Vietnam, followed by years of service on this 
committee and the Senate Committee on Veteran's Affairs, and 
culminating in your recent outstanding service as Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs for the past 4 years. I want to sincerely thank you for taking 
on this most difficult, yet important assignment.
    If confirmed as a BRAC Commissioner and chosen by the President to 
be the chairman, your greatest challenge over the next 6 months will be 
to ensure that the selection of bases for realignment, closure, or in 
some cases privatization, is as open and fair as possible. The effected 
communities deserve to have every consideration reviewed and assessed 
by the Commission prior to any final decisions. The most important task 
of the Commission will be to preserve the integrity of the process, so 
that in the end, while decisions may be unpopular, all can be assured 
that the decision-making process was clear, consistent, and untainted 
by outside influence.
    You and your fellow commissioners will determine whether the 
Secretary of Defense's recommendations are consistent with the force 
structure plan the Secretary has proposed, as well as the selection 
criteria set forth by Congress last year. The criteria establishes the 
priority of ``military value'' as the most important factor in 
determining the contributions of military bases to our Nation's 
defense. I ask that you ensure the consistent and even-handed 
application of the criteria to the Secretary's BRAC recommendations. I 
also ask that, in your analysis of the bases needed to support our 
military forces, you carefully consider--and apply--the force structure 
and major force unit requirements for the next 20 years as proposed in 
the report by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    I have long been a supporter of the BRAC process and have led, in 
the face of considerable opposition, the efforts in the Senate to 
establish and preserve the 2005 round. Congress adopted a BRAC process 
that is intended to be fair, transparent, and objective. We have 
enhanced the law guiding the process to remove as much politics as we 
possibly can from the final decisions. However, the recommendations of 
the Department of Defense and your Commission must be supported by 
careful and thoughtful analysis of our national security requirements 
so as to ensure that the integrity of the process cannot be called into 
question. You face a formidable task to complete the work of the 
Commission and to deliver your recommendations to the President by 
September 8, 2005. I have confidence and trust in your ability to carry 
out this critical responsibility with the same degree of dedication and 
commitment you have demonstrated in your many years of public service. 
I know you are ready for the challenge and that your efforts will be in 
the best interests of our Nation.

    Senator Inhofe. Well, I want to hear it all. [Laughter.]
    Chairman Warner. I also place the opening statement of 
Senator Collins in the record.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Collins follows:]

             Prepared Statement by Senator Susan M. Collins

    I am pleased to welcome Mr. Principi to testify before this 
committee and would like to praise his vast accomplishments during his 
4-year tenure as Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Fighting for our 
country's veterans is an honorable cause and I am thankful for his 
dedication.
    Given the importance of today's topic on the upcoming Base 
Realignment and Closure (BRAC), I would like to take this opportunity 
to highlight the extraordinary contributions made by the State of Maine 
to our Nation's defense. Although Maine occupies a far corner of our 
Nation's territory, it is a corner that serves as the principle gateway 
to our Nation's largest and most densely populated metropolitan areas, 
a region of over 22 million people. Military installations in Maine 
defend land, sea, and air approaches into New England and the Mid-
Atlantic regions. Our strategic location, valuable infrastructure, and 
highly-skilled and experienced workforce are models for the rest of the 
Nation.
    The Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station in Cutler, Maine 
transmits a command and control broadcast, which is the backbone of the 
submarine broadcast system for the entire Atlantic fleet. The Air 
National Guard Base at Bangor is home to the 101st Air Refueling Wing 
whose mission is to provide refueling, airlift, and mobility missions 
in support of our Nation's defense needs in the Northeast and across 
the North Atlantic. The base at Bangor also supports the deployment and 
redeployment of many servicemembers overseas fighting in Operations 
Enduring and Iraqi Freedom.
    Brunswick Naval Air Station is the only military facility capable 
of providing aerial surveillance and interdiction on the U.S. northeast 
coast and maritime approaches, a capability that is absolutely 
essential for effective homeland security and homeland defense. 
Brunswick is the home of four active and two Reserve P-3 squadrons. P-
3s from Brunswick supported Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and, more 
recently, tsunami relief efforts in southeast Asia. Brunswick is the 
only fully capable and operational Active-Duty airfield remaining in 
the northeastern United States.
    Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, also provides 
essential and irreplaceable services and manpower for our Nation's 
defense needs. It is the only naval shipyard with a full spectrum of 
nuclear and diesel submarine maintenance experience, including reactor 
servicing, overhaul, modernization, testing and other emergency repair. 
Another shipyard hallmark is its impressive performance record, leading 
the Nation in timely and cost-effective submarine overhaul, 
modernization, and repair. The facility also home-ports three Coast 
Guard cutters, expanding its homeland security role.
    Finally, I would like to commend the fine contributions of Maine's 
men and women in uniform. I have had the great honor to meet with Maine 
servicemen and women before their deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
while stationed overseas, and, most happily, when they return home. 
From the 112th Medical Company to the 136th Transportation Company, 
from the 304th Regiment currently training the Iraqi military with 25 
Mainers participating to the recently returned 619th Transportation 
Company and the 133rd Engineering Battalion, these brave troops have 
shown the highest standards of service to our Nation. The exemplary 
work and dedication to service continues as the 152nd Maintenance 
Company, based in Augusta with an attachment in Bangor, is currently 
awaiting deployment orders to Iraq.
    Maine's military installations enjoy a proud history of supporting 
our Nation's defense. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is the oldest naval 
shipyard continuously operated by the U.S. Government. Public 
institutions such as the Maine Military Academy in Castine continue to 
train young men and women for professions in the Armed Forces. Our 
proud heritage continues through today and into the future with a 
legacy of the finest service, sharpest innovation and strongest 
dedication our Nation has to offer. With today's shifting priorities 
and demands, Maine's location, experience, and ongoing contributions 
remain essential in ensuring that our defense and homeland security 
requirements are fulfilled and the most significant task of defending 
our homeland is achieved.

    Chairman Warner. Senator Lieberman.
    Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in 
greeting Secretary Principi and thanking him for his long-term 
service to our country and his willingness to take on this 
latest assignment.
    I looked over your bio and I was reminded that you were 
born in New York, and it struck me that the famous song will 
guide you and give us confidence here: ``If you can make it 
there, you can make it anywhere,'' including in the Base 
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process.
    I want to just say a few words of welcome and thanks for 
agreeing to serve our country in this very important and 
challenging assignment. Given the strain on our national 
defense budget with the cost of the global war on terror and 
the need to ensure our forces have the best, most modern 
equipment available, it is important that we spend our defense 
dollars wisely. BRAC offers an opportunity to generate some 
savings so that we have the money available to fight and win 
the global war on terror and so that our service men and women 
remain the best equipped and best trained military in the 
world.
    But when we look at bases to find those savings, it is 
important that we carefully weigh all the relevant issues 
surrounding those military facilities. We must be sure to 
arrive at the right long-term decisions that leave our country 
strong, including the protection of our defense base, the 
special concern that we have heard before this committee 
expressed, specifically in response to a question the chairman 
asked about concern about concentration of facilities 
geographically, where you put many assets in one place and 
therefore they are more vulnerable to the possibility of 
attack.
    I will say that I was very encouraged by the answers you 
provided to the committee in response to the written questions, 
which suggested you are intent in this position in looking at 
some of the broader questions: first, military value of course; 
but second, other questions like impact on the communities 
surrounding the bases.
    The bottom line, we have to be sure that our country 
remains strong. I know I do not have to tell you this after 
your extraordinary service in the military, but also to 
America's service men and women and veterans: They have to have 
the backup, the structure, they need to continue to excel. We 
have to make sure that we do not inadvertently through this 
BRAC process complicate their mission or increase the risk to 
them.
    Bottom line, you are a good man and I am very grateful that 
you are willing to take on this assignment.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you.
    Are there other colleagues desiring to make a few opening 
remarks? Senator McCain.
    Senator McCain. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have known Mr. 
Principi for many years and worked with him in many ways and he 
is totally unqualified for the position. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Principi. May I leave now?
    Senator McCain. Should I ask for unanimous consent----
    Chairman Warner. To correct the record? I deny that 
unanimous consent. Let the record stand. [Laughter.]
    Senator McCain. I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, that Tony 
Principi is going to bear these responsibilities. He has 
experience and knowledge in a broad variety of areas and I am 
very pleased.
    Chairman Warner. I share that sentiment, Senator.
    Yes, Senator Kennedy.
    Senator Kennedy. Just quickly, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
it. I saw Mr. Principi yesterday outside of the office building 
looking for a ride. I dare say that probably if every Member of 
the Senate knew he was out there, they would have gone back and 
given you a ride to just about wherever you want to go. 
[Laughter.]
    In any event, I just want to join in the welcome. We have 
had, as I am sure others have, the challenges of the VA health 
issues. You were enormously forthcoming in terms of the 
meetings, in giving consideration to people's views, extremely 
patient, extraordinarily tolerant, and showed a lot of good 
common sense and judgment. There were some extraordinarily 
tough issues there, as there are here.
    So we welcome you to this position. I will say, just very 
briefly, I think all of us understand, to have the best 
military, you need the best-trained, best-led men and women in 
the world with the best technology. The technology for the 
Services and the development of that technology is, as you well 
know, a combination of the best in terms of research in the 
military working with the private sector, I think in 
association with university-based and with well-trained and 
highly-skilled individuals. Those are some centers around the 
country that play a very important role. I know you are going 
to be looking at these and be making some judgments on it, and 
we certainly look forward to your deliberations on many of 
those up our way.
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
    Other colleagues?
    Senator Inhofe. I do not want to be left out, I guess. It 
does not seem like it was 3\1/2\ years ago that you went with 
me to dedicate the memorial cemetery down at Eglin Air Force 
Base. I have always appreciated working with you and working 
very closely with you, and I will be looking forward to doing 
that in the future.
    Mr. Principi. Thank you, Senator.
    Chairman Warner. Others? Yes, the distinguished Senator 
from North Carolina.
    Senator Dole. Secretary Principi, I want to take this 
opportunity to congratulate you on the nomination as chairman 
of the 2005 BRAC commission. The President has not only 
selected as chairman a person of unquestioned integrity, but an 
individual with a wealth of experience, extensive military 
experience, experience on this committee during a previous BRAC 
round, and experience transforming Veterans Affairs' medical 
infrastructure to keep pace with medical innovations and 
changing demands.
    The magnitude of the job ahead of you is extraordinary. I 
have been extremely supportive of the Department of Defense 
(DOD) in its effort to increase efficiency and streamline 
operations. With our current world commitments, we must do 
everything possible to ensure that no taxpayer dollars are 
wasted and that every resource and installation is essentially 
dedicated to keeping our military men and women safe and 
effective. This BRAC round must be, more than anything, 
untarnished by political influence.
    That being said, North Carolina supports a unique military 
infrastructure in that all of our military installations and 
training ranges are located in the eastern part of the State, 
creating an unrivaled region of military value. The strong 
joint mission ties between Seymour Johnson and Pope Air Force 
Bases, Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune, and Marine Corps Air Station 
Cherry Point, to include the naval depot, are only a hint of 
the possibilities that exist for expansion, not closure.
    Secretary Principi, again congratulations and I look 
forward to hearing your testimony today.
    Mr. Principi. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. Well spoken.
    I see the Senator from Texas.
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the 
opportunity to make a few opening remarks.
    It is good to see you, Mr. Secretary. Like others on this 
committee, I have had the chance in my short time in the Senate 
to work with Secretary Principi on a number of matters, and I 
cannot imagine a better choice to chair the BRAC commission 
than Secretary Principi. I, like Senator Kennedy, had 
experience with him, and others here no doubt, working through 
the veterans hospitals issues through the Capital Asset 
Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) Commission, and I 
found him to have exactly the kind of temperament, including 
the patience and sensitivity to community issues, that are so 
important to dealing with what is necessarily a painful 
process.
    No doubt with BRAC, we will see similar pain experienced in 
some places. I, like others, look at this reluctantly, but with 
a sense of resignation of the necessity of it, because we want 
to make sure that our military continues to be the best 
equipped, best trained, most professional fighting force on the 
planet, and we do not want to have the taxpayers burdened with 
unnecessary infrastructure.
    So thank you very much for your willingness to take it on. 
I appreciate your service very much.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Thune.
    Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I also want to say welcome to Secretary Principi. It is 
nice to have you with us. I thank you for your great service to 
our country in the military and then as Secretary of the VA. I 
had the opportunity to work with you and you put up an 
exemplary record as the Secretary there. We did some great 
things, I think, in terms of quality of service to our veteran 
community and we appreciate the great work that you did there 
and we look forward to having your involvement with this 
important process.
    I would also say that one of the qualities I think that you 
bring to this is that you are a fair-minded person. I know that 
any fair-minded person will see the value of Ellsworth Air 
Force Base in South Dakota. I am just following up on Senator 
Dole here.
    But that being said, you mentioned in response to one of 
the questions that was submitted to you, that you wanted to 
ensure that communities and people impacted by the BRAC process 
have an opportunity to be heard. You had also mentioned, I 
think, to the extent possible that you would like to visit some 
of these places. I would certainly like to extend an invitation 
for you to come to South Dakota and to visit Ellsworth Air 
Force Base and to see the great work that the men and women who 
serve our country are doing there, and also the tremendous 
relationship that that base has with the community of Rapid 
City.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
    Senator Akaka.
    Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to add 
my welcome to Mr. Principi on his nomination to be a member of 
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.
    I have so many good things to tell you, but I welcome you 
here. I also want to tell you that we are expecting the 
commission to be open, to be transparent, and to follow the 
laws. For me, there is no question that you are the man to 
ensure that. I am here to tell you that you have my support on 
your nomination and confirmation to this position.
    Thank you very much.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
    In accordance with all our procedures on advice and consent 
in this committee, the chair will now propound to you a series 
of questions. First, have you adhered to applicable laws and 
regulations governing conflicts of interest?
    Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken 
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the 
confirmation process?
    Mr. Principi. No, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Will you ensure that your staff comply 
with the deadlines established for requested communications, 
including questions for the record in the hearings?
    Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses 
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
    Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from 
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
    Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree if confirmed to appear and 
testify upon request before this committee?
    Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree to give your personal views 
when asked by this committee?
    Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Even if those views might differ from the 
mission on which you are empowered at the request of the 
President and in contradiction possibly of the administration's 
viewpoint?
    Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents, 
including copies of electronic forms of communication, in a 
timely manner when requested by a duly constituted committee of 
Congress or to consult with the committee regarding the basis 
for any good faith delay or denial in producing such documents?
    Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Levin and I were together here 
early this afternoon. He had to go to the Intelligence 
Committee. He asked that I convey his strong support for your 
nomination and regret that he could not be here.
    The chair also notes the presence in the hearing room of 
Charles Battaglia. I was privileged to be on the Intelligence 
Committee when you were one of our most valued staff members 
and to work with you while you were Staff Director of the 
Veterans Committee. So we welcome you today. Thank you.
    Do you have a prepared statement by way of opening remarks?
    Mr. Principi. Just a brief oral statement, Mr. Chairman. 
Shall I begin?
    Chairman Warner. Yes, of course.

  STATEMENT OF ANTHONY JOSEPH PRINCIPI, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 
        DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMISSION

    Mr. Principi. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: I 
thank you. It is a pleasure to appear before you and it is 
certainly a pleasure to be back in the hearing room where I 
feel I grew up professionally on Capitol Hill. I also thank 
you, Mr. Chairman and members, for expediting my confirmation 
hearing so that if I am confirmed I will have the opportunity 
to begin to build staff and put together the organizational 
structure to meet our enormous responsibilities.
    In preparation for today's hearing, I read the hearing 
transcript of Senator Dixon's confirmation hearing to be the 
chairman of the 1995 BRAC Commission, and I noted that many of 
his former colleagues on the committee questioned his mental 
stability on taking on this responsibility. I must confess that 
I had similar thoughts about myself over the past month.
    But in all honesty, it is a great honor to have been 
nominated by the President to serve on the commission and, if 
confirmed, to be the chairman, because it is so critically 
important to our national security, as painful and as difficult 
as our work will be. It is critically important because I 
believe that resources that are spent inefficiently are 
resources that will not be available to maximize our 
operational readiness and capabilities, will not be available 
to modernize our Armed Forces, and certainly would not be 
available to improve the quality of life for the men and women 
in uniform.
    So I take this responsibility very seriously and will 
ensure that our commission carefully reviews the 
recommendations of Secretary Rumsfeld to ensure that they 
conform to the force structure plan and the selection criteria 
that must be used in making determinations as to which bases 
should be closed and/or realigned.
    Second, national security and military value is a priority 
in the law and we will certainly treat it that way. I will be 
mindful of the other selection criteria in the law with regard 
to return on investment, economic impact, community 
infrastructure, as well as environmental considerations. As 
some of you have indicated, as Secretary of Veterans Affairs I 
faced very similar type challenges in attempting to transform 
the VA health care system that had a legacy infrastructure, an 
aging infrastructure, to the modern technologies and delivery 
mechanisms in medical care. In doing so, I visited many of the 
communities that would be impacted by those decisions and 
learned firsthand about the economic impact, and certainly will 
keep those factors in mind as we deliberate. But of course, 
national security will be our highest priority.
    In closing, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, let me 
just say that I commit to you that there are certain principles 
that I will adhere to: that this commission will be 
independent, it will be fair, it will be open. We will have, of 
course, our hearings in Washington. We will have regional 
hearings. Commissioners will visit military installations 
impacted by the recommendations so that we can hear from State 
and local officials and the people in the community. This 
commission will be bipartisan. I believe that if we politicize 
this process we will only increase the level of cynicism around 
the country and really doom it to failure.
    I intend to fully comply with both the intent and the 
spirit of the BRAC law as amended to include this 2005 round. I 
commit to you there will be no ex parte communications, that we 
will work collaboratively, that I will seek all and any 
information I need from the Department of Defense to make the 
right decisions, and I have been assured that that information 
will be forthcoming if requested, and we will certainly share 
that with the Hill.
    We will work very hard, Mr. Chairman, members of the 
committee, to do the right thing for our national security and 
for our men and women in uniform.
    Thank you very much.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
    I am going to allocate part of my time to Senator McCain. 
He has to depart. Senator, go ahead.
    Senator McCain. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. No, you go right ahead.
    Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Principi, I 
would like to talk with you about this issue of environmental 
cleanup. Many opponents of BRAC have said that we have 
experienced unexpected costs associated with environmental 
cleanups when we close the bases. I understand that, but is it 
not also true that they would have to be cleaned up at some 
time?
    I mean, the logic seems to be that if we just ignore the 
problem it is not going to cost us any money. In some cases the 
problem gets worse if the environment is not cleaned up. So can 
you tell me how that factors into the decisionmaking process, 
the fact that you may come across some very significant costs 
at one base or another that would be associated with 
environmental cleanup?
    Mr. Principi. Yes, Senator McCain. Clearly it is one of the 
criteria that the Secretary of Defense and the commission has 
to review in making its determination. Again, national security 
has priority, but it is one of the other factors that we need 
to look at. In doing so, we are required to look at the cost of 
restoration, waste management, and contamination. We will do 
that, but I agree with you that these bases do need to be 
cleaned up in any event.
    There are perhaps ways to work with the community to 
address those issues. Parts that are contaminated obviously 
should not be transferred, but other parts that are clean can 
be leased to the private community. So I think it is a 
partnership between DOD and the community to find some common 
ground as to how that can be accomplished.
    Senator McCain. Well, again it bothers me a little bit that 
if you find some place that really is badly in need of 
addressing an environmental problem, we will not close the base 
and we will just leave it alone. That does not make any sense 
to me, quite frankly. In fact, you might be able to make an 
argument that we should address environmental problems when we 
find them because of the hazard that they pose to the health of 
the community.
    Mr. Principi. I agree.
    Senator McCain. Again, I hope that the commission will take 
into consideration both short-term and long-term aspects of 
that. But I would argue that the overwhelming criteria, as you 
stated, is our national security. There may be some close 
calls, but national security is obviously most important. Does 
it matter, the relations between the local community and the 
base?
    Mr. Principi. I am sorry, sir? The relationship between the 
local community and the base?
    Senator McCain. Yes.
    Mr. Principi. Again, that is a factor that we need to look 
at, the economic impact. We need to look to see that both 
current and potential receiving locations have the 
infrastructure to accommodate the increased force structure 
that may be at that facility. So I do think that the 
relationship needs to be assessed.
    But again, it is one of those other criteria that is 
secondary to our national security. But I think we need to look 
at it.
    Senator McCain. I thank you and I wish you every success. 
As one of those who has believed that this was absolutely 
necessary as defense dollars become scarcer and scarcer, I am 
sure you will do an outstanding job, you and the other members 
of the commission.
    I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator McCain.
    I will defer the chair's questions until the end to 
accommodate my members. Mrs. Dole, you were the first one here.
    Senator Dole.
    Senator Dole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Principi, how will you factor in transformational 
plans into your review process--Army transformation, Marine 
Corps restructuring, Guard and Reserve rebalancing? All of 
these initiatives could dramatically affect future force 
structure and infrastructure requirements. I wonder how you 
factor those in and, given the rigid timetable, how do you 
intend to adequately analyze criteria that is only now 
beginning to take shape?
    Mr. Principi. Well, it is going to be a difficult 
challenge, Senator. But it is one of the things that we are 
required to do. Certainly the Secretary of Defense in his 
report to the commission is required to take those into 
consideration and has indicated that that restructuring, that 
transformation, will be part of the BRAC process. So it is 
going to be part of the work we are going to have to do.
    We just have to have the data and the information upon 
which we can do our analytical review to make sure that it has 
been taken into consideration.
    But the time lines are very tight. We get the report from 
the Secretary in mid-May and we have to submit a report to the 
President in September. That is a very tight time line. But we 
are going to assemble an appropriate professional staff that I 
am sure we will have confidence in.
    Senator Dole. In previous BRAC rounds the individual 
Services had direct input into what installations were 
considered excess or of reduced military value. This year the 
base closure decisions are being made by the Department of 
Defense through cross-service steering groups, I understand, 
and executive councils. Do you think this approach will 
complicate the commission's review?
    Mr. Principi. Very possibly, Senator. I really do not know 
at this point. It may require some changes in how we are 
organized. In past BRAC rounds the staff were organized along 
service lines. This year the staff may have to be organized 
along functional lines, similar type categories. We are going 
to have to take a look at that.
    But clearly, the joint cross-service groups are playing a 
critical role in the deliberations and the resulting list of 
base closures and realignments that will come to us.
    Senator Dole. One further question. How do you intend to 
factor overseas realignments into the commission's 
decisionmaking process? Will you be interfacing with the 
overseas basing commission? I think they are due to report in 
August. If so, how?
    Mr. Principi. Certainly that is one of the special 
considerations that is contained in the statute, that the 
Secretary of Defense must take into consideration the need for 
and the availability of overseas bases. That needs to be part 
of his deliberations and will come to us. So certainly we will 
take a look at that, and certainly to the degree we can in the 
time limits that we have try to get an assessment from that 
overseas base commission.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Senator Dole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Lieberman.
    Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Again, thank you, Mr. Principi, for your willingness to 
serve. In my opening statement I referred to an exchange that 
occurred when the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Admiral 
Clark, appeared before this committee in which he expressed his 
discomfort about the overcentralization of facilities. He 
particularly made reference to that with regard to naval ports. 
He said he was worried, in the classic phrase, about having our 
eggs all in one basket in a way that would make the fleet 
vulnerable to a number of scenarios, including a terrorist 
incident or even a natural disaster.
    I agree, myself, and I wanted to ask you whether you will 
take steps to guide the commission in a way that will ensure 
the need for efficiency through fewer bases is balanced against 
the need from a national security point of view to maintain 
dispersed bases and ports so that our forces do not become 
single-threated and vulnerable?
    Mr. Principi. Senator, our responsibility and the purview 
of our commission is to ensure that the requirements that are 
set out in the law that the Secretary of Defense has to follow 
with regard to force structure plan and inventory of bases, as 
well as the selection criteria, are followed and that, if he 
should substantially deviate from those requirements, then of 
course we reject, change, or perhaps add bases to the list.
    To the degree that centralization or decentralization 
becomes an issue before the commission, we certainly will 
review it very carefully.
    Senator Lieberman. I appreciate that answer. I know that 
you said earlier that military value, and I agree of course, is 
the number one consideration. But there are other 
considerations beyond that and I wonder if you would state some 
of those that you think ought to be considered in the decision 
you would make?
    Mr. Principi. Well, I think there are four considerations 
that are very important. They are set out in the statute. The 
first being what I call the return on investment, looking at 
the extent and the time line for the net savings and the costs 
of the realignment and closures.
    I think second, very importantly, as part of this secondary 
level of criteria is the economic impact on the community. 
There will be an impact, both social and economic, in the short 
term and we need to review that.
    Third, do the current and potential receiving stations, the 
communities, have the infrastructure to support the forces at 
that installation. That becomes another factor that we need to 
consider.
    Then finally, as Senator McCain talked about, is the 
environmental issues, the cost and consideration of those.
    So yes, they are very important. We will do so, but of 
course national security has to be our highest priority.
    Senator Lieberman. I agree with you. I thank you for 
mentioning those. I would add, though it is not on the list, 
just from a matter of evaluating the return for considering 
closing of a base, the investments that have been made, 
particularly in recent times. The Department of Defense has 
been very aggressive in recent years, fortunately, in trying to 
build up, for instance, housing for service people.
    A lot of it has come to a position where it is really at a 
level we would like it to be. I hope that you will find a way 
to consider what might be called recent investments in 
infrastructure, which it would seem to be a shame to negate by 
closing a facility.
    Mr. Principi. We certainly will. I think that a very 
important component of our work, is to take a look at the model 
that the Department of Defense will use with regard to the 
costing, both short-term and long-term, and to make sure that 
the figures, to the best of our ability, that the figures, the 
savings, and the costs are accurate. It can be a very important 
point.
    Senator Lieberman. Thank you very much. I look forward to 
working with you. I know we are going to have a chance to talk 
tomorrow one-on-one and I welcome that opportunity. Thank you 
very much for being willing to serve.
    Mr. Principi. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Lieberman. All the best.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Lieberman, for joining 
us at this hearing. It is very important.
    Senator Thune.
    Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Again, Secretary Principi, thank you for your willingness 
to do this job. A couple of questions following up on what 
Senator Lieberman asked and Senator McCain's question earlier. 
My question has to do with the process by which you evaluate 
DOD's evaluated potential community impact. The question is 
will you evaluate the process the Department uses to determine 
potential community impact before it submits its closure list 
to your commission? In other words, having the site visits, the 
regional hearings, and meetings with local community leaders 
after the base has been selected for closure is one thing, but 
once a base is on the list it may be too little, too late.
    So I guess my question is, is that something that you would 
give consideration to and look at before the list is submitted?
    Mr. Principi. I do not think that would be possible, 
Senator Thune. I think we need to wait until we receive that 
list on May 16 and then very carefully and comprehensively 
analyze the data that has been provided. The Secretary of 
Defense needs to take a look at all of these criteria. They 
need to be the basis, along with the force structure plan, for 
his decisions. Then once we get that information, then we will 
begin, of course, the second round of hearings and site visits 
to determine whether he has deviated substantially from what 
you set out in the law.
    Senator Thune. You noted earlier that the law does say that 
economic impact on the local community is one of the criteria 
that the Secretary of Defense must consider. You had indicated 
in your written response to the committee that commissioners 
would, to the extent possible, visit those impacted bases. As I 
said earlier, I would love to have you come prior to any 
decisions. I think after a decision has been made about that it 
is too late.
    But the follow-up question to my earlier question has to do 
with following the receipt of the Secretary's recommended 
closure list, if the commission found that DOD and the Services 
had failed to adequately consider community impact for a base 
on that list, given that the law says that that is something 
they have to look at, would that constitute a deviation from 
the final criteria to warrant the commission overturning a 
decision or a recommendation that is made by the Secretary?
    Mr. Principi. It is hard to say, Senator. I can assure you 
if they did not adequately or accurately assess the economic 
impact that certainly would mitigate, if you will, perhaps some 
of the military value. Whether it would be adequate to overturn 
it or not, I do not know. I think the standard that we must use 
by law is, did the Secretary of Defense deviate substantially 
from those criteria that you just mentioned, one being economic 
impact, or the force structure plan, the 20-year assessment 
based upon probable threats to the country.
    If we find one or the other of those, then certainly it is 
open to question whether that base should be on the list. But 
there are other considerations, being national security, and it 
might outweigh the economic impact issue. But we would look at 
it very carefully.
    Senator Thune. I appreciate the answer to that and would 
simply say again that I know you have to weigh these issues. 
National security clearly is the priority in this, but the law 
also says there are these other issues. That is one that in my 
judgment is very important.
    I would also add what Senator Lieberman mentioned about 
looking at the investment, the recent investment in 
infrastructure, because there are a number of bases where we 
have expended in military construction (MILCON) projects in the 
past few years a lot of money improving facilities and 
everything else, and I think that is also a factor. It may not 
be enumerated in the law, but it is something I would hope you 
would take into consideration.
    But the economic impact criteria is obviously something I 
think that would weigh heavily close behind, obviously first 
and foremost being national security.
    Mr. Principi. I fully expect that the Secretary of Defense 
and the Department of Defense have taken those into 
consideration in making their recommendations. It is our job to 
be that independent check to make sure that has been done.
    Senator Thune. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. I thank the Senator from South Dakota.
    Senator Ben Nelson.
    Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, congratulations on your nomination to this 
important and challenging assignment. I did not think you could 
top what you just finished for difficulty, but you may have 
found a way. But I think, based on our experience while serving 
on the Veterans Affairs Committee, I know that you have the 
capacity to do this, and I think the President has made an 
excellent choice.
    As you may know, I did not support the most recent BRAC 
round. I know every system has inefficiencies and redundancies 
and so it has not been a question in my mind as to whether or 
not perhaps we ought to do it, but I always felt we had the 
process backwards. That we were not determining what 
transformation would be, where that would take us, what end 
strength would be, and how we were going to reconstitute our 
military operations, that once we did that then I thought we 
could probably decide where we were going to house them. I 
could not quite grasp that the system was reversed. We decide 
primarily what bases we need versus what military we needed.
    But in any event, I guess I would say that I was hopeful we 
would find a peaceful time. I know we are at war, but does it 
make any difference in your mind whether we are at war or at 
peace when we try to make these decisions and take into 
consideration what our needs are versus what they may become?
    Mr. Principi. No, Senator, I do not. Of course it is always 
a little bit more challenging and difficult in times of war. 
But I think it is so terribly critical to our national security 
that the dollars we spend are spent indeed to maximize our 
readiness, our capabilities, and our modernization. Those are 
issues that are very important in times of war. If we are 
spending money on excess capacity, we are diverting scarce 
resources to ensuring that we have that capability.
    So I think it is equally important, sir, in both peace and 
war. But obviously, during war it becomes a little bit more 
difficult.
    Senator Ben Nelson. We are having enough trouble 
determining end strength. Transformation is a major challenge. 
Is this something that we can undertake in the midst of these 
changes as well? What I am trying to find out is whether we 
have the system backwards or not. It would seem to me that we 
would have to know what we want our military to be, then we 
could work toward where they are located, that is a secondary 
issue, albeit totally important when it comes to the dollars 
and spending them wisely for sure.
    But I heard your answer. I still raise the question, not so 
much because I have not heard your answer. I am very concerned 
that we have chosen this format and we are going to stick with 
it, rather than--I wanted to call it base closing and 
realignment, BRAC, but I did not like the word ``closing.'' I 
mean, I do not know why we start off with almost a presumption 
that something is going to close before we have gone through 
the process of analysis. But I think I even tried to get that 
as a friendly amendment. It was not accepted in a friendly way, 
so I did not succeed.
    But I think if you see my point, I am not looking for an 
answer so much as I am just wanting to give you my thoughts. As 
you go through this, hopefully keep them in mind because it is 
too easy to draw a conclusion for cost-saving purposes: We have 
to close this, it is expensive, it is old, whatever. But that 
may not be the primary consideration. It may be the best place 
when we realign and transform the military.
    Mr. Principi. Well, I would briefly answer, Senator. I 
understand your point. One of the important criteria that needs 
to be assessed and I am confident it is being assessed by the 
Secretary of Defense and certainly will be by the commission, 
is the ability to accommodate mobilization contingency planning 
and future force requirements.
    Senator Ben Nelson. Force requirements as well.
    Mr. Principi. Yes indeed. So that should be a very 
important part of the analysis that the Secretary undertakes 
and that we will look upon.
    Senator Ben Nelson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I 
know that you will do your very best.
    Mr. Principi. Thank you.
    Senator Ben Nelson. Good luck.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Inhofe.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Principi, I did something I do not very often do. I 
read all of your questions and all of your answers that were 
submitted early, and you were very specific and very thorough. 
I appreciate it.
    Question number 3 is talking about the staff. The staff is 
so important. You say that they need to be impartial, 
professional, and free of political influence. I agree with 
that. But I would assume that under the heading of professional 
you have someone who understands military values, somebody who 
has a background that would be conducive to making 
determinations, where they have some kind of innate experience 
in that?
    Mr. Principi. Absolutely, Senator, without question they 
will have that experience and expertise to analyze those 
criteria under military value.
    Senator Inhofe. Then also, on staffing, it is my 
understanding that there will be a change. Before you have 
always had the Services directly go out and make 
recommendations. But now with jointness, cross-service and all 
that, you are going to be taking a little different approach 
and looking at functions as opposed to services, am I correct, 
and would you respond to that?
    Mr. Principi. I believe that that might be a very 
pronounced change in how we are organized, because of these 
joint cross-service groups. We are going to have to adjust to 
that.
    Senator Inhofe. Several people have talked about the 
economic impact on communities. Of course, we are all concerned 
with that. To me, though, something that is more important is 
community support. I know that is one thing that all five 
installations in Oklahoma have done, where we have the 
community providing infrastructure, roads, health care for 
dependents on post or on base, and many other areas where 
normally it would be paid for by the military.
    I would assume that that is going to be a major 
consideration.
    Mr. Principi. Absolutely. That is one of the important 
criteria. Again, it is secondary to national security that we 
are required to follow, but community infrastructure, the 
ability to accommodate increased levels of force units, is 
something that we need to take into consideration--roads, 
schools, housing--all very important.
    Senator Inhofe. Finally, we fought what I refer to right 
now as the Battle of Vieques and lost. I had 3 years of my 
efforts put into that. One of the reasons was, because of a lot 
of the environmental movements, particularly in Western Europe 
and other places, and here in the United States, live ranges 
are disappearing. They are an endangered species.
    I am very much concerned about that. Right now we have 
watched the influence of the European Union change the attitude 
toward our use of live ranges in Western Europe. We know that 
contributes to what will be a movement back stateside of a lot 
of the deployments that are over there in Western Europe.
    I would hope that you would take that into consideration as 
you look and keep in mind that we cannot afford to give up any 
opportunities to use live ranges. I am sure you already are 
aware of that and that your staff will be aware of that.
    Mr. Principi. Absolutely. The availability of land, 
facilities, and associated air space for training purposes, 
ranges, is an important criteria that is spelled out and that 
we will look at carefully to ensure that it has been considered 
by the Secretary in making his recommendations.
    Senator Inhofe. That is great. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Inhofe, I think it was very 
important that you bring that up. Both you and I know full well 
the thoroughness with which this committee tried to work on the 
question of Vieques. That is over and done with, but there is 
no substitute for live-fire training. Around this table there 
are some who have been through that and know full well the 
value of it. You can have all the simulators and the rest of 
the stuff you want, but there is something about that live-fire 
training that that soldier, sailor, airman, or marine will 
never forget if they have the misfortune to ever be in a combat 
situation.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I remember the 
first time I experienced live-fire training. It sure was 
different than the inert.
    Chairman Warner. Yes, I assure you that, too. Well, there 
sits a highly decorated hero, very silent about his service, 
but he knows of what I speak.
    Secretary Principi.
    Senator Clinton, we welcome you.
    Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciated the last exchange because I cannot resist saying 
Fort Drum, New York, has live-fire training ranges that are 
totally without any objection from anyone anywhere, and we 
could grow considerably, Mr. Secretary.
    I thank you for being here and I thank you for this 
continuation of your public service. It has been a real 
pleasure to work with you in the past and I look forward to 
continuing our relationship. I really appreciated the answers 
that you gave to the questions that we submitted to you in 
advance, and I am particularly grateful for the way you 
answered with respect to what was required of you as chairman.
    Just for the record, I think this really bears repeating. I 
quote: ``As chairman, I believe it is important to set the tone 
for our deliberations, to ensure that our work is devoid of 
politics, to address potential conflicts of interest, to be 
independent, fair, open, and equitable, to build consensus, and 
to ensure the communities and people impacted by the BRAC 
process have an opportunity to be heard.''
    I could not have anticipated a better response. It really 
fits with everything that I know about you and the work that we 
have done together.
    Obviously, each of us is concerned about our overall 
configuration for the future, where bases will be, what those 
bases' missions will be, how we move people from overseas back 
home. There are just a lot of large, unanswered questions that 
you will have a major role in helping us answer.
    Then we each have to be concerned about what happens in our 
individual States. I know that you are aware of the long 
history of New York's contributions to our military. In fact, I 
think, Mr. Chairman, I was told the other day that, certainly 
going back to the very beginning of our Nation, New York has 
sacrificed more people in the service of our country than any 
other State. We are very proud of that.
    But we did not have a good experience in the last BRAC 
process. I was not part of it, but I have talked to enough 
people who have reported to me the demoralizing, discouraging 
impact of having the professional recommendations at the last 
minute for political reasons overturned. We ended up losing two 
Air Force bases, Griffiss and Plattsburgh, that ended having 
any significant Air Force presence along our northern border 
for most of the United States.
    Now of course, with the additional needs of moving quickly 
across the Atlantic to Iraq and Afghanistan, with our homeland 
security demands, in retrospect that may not have been a wise 
decision.
    So we are looking forward to and counting on you to be able 
to fulfil those very significant pledges that you made in your 
answers to our questions.
    One matter I would like to raise is I know that there was 
some problem with the CARES process that you were very 
receptive to dealing with, that a lot of local communities felt 
they did not get a chance to be heard. Have you given any 
thought as to how you will ensure that communities have an 
adequate opportunity to make sure their views are heard?
    Mr. Principi. Yes, Senator. I think it is terribly 
important and we certainly tried to do so with CARES. We may 
have failed in some instances, but that was really a very core 
component.
    Certainly, in addition to the Washington hearings, I intend 
to have regional hearings across the country, geographically 
located so that people will have access and can testify, not 
only State and local officials, but private citizens. It is my 
intent, although I have not seen the list, I do not know what 
is on the list, to send commissions out to every installation 
that is going to be impacted by the recommendations that come 
forward and an opportunity to meet with people, both the base 
commander, the local officials, and to the degree possible the 
private sector. Then I am sure we will have a web site set up 
where we can get information in from the local community.
    So I think if we are going to succeed and we are going to 
alleviate the cynicism and the political mistrust, then we have 
to reach out to the people and give them an opportunity to be 
heard. I think our challenge, Senator, is that the time-lines 
are so tight. On May 16, we receive the Secretary's report, and 
our report has to be in to the President by September 8. That 
is a tough row to hoe, but we will do our best.
    Senator Clinton. Well, I appreciate that. I know that the 
criteria that has been adopted certainly give us the guidelines 
that we need. Looking at the contributions that a number of the 
bases have made to our ongoing missions overseas, I am very 
proud of the fact that our National Guard and Reserve bases 
have made significant contributions.
    How will you look to give geographic balance to our basing 
structure, and particularly to the ability of Guard and Reserve 
Forces to be able to train and deploy in an area where they 
live? I am concerned that, with the stresses on the Guard and 
Reserves that we have seen in the last several years, some of 
the information we are getting about some difficulties in 
retention and recruitment for the Guard and Reserves, if we 
make it even more difficult for people to participate by moving 
the bases further and further away from population centers, 
that could be a real problem for us.
    Mr. Principi. Well, it certainly could be, and we will 
certainly look at that very carefully. It is my hope that those 
factors are being taken into consideration in compiling this 
list.
    The criteria really does speak to the total force. It does 
not speak just to the active force. It speaks to the total 
force, and that includes the Guard and the Reserve. It talks 
about staging areas for homeland security, the northern border, 
and things of that nature. Those are all factors that this 
commission needs to ensure, as an independent check, are being 
done in conformance with the force structure plan and those 
criteria that are established in the law.
    Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
    The record will contain your responses to advance policy 
questions in an appropriate place and I will put them in.
    I would suggest, Mr. Principi, that you provide for the 
record a very carefully written statement by you outlining the 
law and regulations and such other factors as will control the 
visitation process and the timing of that visitation process. 
You gave an accurate answer, as I understand it, in the 
testimony, but I tell you, the visitation of a BRAC 
commissioner or the absence thereof is going to be a very 
meaningful event to communities all across this Nation. So I 
would like to have our record today reflect with precision 
exactly what guidance you are going to give your fellow 
commissioners and that you yourself will follow.
    [The information referred to follows:]
      
    
    
      
    Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Obviously you cannot visit every base and 
you have to wait, as you say, to initiate any visits for fear 
to prejudge a decision or reflect some measure of prejudgment, 
until that list comes out; am I not correct?
    Mr. Principi. Correct.
    Chairman Warner. But once the list is out, then presumably 
every base on that list will be visited at least once by at 
least one commissioner, is that right?
    Mr. Principi. That is my intent, yes, Senator, by at least 
one commissioner.
    Chairman Warner. That is important. Then, should the 
commission, as it is authorized under law, exercise its own 
initiative and wish to add some installations, there again 
visitations would be a part of that preparation.
    Mr. Principi. Absolutely. In that case we will send two 
commissioners out to that installation.
    Chairman Warner. A minimum of two.
    Mr. Principi. A minimum of two commissioners.
    Chairman Warner. Good. Well, I thank you for doing that.
    Mr. Principi. We will have it for you tomorrow, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Well, whatever. But we would hope to get 
your name to the floor before the weekend, so you can begin to 
exercise your statutory authority, having been confirmed and 
taken the oath of office, presumably thereafter and get 
underway.
    Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. It is a tight time schedule. There is an 
awful lot of work that has to be done.
    Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. In your answers to the committee's advance 
policy questions, which are now part of the record, you agree 
to abide by specific procedures for recusal or divestiture. Has 
the White House or the Department of Defense asked you to sign 
any other type of agreement regarding recusals or divestitures 
due to conflicts of interest?
    Mr. Principi. Yes. There was an ethics document that, in 
the event of a conflict of interests, that we would recuse 
ourselves. I do not recall the precise language, but it is an 
ethics counsel----
    Chairman Warner. You have been through it many times.
    Mr. Principi. Yes.
    Chairman Warner. You can check it out.
    I am going to go through quickly some points here and then 
give you some other written questions to respond to, because 
this record should be complete on a number of points. You have 
covered, I think most well, but I think it is important to have 
them all in at one spot in the record in sequence, because I 
went back and studied, as did my staff, previous BRAC 
commissions. I have actually been here under all five of these 
BRAC commissions. You remember Senator Dixon. You mentioned 
him. I remember we drew up one of the laws together. It has 
never been a popular task on this committee, because colleagues 
have differences of opinion about BRAC. But I strongly support 
the President and the Secretary of Defense, and will continue 
to do so.
    I guess this brings me to the last point I wish to make, 
and that is the laws were designed to really have Congress's 
role be very precise. Namely, we have at certain junctures the 
right to come in, particularly at the end, and approve or 
disapprove in its entirety of the recommendation that is to be 
laid before the President. That is clear.
    I answered some questions about BRAC yesterday on a visit 
to our State capital when I was there on some business other 
than BRAC. But they always say, he is the chairman, so he is 
going to have a lot of influence. But the statute is drawn in 
such a way that Members of Congress will participate, 
particularly at such times should BRAC commissioners visit a 
base. But, it is designed, the law, to eliminate their 
influence.
    If you can bear with me, I will give you a little anecdotal 
experience. When I was privileged to be in the Department of 
Defense as Secretary of the Navy many years ago, there was no 
BRAC process. If a service secretary felt that he or she, as 
the case may be, wanted to close a base, with the concurrence 
of the Secretary of Defense, you closed it.
    I am glad Senator Kennedy is gone, because he brings it up. 
I closed the Boston Naval Shipyard. I am glad Mr. Reed is not 
here. I closed the destroyer base in Rhode Island. I wish you 
could have seen what occurred in the Caucus Room upstairs when 
the entire delegations of the several States in the Northeast, 
where I had made these closures, questioned me and the then 
Chief of Naval Operations, who was Admiral Zumwalt, for hour 
upon hour upon hour, because these were tough decisions and 
they impacted then, as they do today, the economic structure of 
a community.
    Also, quite apart from economics and politics, communities 
by and large all across America just adore having a military 
base there. It is a sense of pride. It is a sense of history, 
and extremely hard to come to grips with the question that no 
longer are these facilities on the cutting edge of the 
reformation, the changes, the modernization of today's 
military.
    But in your opening statement, and as colleagues mentioned, 
you have to do it, to take out of your inventory those 
facilities which are no longer on the cutting edge and of great 
military value. It is painful.
    I remember so well we closed some of the old posts of the 
U.S. Cavalry in the west, which had been maintained since the 
late 1800s when they were part of the operations out there 
protecting the settlers and trying to protect the Indians on 
the reservations, affording law and order. They got up every 
morning--I remember President Reagan told me this story. When 
he was a young lieutenant, he reported to one of those bases 
right after Pearl Harbor. He volunteered and went in. He was a 
young cavalryman.
    He said: ``Gosh, every morning we had to get up and look 
over the ramparts and see what we could see through the 
binoculars. They are in the middle of the Far West out there.''
    Anyway, I know it is a tough job. But I want to just touch 
on this thing. We have taken, as best we can, politics out of 
it. I am going to do everything I can as chairman--and I find 
tremendous cooperation from my colleagues--to get this BRAC 
round through successfully for the country, for the men and 
women of the Armed Forces who need the money now being spent on 
these bases to modernize the ones on which they are currently 
serving and training together with their families. They are the 
ultimate beneficiaries.
    But as you undertake this commission and its work, and you 
are going to do it here, hopefully, beginning next week, I 
think it is important that the basing structure we now have in 
place at the present time not be changed by the Department of 
Defense. It must watch its daily decision process to ensure 
that something is not, let us assume unintentionally, done that 
would somehow indicate a prejudgment of how that Department is 
going to work on its BRAC considerations of that installation.
    I think that is important, just as important as keeping the 
political partisan politics out of this thing. For example, I 
would like to quote for the record Secretary Rumsfeld when he 
was here on September 23, 2004. Senator Bill Nelson: 
``Secretary Rumsfeld, on March 2, 2004, in a question for the 
record I asked Secretary England if the Navy had performed any 
analysis of the current strategic conditions, force protection, 
and risk relative to the establishment of a second base on the 
Atlantic coast for nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.''
    In his response Secretary England stated: ``This was 
underway as part of the U.S. military global posture review. 
This review identified a requirement for strategic dispersion 
of the east coast nuclear aircraft carrier fleet.''
    Secretary Rumsfeld: ``There are proposed moves in the 
global posture report to Congress that addresses moving the 
relocation of aircraft carriers and carrier assets. However, 
the dispersion of aircraft carriers within the continental 
United States (CONUS) was not a subject of this report. Any 
relocation determination of CONUS carriers will be dependent on 
recommendations from the upcoming Base Realignment and Closure 
process.''
    I wanted you to have that.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Principi. Thank you, Senator.
    Chairman Warner. Would you respond to the additional 
questions I have here at the earliest possible opportunity?
    Mr. Principi. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you.
    We stand adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:52 p.m., the committee adjourned.]

    [Prepared questions submitted to Anthony J. Principi by 
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied 
follow:]
                        Questions and Responses

                                 DUTIES

    Question. Section 2914 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510 as amended; 
section 2687 note, title 10, United States Code) describes the duties 
of the Commission. What background and experience do you possess that 
you believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
    Answer. I served in the United States Navy and Naval Reserve for 21 
years at various military installations across the country and at 
military posts overseas. Following my Active-Duty service I was 
minority staff director on the Senate Armed Services Committee during 
the outset of the 1993 BRAC and was involved in hearings and site 
visits. As Secretary of Veterans Affairs I faced similar challenges in 
conforming VA's legacy infrastructure to the changes in 21st century 
healthcare.
    Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to 
take to enhance your expertise to perform these duties?
    Answer. I will continue to review pertinent material and meet with 
former BRAC commissioners and staff as well as other knowledgeable 
individuals to learn the issues and challenges facing the 2005 BRAC 
Commission.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do 
you expect will be required of you as Chairman of the Commission?
    Answer. My first duty will be to hire a staff director. As Chairman 
I will lead the Commission's efforts to meet our responsibilities under 
the law. I will prepare a roadmap for the conduct of our work in order 
to meet the rigid timelines to submit a report to the President. As 
Chairman, I believe it is important to set the tone for our 
deliberations--to ensure that our work is devoid of politics, to 
address potential conflicts of interest, to be independent, fair, open 
and equitable, to build consensus and to ensure the communities and 
people impacted by the BRAC process have an opportunity to be heard.
    Question. If confirmed as Chairman of the Commission, you will be 
responsible for hiring an executive director and BRAC staff. How will 
you insure that your staff is impartial, professional, and free of 
political influence?
    Answer. Every prospective nominee for a staff position will be 
interviewed to insure they have the requisite knowledge, experience, 
expertise and impartiality to serve on the staff. Politics or political 
influence in the selection of staff will not be tolerated.
    Question. If confirmed as Chairman, will you conduct all 
proceedings of the Commission in a manner that integrates the efforts, 
views, and concerns of other commissioners?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. The Commission's deliberations are designed to be 
conducted, to the maximum extent possible, in public. If confirmed as 
chairman, how will you promote public participation in the Commissions' 
review process, particularly in terms of providing access to elected 
officials and the local leadership of communities potentially impacted 
by the BRAC recommendations?
    Answer. All hearings will be open to the public and information 
will be made available to the public in writing and electronic format. 
The Commission will hold regional hearings at which elected officials 
and local leadership will be invited and encouraged to testify. To the 
extent possible, Commissioners and staff will visit impacted 
installations and communities to meet with military, state and local 
officials as well as the public. Regional hearings will be held at 
locations conducive to maximum attendance.

                               CHALLENGES

    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will 
confront the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission?
    Answer. The Commission begins its work with a very short timeframe 
to standup a staff prior to the Secretary of Defense's submission of 
base closures and realignments. The permanent core BRAC staff in 
existence prior to the 1995 BRAC was disbanded at the expiration of 
that round. Additionally, the Commission only has a few months to 
review and analyze the data provided by the Secretary to support his 
recommendations, conduct hearings, visit installations, markup the 
Commission's findings and recommendations and prepare a report for 
submission to the President not later than September 8, 2005. Another 
challenge will be to ensure that all commissioners and staff remain 
impartial and avoid political pressure and conflicts of interest. 
Changes in the BRAC statute will make it more challenging to change a 
recommendation made by the Secretary and add a military installation to 
the closure and realignment list that had not been recommended by the 
Secretary.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans as Chairman do you 
have for addressing these challenges?
    Answer. If confirmed, my first priority will be to hire a staff 
director and professional staff to begin the preparatory work of the 
Commission. A commission agenda and strategy will be prepared for 
consideration by the Commissioners. I intend to stress the importance 
of objectivity, impartiality and openness throughout our deliberations 
and to achieve consensus on changes to Secretarial recommendations on 
base closures and realignments.
    Question. Do you have any views as to which military bases should 
be closed or which missions and/or functions ought to be realigned?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Do you have any views as to which types of military bases 
should be closed and which types of missions should be realigned?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Will you be able to devote adequate time in order for the 
Commission to complete its work as scheduled?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. The obligation to clean up contamination at military 
sites is governed by a variety of State and Federal laws that apply to 
all bases--closed, realigned, or open. Substantial concerns have been 
raised about the accounting of environmental clean-up in previous 
rounds. What are your views on how the cost of cleaning up 
environmental contamination on military bases should be considered as a 
factor in making closure and realignment decisions?
    Answer. I have taken note that for BRAC 2005, Congress and 
Department of Defense have amplified the selection criteria for 
environmental impact to include the impact of costs related to 
potential environmental restorations, waste management, and 
environmental compliance activities. It is not the only criteria to be 
considered, but a significant one nonetheless.

                THE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE PROCESS

    Question. The final selection criteria for the BRAC process, which 
were set out in Section 2832 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, established four criteria to 
assess military value as the primary consideration, and four additional 
criteria to assess potential savings, economic impact on local 
communities, supporting infrastructure, and environmental 
considerations in BRAC recommendations. Do you interpret any of the 
eight criteria to preclude, favor, or encourage the consideration of 
any specific base, mission, or military function for realignment, 
closure, or privatization?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Military value is the determinative selection criteria 
for a closure or realignment. In your view, what are the key elements 
of military value?
    Answer. The four selection criteria embodying military value, I 
believe, adequately define that value. Two key elements contained in 
the selection criteria are total force structure to include Guard and 
Reserve components and maximizing joint base utilization to facilitate 
joint warfighting, training, and readiness.
    Question. Are there other criteria that you believe should be 
considered when reviewing bases for possible closure or realignment?
    Answer. Yes. Total costs and net savings associated with closures 
and realignments, economic impact on communities, community 
infrastructure at receiving installations and environmental 
considerations are important, but secondary to military value. In 
addition, consideration must be given to the impact on US base closure 
proposals by any decisions to reduce overseas bases.
    Question. One of the most important responsibilities of the 
Commission is to ensure that communities and installation officials 
have an opportunity to provide public input to ensure accurate and 
complete information. Final BRAC recommendations will be respected only 
if the process is conducted with integrity and transparency. What do 
you see as the most important elements of maintaining the public's 
faith and trust in the BRAC process?
    Answer. Openness, impartiality, nonpartisan, and an opportunity to 
be heard.
    Question. In past BRAC rounds there have been allegations that the 
Department of Defense has not fully considered all relevant information 
in making its recommendations. What actions, if any, do you think the 
Commission should take to ensure that all relevant information has 
been, or will be considered and is available for the Commission and for 
public review?
    Answer. I intend to seek all relevant information from the 
Department of Defense and have been assured that such requests will be 
honored. The Commission will fully consider that information in its 
deliberations.
    Question. Section 2904 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510 as amended; 
Section 2687 note, Title 10, United States Code), requires the 
Secretary of Defense to carry out the privatization in place of a 
military installation only if privatization is specifically recommended 
by the Commission. Do you have any reason or opinion which would lead 
you to preclude, favor, or encourage the consideration of any specific 
base, mission, or military function for privatization in place? What 
criteria would you use in making such a recommendation?
    Answer. No. The criteria I would use would be similar to those 
identified in the 1995 BRAC Report to the President. The opportunity to 
eliminate excess infrastructure, allow uniformed personnel to focus on 
skills and activities directly related to their military mission and 
the opportunity to create truly cooperative ventures with the community 
and the Department of Defense that would insure military requirements 
are met while enjoying the efficiency of private operation.

                         CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

    Question. The Commission was established with the intent of 
providing independent and bipartisan recommendations to the President. 
Do you believe you can set aside views based on your political 
affiliations and evaluate the Secretary of Defense's proposal--or make 
new ones--in an independent manner based strictly on non-partisan 
considerations?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Have you ever participated on a compensated or 
uncompensated basis in any activity directed at precluding, modifying, 
or obtaining the closure or realignment of any base during the BRAC 
process? If so, please describe.
    Answer. No.
    Question. Have you been stationed at or resident in the vicinity of 
any base while the base was under consideration for closure or 
realignment during previous BRAC rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, or 1995? 
If so, please describe.
    Answer. Yes. I have a residence approximately 15 miles from the 
former Miramar Naval Air Station.
    Question. Do you or, to the best of your knowledge, does any member 
of your immediate family have any specific reason for wanting a 
particular base to be closed, realigned, privatized, or remain 
unchanged during the BRAC process?
    Answer. No.
    Question. The procedures set out by Congress for the Commission 
raise unique conflict of interest issues. The question of whether a 
particular base closure or realignment decision would have a direct and 
predictable effect on a particular nominee's financial interests is a 
matter that cannot be determined until the Secretary's base closure 
list is announced, an announcement that is not due until May 16, 2005. 
It is likely that the Commission members will have been confirmed by 
the Senate and appointed by then. Accordingly, the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services intends to follow the same procedure used during the 
1991, 1993, and 1995 base closure rounds.
    Under that procedure, the following actions would be taken:

          (1) At the time the Secretary's list is announced, the 
        Commission's General Counsel, working with the DOD General 
        Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics, will review the 
        financial holdings of each member of the Commission and advise 
        the member whether recusal or other remedial action 
        (divestiture or waiver) is necessary.
          (2) The Commission's General Counsel will advise the 
        committee of the results of the review and the actions taken by 
        the members of the Commission.
          (3) The Commission's General Counsel will establish a 
        procedure that will provide for similar reviews, and 
        information to the committee, when and if the Commission 
        considers taking action with respect to installations not on 
        the Secretary's list.

    Given this procedure, if confirmed, will you agree:

          (1) to take such remedial action (i.e., recusal or 
        divestiture) as may be recommended by the Commission's General 
        Counsel, working with the DOD General Counsel and the Office of 
        Government Ethics, to avoid a conflict of interest with regard 
        to a particular installation on the Secretary's list or 
        otherwise under consideration by the Commission?
    Answer. Yes.
          (2) to advise the committee, through the Commission's General 
        Counsel, of any such recommendations and the remedial actions 
        that you have taken to address them?
    Answer. Yes.
          (3) if the recommended remedial action is recusal, not to 
        participate in any discussion, debate or action regarding the 
        installation in question or any other installation that may be 
        under consideration as a substitute for the installation in 
        question?
    Answer. Yes.

                        CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

    Question. Although the Base Realignment and Closure Commission was 
established by law to provide independent recommendations to the 
President, it is important that this committee and other appropriate 
committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, briefings, and 
other communications of information from the Commission in order to 
carry out its legislative and oversight responsibilities.
    Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this committee and 
other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views on 
the processes and recommendations of the Commission?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee and to provide information, subject to appropriate and 
necessary security protection, with respect to your responsibilities as 
a Commissioner?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Will you be willing to provide this committee with an 
after-action report on the 2005 Commission's work?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner

                     INDEPENDENCE OF THE COMMISSION

    1. Senator Warner. Mr. Principi, the Base Realignment and Closure 
(BRAC) Commission will receive the Secretary of Defense's 
recommendations for closures and realignments on May 16. From that date 
until you submit your recommendations to the President by September 8, 
2005, the Commission will be under intense pressure from all types of 
groups to influence your decisions. If confirmed and appointed as 
Chairman, what measures will you take to ensure the proceedings of the 
Commission will result in independent decisions free from outside 
influence?
    Mr. Principi. Every prospective candidate for a staff position will 
be interviewed to ensure that he/she has the requisite knowledge, 
experience, expertise, commitment and impartiality to serve on the 
Commission's staff. Politics or political influence will not be 
tolerated. I will make a commitment to ensure that the Commission's 
work is free from political influence or motivations, that potential 
conflicts of interests are addressed adequately, and that the BRAC 
process is independent, fair, equitable, and open. I will also ensure 
that all BRAC Commissioners and staff are adequately trained, briefed 
and otherwise conform to all ethics and related requirements.

                     QUALITY OF LIFE CONSIDERATIONS

    2. Senator Warner. Mr. Principi, one of the BRAC criteria refers to 
the ability of the infrastructure in local communities to support 
forces, missions, and personnel. Much of what a local community 
provides to military personnel can be characterized as ``quality of 
life'' issues, such as schools, housing, and local services. In 
anticipation of BRAC, many State and local communities have undertaken 
funding initiatives and programs specifically to improve the quality of 
life for military personnel. How do you plan to address quality of life 
issues and particularly the efforts of local communities in your 
assessment?
    Mr. Principi. The ability of local communities to support forces, 
missions and personnel is one of the criteria identified in the BRAC 
legislation as an important consideration in making recommendations for 
realignments and closures by the Department of Defense. I am encouraged 
to learn that local communities do value military presence and are 
striving to ensure the highest quality of life possible for our service 
men and women. Moreover, I will take these efforts into consideration 
in providing local community representatives the opportunity to voice 
their concerns to the Commission. I trust that our efforts in this 
regard will ensure that local communities affected by recommended BRAC 
closures and realignments wilt be provided with an opportunity to be 
heard. It is my hope that in the end, we will build a consensus by and 
through the BRAC process.

                       FORCE STRUCTURE DECISIONS

    3. Senator Warner. Mr. Principi, pursuant to section 2912 of the 
BRAC law, in February 2004, the Secretary of Defense certified that the 
2005 round of BRAC recommendations will result in annual net savings 
for each of the Military Departments beginning not later than fiscal 
year 2011. It is anticipated that the Secretary of Defense will 
recommend BRAC proposals to relocate or consolidate major force units, 
such as army divisions, aircraft wings, and naval aircraft carriers, 
within the United States. In assessing the Secretary's recommendations 
for these relocations, how will the Commission quantify the savings 
from a major force unit relocation?
    Mr. Principi. The Secretary of Defense is obligated to provide the 
projected savings and underlying justification data that support the 
recommendation he makes to the BRAC Commission. The BRAC Commission 
will analyze this data, and compare it with other data, including that 
provided by the affected communities.

                       CONDUCT OF THE COMMISSION

    4. Senator Warner. Mr. Principi, the BRAC process was established 
by Congress to ensure base closure and realignment recommendations are 
reviewed and assessed as fairly and objectively as possible by an 
independent commission. In your opinion, what policies of conduct and 
procedures should the Commission adopt to preserve the integrity of the 
process beyond any shadow of doubt?
    Mr. Principi. As a preliminary matter I intend to stress the 
importance of the objectivity, impartiality, and openness throughout 
the BRAC process, and I will establish internal guidelines and policies 
that effectuate this commitment to fairness and openness. I will ensure 
that the other Commissioners and staff members remain free from 
political pressures and conflicts of interest. I will work carefully 
and diligently to see that conflicts of interest are avoided so that 
there will be no reason to question the appearance of impartiality of 
BRAC Commissioners and staff.

                          COMMISSIONER VISITS

    5. Senator Warner. Mr. Principi, BRAC law requires that two 
commissioners must visit those installations that were not part of the 
Secretary's recommendations, but were added for consideration of 
closure or realignment by the Commission. BRAC law does not stipulate 
any requirements for visits by commissioners to bases recommended by 
the Secretary of Defense, yet I'm sure the communities affected by 
these recommendations will want to have an opportunity to talk to the 
Commission. If confirmed as a BRAC member and appointed as Chairman, do 
you anticipate establishing a policy or requirement for commissioner 
visits to those installations included in the Secretary's list?
    Mr. Principi. While it will not be possible for every Commissioner 
to visit the installations named in the Secretary of Defense's 
recommendations in light of the time constraints faced by the BRAC 
Commission, I will ensure that at least one Commissioner (and also 
where, appropriate, members of the BRAC staff) visits major 
installations and communities in order to meet with military, state and 
local officials along with interested members of the public. In 
addition, the Commission will hold regional hearings in locations 
designed to encourage maximum participation by affected communities so 
that elected officials, local leadership and the public may be afforded 
an opportunity to testify before the Commission.

                  RECUSALS FROM COMMISSION ACTIVITIES

    6. Senator Warner. Mr. Principi, in your answers to the committee's 
advance policy questions, you agreed to abide by specific procedures 
for recusal or divestiture. Has the White House or Department of 
Defense (DOD) asked you to sign any other type of agreement regarding 
recusals or divestitures due to conflicts of interest? If so, please 
provide a copy of any agreement you have signed.
    [Nominee responded and the information is contained in the 
committee's executive files.]
    Mr. Principi. The White House did request me to sign an ethics 
agreement that addressed conflicts of interest and other issues. It is 
my understanding that other BRAC Commissioners will be asked to sign 
the same or a similar agreement, and I will be pleased to provide you 
with a copy of my agreement as long as the White House Counsel's Office 
does not have any objection. I plan to ensure that all financial and 
other conflicts of interest that may arise during the course of my 
service on the Commission, should I be confirmed, are addressed 
appropriately and in a timely fashion so as not to jeopardize the 
mission of the BRAC Commission.
                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Senate James M. Inhofe

                                STAFFING

    7. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Principi, in every committee and commission 
worth its salt, it is supported by a very able and dedicated staff. I 
note in your answers to the committee's advanced questions, your first 
action will be to hire a staff director and that your staff will be 
impartial, professional, and free of political influence. However, you 
have another very important challenge with the staff. You must hire 
staff who are knowledgeable in the areas highlighted in the selection 
criteria. For example, you must have someone who understands the 
military value, environmental impact, economic impact, etc. How do you 
plan to ensure you have the ``right staff'' with the ``right stuff?''
    Mr. Principi. The BRAC Commission will need to address many 
important and complicated challenges very quickly with a 3-month 
timeframe established by statute. Therefore, this work can only be 
completed by talented individuals, and I consider myself personally, 
and the BRAC Commission more generally, to be extremely fortunate in 
drawing from a very talented pool of applicants and candidates, 
including staff members from previous BRAC Commissions and GAO 
detailees.

    8. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Principi, where will you look to get 
impartial individuals?
    Mr. Principi. As I have mentioned earlier in this context, I 
consider the impartiality of the BRAC Commission to be a top priority 
and I will seek to ensure that in both the hiring and in the completion 
of the BRAC Commission's statutory duties that impartiality is 
exercised at times by both the Commissioners and the BRAC staff. As I 
indicated above, the Commission will seek to hire former BRAC 
Commission staff members and GAO detailees.

    9. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Principi, this BRAC is unique in several 
ways. For the first time cross-Service teams will take a functional 
approach in an effort to combine Service functions in a joint way where 
it makes sense. So, they will look at Service recommendations in areas 
like depots and force the removal of the traditional Service stovepipes 
to give this BRAC a more joint feel. How do you intend to make sure you 
have staff with the requisite expertise in these functional areas?
    Mr. Principi. I am aware of the functional areas in the BRAC 2005 
and will seek staff with the expertise and experience in those areas.

                                 DEPOTS

    10. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Principi, as you may know one of my major 
concerns is with the preservation of our military industrial base. In 
the last administration there was a lot of talk about privatizing 
public depots. Congress passed several laws to prevent this from 
happening thus preserving our core capabilities in the depots. The best 
known law was probably 50/50 where we said that no more than 50 percent 
of the total amount spent on depot level maintenance could be on the 
private side of the equation. We felt that it was important to preserve 
our depots. I think the recent war and the surge capability required 
and demonstrated by the depots proved our point. I think the recent 
acquisition of more and more American businesses by foreign companies 
further makes the point that we cannot afford to give up these valuable 
assets. It is a matter of national security. When this administration 
came to power, it began to put money into the depots and the payoff has 
been amazing. Efficiency has increased in many cases over 200 percent. 
Are you familiar with the 50/50 legislation? Do you agree that this 
BRAC cannot violate existing laws such as the 50/50 law?
    Mr. Principi. While I am not familiar with the law that you refer 
to, I am aware that this issue was raised in connection with the 1995 
BRAC round. I am cognizant of the role that the private sector plays in 
depot maintenance, and should the same issue be relevant to the 2005 
BRAC round, I will take the matter under advisement.

    11. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Principi, are you familiar with the amazing 
efficiencies realized by the public depots in recent years?
    Mr. Principi. I am not, but soon will be.

                            LIVE-FIRE RANGES

    12. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Principi, another valuable resource in this 
country is its ranges. You may be familiar with the fight I led, and 
lost, to preserve the Vieques range in Puerto Rico. With environmental 
concerns, urban sprawl, community encroachment, and other factors, our 
live-fire ranges are becoming extinct in this country. Add to that, the 
fact we are redeploying over 90,000 soldiers from overseas bases. This 
combination tells me we cannot afford to lose any more ranges. Are you 
aware of these concerns? How do you intend to evaluate our need for 
preserving ranges for military value and our need to realign and close 
bases for efficiency?
    Mr. Principi. I recognize the availability of ranges is an integral 
plan of military training. Any consideration of retaining or closing 
ranges will, therefore, be measured on the basis of the DOD's 
recommendations and the statutory criteria.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins

                     REGIONALIZATION OF FACILITIES

    13. Senator Collins. Mr. Principi, one of the great strengths of 
our Armed Forces is its geographic diversity. Having installations 
stretching across the country provides a whole host of benefits, 
including reach, coverage, surge capability, and rapid response. Having 
installations grouped together in only a few regions substantially 
increases our vulnerability and could even raise the likelihood of a 
terrorist attack, for example, in one area. Further, in this day and 
age, threats can come from any direction. Finally, its important that 
every part of our country participate in our national defense. Do you 
believe that there is strong value in ensuring that there are Active-
Duty facilities in each region of the country?
    Mr. Principi. Yes. I believe that military installations should be 
located throughout the Nation to promote geographic diversity 
consistent with criteria two.

                            HOMELAND DEFENSE

    14. Senator Collins. Mr. Principi, the goal of our Armed Forces is 
to defeat enemies before they reach our shores. However, as we 
experienced on September 11, we need to be prepared to deal with 
threats within our borders, as well. The Department of Defense is 
taking on an increasing role in homeland defense missions. How will the 
BRAC Commission ensure that homeland defense requirements and 
capabilities will be considered during its deliberations?
    Mr. Principi. The Secretary of Defense is mandated to consider 
homeland defense requirements in his analysis of which bases should be 
consolidated or realigned. The Commission will carefully review and 
analyze the data provided by the Secretary to ensure this requirement 
is met. If necessary, we will insist on the receipt of additional 
information to support his decision.

                         TOTAL FORCE STRUCTURE

    15. Senator Collins. Mr. Principi, I read in your pre-hearing 
policy questionnaire that, in your opinion, the key elements of 
``military value'' in BRAC criteria include ``total force structure to 
include Guard and Reserve components and maximizing joint base 
utilization to facilitate joint warfighting, training and readiness.'' 
Specifically, what do you mean by a ``total force structure 
contribution?''
    Mr. Principi. The statute implementing the 2005 BRAC round 
specifically calls for the Secretary of Defense to consider the impact 
on operational capabilities for both the active and Reserve/Guard 
Forces in making the decision to close or realign military 
installations. Additionally, the statute stresses the importance of 
joint warfighting, training, and readiness and in determining necessary 
versus excess infrastructure to consider any efficiency that may be 
gained from joint tenancy by more than one branch of the Armed Forces 
at a military installation.

    16. Senator Collins. Mr. Principi, what is your opinion on the 
value and utility of Joint Armed Forces Reserve Centers and providing a 
``one stop shop'' for various Services' guardsmen and reservists to 
train in one location?
    Mr. Principi. There needs to be a balance between the ability of 
Reserve and Guard personnel to maintain their proficiency and the 
consideration of co-locating into Joint Armed Forces Reserve Centers 
which may be remote from their domicile. My understanding is that both 
Congress and the Department of Defense have been pursuing for the 
several years the benefits of co-location of Reserve activities in 
order to enhance joint training opportunities. The Commission will give 
this issue serious consideration.
                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Senator Saxby Chambliss

                       CORE LOGISTICS CAPABILITY

    17. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Principi, in Title X of the U.S. Code, 
there is a statutory requirement for the Department of Defense to 
maintain a core logistics capability. The Department is limited to 
spending no more than 50 percent of its depot-level maintenance and 
repair funds to contract for the performance of this workload. The 
Department of Defense published comments in the Federal Register that 
state that ``it is inappropriate to include statutory constraints in 
the selection criteria because they are too varied and numerous.'' The 
Department goes on to assure us that this absence of statutory 
constraints ``should not be construed as an indication that the 
Department will ignore these or any other statutory requirements in 
making its final recommendations.'' Part of the Commission's role will 
be to ensure that all statutory requirements are met. As you select 
your staff, I would encourage you to select those that have the 
requisite knowledge of these laws to ensure we do maintain a core 
logistics capability and the required bases and facilities needed to 
conduct depot-level maintenance. Now I know that DOD is required to 
evaluate all installations equally, but can you tell us how you will 
reconcile this evaluation requirement with existing statutory 
imperatives and congressional intent that would preclude discarding our 
depot capabilities?
    Mr. Principi. Thank you for encouraging me to choose able legal 
staff--I fully intend to do so. Concerning the depot-level maintenance 
issue, this Commission has no interest in violating the intent of the 
50/50 statue (Title 10 U.S. Code 2466) which ensures that no more than 
50 percent of any Service's depot-level maintenance funds are spent 
with a non-Federal workforce, or the underlying statute which requires 
the DOD to maintain an organic source for core logistics workload. We 
will carefully work within the data available to the Commission to 
ensure that any depot-level maintenance currently performed at an 
organic installation recommended for realignment or closure will be 
relocated to another organic installation within the remaining DOD 
infrastructure.

                              COST SAVINGS

    18. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Principi, the fifth criteria for 
consideration by BRAC relates to the ``extent and timing of potential 
costs and savings'' and an analysis of the amount of time required for 
the perceived savings to exceed the costs of closing a base. This 
criteria is designed to ensure that bases are not closed unless there 
is a clear basis for significant savings in the near term. What are 
your views on the maximum amount of time that should pass after a base 
closes before significant cost savings are realized?
    Mr. Principi. The cost/savings profile of each recommendation must 
be evaluated within the context of all the evaluation criteria rather 
than compared to arbitrary or even statistically-derived metrics. 
Recommendations with higher than average costs or extended payback 
periods may actually be furthering and supporting transformational 
initiatives that profoundly affect future military value. A discrete 
evaluation of only the cost profiles of these transformational 
recommendations would be incomplete and reduce the effectiveness of the 
Commission's decisions. While a shorter payback period is preferred, 
the Commission is best served to address costs and savings as part of a 
holistic evaluation of the recommendation. In doing so, the Commission 
is capable of determining the acceptability of the projected time that 
will pass after a base closes before significant cost savings are 
realized.

    19. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Principi, can you give us your 
assurances that a base will not be closed simply to meet a quota as 
opposed to the result of a thorough analysis of cost savings?
    Mr. Principi. You have my assurance that each recommendation will 
be assessed in accordance with the criteria specified by law.

    20. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Principi, how will you ensure that 
closing a base will actually result in financial savings great enough 
to justify the disruption of current operations while we are at war?
    Mr. Principi. The BRAC law establishes quite dearly the parameters 
under which the Commission must exercise its responsibilities.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin

                COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF FORCE STRUCTURE

    21. Senator Levin. Mr. Principi, last September when DOD submitted 
its ``Strengthening U.S. Global Defense Posture'' report to Congress, 
then-Under Secretary of Defense Feith stated in the introduction to 
that report that ``the Defense Department will incorporate its 
projected overseas posture changes into the BRAC 2005 process.'' In 
addition, last year the Army started using emergency authorities to buy 
temporary buildings to station the first of the new so-called 
``modular'' brigades. The Army provided a series of information papers 
to this committee on July 28, 2004 stating that, with respect to these 
10 new brigades, ``Permanent stationing for all units will be fully 
addressed through the BRAC 2005 process.'' Do you believe the 
Commission must consider all major force structure changes, including 
the basing for forces to be relocated from overseas back to the United 
States and the permanent stationing of the Army's new ``modular'' 
brigades, in order to ensure that the Commission takes account of all 
relevant factors that would affect closure and realignment decisions?
    Mr. Principi. I believe that the Commission must consider all major 
force structure changes.

                      INTERNET ACCESS TO MATERIALS

    22. Senator Levin. Mr. Principi, do you plan, if confirmed, to make 
your materials available through the internet so that interested 
communities and citizens across the Nation can access it?
    Mr. Principi. Making the BRAC process open and accessible to the 
public and to Members of Congress is an important priority for me. To 
this end, I plan on making hearings open to the public with the 
transcripts of the hearings made available on an electronic format 
through a Web site that will be set up for the public and the BRAC 
Commission's use. Further, I plan on posting public comment and letters 
in an electronic format on this Web site so that the public is able to 
communicate effectively and openly with the Commission.

                  INTERPRETATION OF SELECTION CRITERIA

    23. Senator Levin. Mr. Principi, the selection criteria for the 
2005 round are essentially the ones used in the past three rounds, and 
are intentionally broad. The statutory criteria do not attempt to 
capture every nuance that might apply to every possible type of 
installation or facility. In the statement of managers on the 
conference report on the fiscal year 2005 defense authorization bill, 
Congress stated that: ``The conferees expect that the Secretary shall 
adhere, to the maximum extent possible, to responses in the analysis of 
comments to the draft selection criteria, as published in the Federal 
Register on February 12, 2004, including the incorporation of elements 
of military value, such as research, development, test, evaluation, 
maintenance, and repair facilities for weapon systems; and the 
interaction with a highly-skilled local work force and local industrial 
and academic institutions.'' If the yardstick the Commission must use 
in evaluating the Secretary's recommendations is whether the Commission 
feels the Secretary adhered to or deviated from the force structure 
plan and the selection criteria, do you believe that requires the 
Commission to interpret the criteria the way DOD interpreted the 
criteria?
    Mr. Principi. The BRAC Commission is required by statute to review 
and analyze the recommendations forwarded to it by the Secretary of 
Defense based on the final selection criteria you refer to. The 
Secretary is also required to fully justify, by submitting certified 
data to the Commission the rationale for making those recommendations. 
However, Section 2903 of the BRAC statute specifies that the Commission 
may change such recommendations if it determines that Secretary 
deviated substantially from the force structure plan and the final 
criteria in making such recommendations. Therefore, there may be 
differences in the way the Secretary applies or interprets the final 
selection criteria and the way in which the BRAC Commission considers 
the same criteria. I believe this possibility may have been anticipated 
by Congress in giving the BRAC Commission the ability to make changes 
to the Secretary'  recommendations.

    24. Senator Levin. Mr. Principi, do you believe the Commission 
should consider the Department of Defense responses to the public 
comments about the selection criteria to be relevant information that 
provides additional guidance about the meaning and interpretation of 
the selection criteria that should be taken into account when the 
Commission evaluates the Secretary's list of recommended closures and 
realignments?
    Mr. Principi. I have not seen the DOD responses to the public 
concerns about the selection criteria and, therefore, cannot comment on 
it at this time.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Edward M. Kennedy

             BASE PROXIMITY TO ACADEMIC/INDUSTRIAL CENTERS

    25. Senator Kennedy. Mr. Principi, the decisions that you will make 
will influence the Department of Defense and our national security for 
years to come. As part of that process, you will review the 
recommendations for closure and realignment of not only bases, but also 
labs and technical centers. These labs and technical centers provide 
the intellectual foundation that allows our military to maintain its 
extraordinary advantage in technology. Many of us are concerned, 
however, that the BRAC criteria overlooks the unique values of these 
centers of innovative and advanced technology. Many experts have 
highlighted the value of regional technology clusters as the best way 
to stimulate innovation and establish valuable partnerships between the 
Federal Government, industry, and academic research. The proximity of 
these centers strengthens the capabilities of the Defense Department's 
labs and accelerates the process of moving new technology out of the 
labs and into the hands of our troops. This type of innovation has been 
the engine of both our national economic growth, and our military 
superiority. I know, for example, that the great synergy created by the 
close proximity of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the 
defense industry to the Natick Soldier Center has been of great benefit 
in the development of nanotechnologies for our troops. How important do 
you feel it is to keep Department of Defense centers of innovation 
close to academic and industrial centers of innovation?
    Mr. Principi. The proximity of DOD centers of research and 
development to academic and industrial centers is very important.

                           LOSS OF EXPERTISE

    26. Senator Kennedy. Mr. Principi, most technical employees will 
not move to a new location following a BRAC decision to close a base, 
so the Department will lose valuable scientific and technical expertise 
when the base is closed. Do you think the BRAC criteria adequately 
value this potential cost of consolidating bases?
    Mr. Principi. The question the Commission must address is whether 
the Defense Secretary's recommendations adequately account for this 
cost.

    27. Senator Kennedy. Mr. Principi, how does the Department plan to 
reconstitute this expertise that is lost when a major center is moved 
to a very different part of the country?
    Mr. Principi. This is a question that the Commission will pose in 
its analysis.

    28. Senator Kennedy. Mr. Principi, how do you assess the effect of 
such a move on the mission?
    Mr. Principi. The law is quite clear. If the moves enhance military 
value and the Defense Secretary has not substantially deviated from the 
force structure plan and selection criteria, then the Commission would 
most likely approve the recommendations.
                                 ______
                                 
           Questions Submitted by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman

                       BALANCING RESPONSIBILITIES

    29. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Principi, how do you plan to balance 
your new employment responsibilities as a Vice President of Pfizer, 
Corp. with those associated with being the Chairman of the Base Closure 
and Realignment Commission?
    Mr. Principi. I plan to resign from my position with the Pfizer 
Corporation.

                         ADDITIONS TO BRAC LIST

    30. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Principi, what process will you use as a 
BRAC commissioner to systematically evaluate whether or not bases that 
have not been recommended for closure or realignment should be added to 
the list?
    Mr. Principi. The process for adding installations to the list 
provided by the Secretary will be arduous and complete. The staff will 
review the Secretary's recommendation to determine if the DOD analysis 
was complete and, more importantly, if it was accurate. For example, 
was the proper weighting assigned to all elements; were all 
installations treated equally; and was the data used accurate? The 
staff will also conduct independent analysis of the information 
obtained during base visits and regional hearings, and other public 
input. Additionally, the staff will consider the GAO report to be 
submitted on July 1, 2005, in determining if other installation 
candidates should be considered in addition to those on the Secretary's 
list. The staff will then recommend applicable installations to the 
Commissioners who will make the final determination in accordance with 
the statute. Please be aware that adding an installation to the 
Secretary's list allows the Commission to analyze and visit that 
installation; it does not automatically result in the closure of 
realignment of that installation. I should mention that, in past BRAC 
rounds, the communities were a valuable extension of the BRAC staff in 
that they often provided creditable analysis which complemented and 
supplemented BRAC staff analysis.

                      AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

    31. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Principi, will the BRAC Commission make 
available to the general public ``in electronic media'' all information 
provided by the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Navy 
including but not limited to:

        a. Base Structure Data Base (BSDB)
        b. Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA) Model and all 
        associated data
        c. Naval Audit Service (NAVAUDSVC) Independent Audit Reports
        d. Meeting Minutes and Associated Materials from all meetings 
        of:

                i. Infrastructure Evaluation Group (IEG)
                ii. Infrastructure Analysis Team (IAT)
                iii. Department of the Navy (DON) Analysis Group (DAG)
                iv. Functional Advisory Board (FAB)
                v. Joint Cross-Service Group (JCSG)

        e. DON BRAC Information Transfer System (DONBITS) data files
        f. Data Calls (including all supplemental/corrections 
        requests):

                i. DON Capacity Data Call
                ii. DON Military Value Data Call
                iii. DON COBRA/Scenario Data Call

        g. Installation Visualization Tool (IVT) Data and associated 
        materials
    Mr. Principi. The Commission will make available to the general 
public in electronic media or hard copy all information provided by the 
Department of Defense, except classified information.

                           EVALUATION METRICS

    32. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Principi, what metrics will you use to 
compare and evaluate the bases recommended for and not recommended for 
closure or realignment against the eight BRAC selection criteria?
    Mr. Principi. The basic metrics used to accept or reject those 
installations recommended by the Secretary will largely focus on the 
DOD and BRAC analyses which will be independently conducted. Those 
analyses will ultimately be compared with the force structure plan and 
final selection criteria as spelled out in statute. Additionally, the 
Commission will consider and review those metrics provided by 
representatives of the affected communities. In the end, the 
Commissioners will be presented the analysis and recommendations of the 
DOD, communities, and Commission staff in making the final 
determinations. A vital factor is the overall, professional judgment of 
the Commissioners in the final determination.

    33. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Principi, since individual data calls 
have been sent to multiple tenant commands that are collocated on bases 
and installations, how will you evaluate the synergy of these multiple 
organizations in evaluating recommendations for closure or realignment?
    Mr. Principi. Comparing disparate data will certainly be a 
challenge to our staff. They will ultimately be required to review many 
of the individual questions asked of each organizational element, along 
with the associated metric available in the answer set. Comparing these 
answer sets and adjusting for differences will allow for apples to 
apples analysis by our staff.

    34. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Principi, in some cases, the military 
value of a base is enhanced by the local presence of a large private 
firm (e.g., shipyard) that did not receive any ``data calls'' and may 
not have been factored into a base closure or realignment 
recommendation. How will you ensure that the BRAC Commission ensures 
that such relevant information is not overlooked in your deliberations?
    Mr. Principi. The availability of nongovernmental service which may 
affect military value will be carefully considered during base visits 
by Commissioners and staff, analysis of all the relevant facts and by 
community meetings and presentations. All appropriate factors will be 
weighed in our deliberations.

    35. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Principi, among the other considerations 
in the BRAC selection criteria are economic impacts and environmental 
remediation costs. How will the BRAC Commission utilize economic impact 
data provided by host States/communities, and how will the BRAC 
Commission determine actual environmental remediation costs, since 
these costs are significantly affected by the future reuse of the 
facility which is at best currently unknown?
    Mr. Principi. I note for the record that Congress has amplified the 
election criteria for environmental impact and that the DOD, in 
response to such amplified criteria, has widened its analysis and the 
scope of its recommendations accordingly. The criteria being employed 
by the 2005 BRAC Commission includes, for example, the impact of costs 
related to potential environmental restoration, waste management, and 
environmental compliance activities. While environmental related 
criteria are not the sole criteria to be used in the BRAC process, it 
is a significant factor nonetheless. Economic impact data provided by 
host states/communities will also be evaluated against the information 
provided by the DOD.

                        REGIONAL PUBLIC MEETINGS

    36. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Principi, do you intend to hold regional 
public meetings, and if so, how many BRAC Commissioners will be present 
at each public meeting and how much time will a community have to make 
its appeal?
    Mr. Principi. I intend to hold as many regional hearings as may be 
deemed adequate to provide public outreach and input. This, along with 
base site visits and public input from other sources, will provide the 
Commissioners and me, if I am confirmed, with a good overview of the 
impact, militarily, economically and in terms of the human factors that 
the closure and realignment process will play. While it may not be 
possible for me to predict with any degree of reliability the number of 
regional hearings and visits that may be required, I will work to 
ensure that at least three Commissioners are present at regional 
hearings. Further, local communities will be allocated adequate time to 
present issues, questions, and evidence for the BRAC Commission to 
consider.

    37. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Principi, do you intend to have BRAC 
commissioners visit each base that is recommended for closure or 
realignment, and during these visits will the BRAC commissioners meet 
with representatives from the local/host community?
    Mr. Principi. While it may not be possible to visit every facility 
in light of the time constraints faced by the BRAC Commission, I fully 
intend to ensure that major base site visits and the regional hearings 
are organized so that the public and local leaders have an adequate 
opportunity to reach out to the BRAC Commission and make their concerns 
known to it. BRAC Commissioners will participate in all regional 
hearings and as many site visits as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka

                          PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE

    38. Senator Akaka. Mr. Principi, you stated in your answers to the 
advance policy questions that you were the minority staff director for 
this committee at the outset of the 1993 BRAC and that you were 
involved in hearings and site visits for that round of BRAC. You also 
state that you faced similar challenges as Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs (VA) when conforming VA's legacy infrastructure to the changes 
in 21st century healthcare. What lessons have you learned from these 
experiences that will assist you as Chairman of the 2005 BRAC 
Commission?
    Mr. Principi. My experience has shown that every organization must 
right-size itself from time to time to reflect changes in policies, 
requirements, technologies, etc. I have also learned that these changes 
affect peoples' lives in profound ways and that their concerns must be 
factored in.

                          INFORMATION REQUESTS

    39. Senator Akaka. Mr. Principi, you state in your answers to the 
advanced questions that you will seek all relevant information from the 
Department of Defense and you state that you have been assured that all 
requests will be honored. Should information not be provided to you 
from the Defense Department, will you inform Congress of this problem?
    Mr. Principi. Yes, Mr. Senator, I will certainly keep you and 
Congress fully advised of such problems, should they occur.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of Anthony J. Principi follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                     March 4, 2005.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    Anthony Joseph Principi, of California, to be a Member of the 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. (New Position)
                                 ______
                                 
    [The biographical sketch of Anthony J. Principi, which was 
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was 
referred, follows:]

               Biographical Sketch of Anthony J. Principi

    During his 4-year tenure (2001-2005) as Secretary of the 
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, New York-born Anthony J. 
Principi directed the Federal Government's second largest 
department, responsible for a nationwide system of health care 
services, benefits programs, and national cemeteries for 
America's 25 million living veterans and dependents. Commanding 
a budget in excess of $60 billion, Mr. Principi led an 
organization of 230,000 employees in hundreds of VA medical 
centers, clinics, benefits offices, and national cemeteries 
throughout the country.
    Mr. Principi is a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy 
at Annapolis, Maryland, and first saw Active Duty aboard the 
destroyer U.S.S. Joseph P. Kennedy. He later commanded a River 
Patrol Unit in Vietnam's Mekong Delta. During his service in 
Southeast Asia, Mr. Principi was awarded the Bronze Star with a 
V for valor.
    Upon returning from Vietnam, Mr. Principi earned his law 
degree from Seton Hall University in 1975 and was assigned to 
the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps in San Diego, 
California. In 1980, he was transferred to Washington as a 
legislative counsel for the Department of the Navy.
    From 1984 to 1988, he served as Republican chief counsel 
and staff director of the Senate Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, following 3 years as counsel to the chairman of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee.
    Mr. Principi served as Deputy Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs, VA's second-highest executive position, from March 17, 
1989, to September 26, 1992, when he was named Acting Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs by President George H.W. Bush. He served in 
that position until January 1993. Following that appointment, 
he served as Republican chief counsel and staff director of the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services.
    Mr. Principi was chairman of the Commission on 
Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance established 
by Congress in 1996.
    Mr. Principi was nominated by President George W. Bush on 
December 29, 2000, and was confirmed by the Senate on January 
23, 2001.
    Prior to his nomination as Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 
Mr. Principi was president of QTC Medical Services, Inc. During 
the past decade, he was Senior Vice President at Lockheed 
Martin IMS, and a partner in the San Diego law firm of Luce, 
Forward, Hamilton & Scripps.
                                ------                                

    [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals 
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a 
form that details the biographical, financial, and other 
information of the nominee. The form executed by Anthony J. 
Principi in connection with his nomination follows:]

                          UNITED STATES SENATE
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              Room SR-228
                       Washington, DC 20510-6050
                             (202) 224-3871
                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
      BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES

    Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If 
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the 
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation 
of your answer applies.
                    Part A--Biographical Information
    Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in 
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for 
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in 
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.

    1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
    Anthony J. Principi.

    2. Position to which nominated:
    Commissioner-Base Realignment and Closure Commission.

    3. Date of nomination:
    March 4, 2005.

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

    5. Date and place of birth:
    April 16, 1944; New York City, NY.

    6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
    Married to Ahlering.

    7. Names and ages of children:
    Anthony, 31; Ryan, 28, John, 26.

    8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
    Mount Saint Michael Academy, 1958-1962, Diploma.
    New Mexico Military Institute, 1962-1963, None.
    U.S. Naval Academy, 1963-1967, BS.
    Seton Hall University School of Law, 1972-1975, JD.

    9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the 
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of 
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
    Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
    QTC Medical Services, President, Diamond Bar, CA.
    Chairman, Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans 
Transition Assistance, Washington, DC, 1996-1998.
    Lockheed Martin IMS, Senior Vice President, Santa Clara, CA, 1995-
1996.

    10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, 
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, 
or local governments, other than those listed above.
    None.

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

    12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in 
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and 
other organizations.
    Board of Governors American Red Cross.
    Board of Directors Mutual of Omaha.
    State Bar of California.
    State Bar of Pennsylvania.
    Real Estate Broker-California.
    American Legion.
    Disabled American Veterans.
    Veterans of Foreign Wars.

    13. Political affiliations and activities:
    (a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or 
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
    None.
    (b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered 
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5 
years.
    None.
    (c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign 
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar 
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
    $1,000 Bush-Cheney 2000 election.

    14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, military medals, and any other special 
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
    Honorary Doctorate Degree-Seton Hall University School of Law.
    Bronze Star with Combat V.
    Navy Commendation Medal (3).
    Numerous awards from military and veteran service organizations for 
service as Secretary of Veteran Affairs.

    15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of 
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have 
written.
    None.

    16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal 
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have 
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have 
been nominated.
    None.

    17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree, 
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any 
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
    Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the 
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set 
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to 
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
                                ------                                

                           Signature and Date
    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete.
                                               Anthony J. Principi.
    This 8th day of March 2005.

    [The nomination of Anthony J. Principi was reported to the 
Senate by Chairman Warner on March 17, 2005, with the 
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination 
was recess appointed by the President on April 1, 2005.]

 
    NOMINATIONS OF HON. GORDON R. ENGLAND TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF 
DEFENSE; AND ADM MICHAEL G. MULLEN, USN, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE 
             OF ADMIRAL AND TO BE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS

                              ----------                              


                        TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2005

                                       U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m., in 
room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John 
Warner (chairman) presiding.
    Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain, Inhofe, 
Collins, Talent, Cornyn, Thune, Levin, Kennedy, Lieberman, 
Reed, Akaka, Bill Nelson, Clinton, and Hutchison.
    Committee staff members present: Judith A. Ansley, staff 
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
    Majority staff members present: William C. Greenwalt, 
professional staff member; Thomas L. MacKenzie, professional 
staff member; David M. Morriss, counsel; Stanley R. O'Connor, 
Jr., professional staff member; Scott W. Stucky, general 
counsel; and Richard F. Walsh, counsel.
    Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, 
Democratic staff director; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional 
staff member; Creighton Greene, professional staff member; 
Bridget W. Higgins, research assistant; Peter K. Levine, 
minority counsel; and William G.P. Monahan, minority counsel.
    Staff assistants present: Catherine E. Sendak and Pendred 
K. Wilson.
    Committee members' assistants present: Cord Sterling, 
assistant to Senator Warner; Arch Galloway II, assistant to 
Senator Sessions; James P. Dohoney, Jr. and Mackenzie M. 
Eaglen, assistants to Senator Collins; Lindsay R. Neas, 
assistant to Senator Talent; Russell J. Thomasson, assistant to 
Senator Cornyn; Bob Taylor, assistant to Senator Thune; Mieke 
Y. Eoyang, assistant to Senator Kennedy; Frederick M. Downey, 
assistant to Senator Lieberman; Elizabeth King, assistant to 
Senator Reed; Darcie Tokioka, assistant to Senator Akaka; 
William K. Sutey, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; and Andrew 
Shapiro, assistant to Senator Clinton.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN

    Chairman Warner. Good morning everyone. We have before the 
committee this morning the current Secretary of the United 
States Navy, Gordon R. England, nominated for the position of 
Deputy Secretary of Defense and Admiral Michael G. Mullen, U.S. 
Navy, who's been nominated to be the next Chief of Naval 
Operations (CNO). We will have the two panels. Admiral Mullen 
will follow the Secretary.
    We welcome Secretary England, his wife, Dotty, and other 
members of the England family. We thank Mr. England for his 
willingness to continue to serve this Nation in a new and a 
challenging post.
    I now recognize you, Secretary England, to introduce your 
family.
    Mr. England. Thank you very much, Senator. I have with me 
today my wife and great supporter here for 43 years. I want to 
introduce my wife, Dotty. We have been together for 43 years 
and have three wonderful children and grandchildren, and I 
thank her for her great support of my rather erratic career 
over the years.
    I also want to introduce my daughter, Marisa Walpert, and 
also my son-in-law, Major Bill Walpert. They're both about to 
deploy to Okinawa in a few weeks with the United States Air 
Force, and we're very proud of my daughter and my son-in-law. 
So it's nice to have the three of them with us this morning.
    Chairman Warner. It's a very special occasion. We welcome 
you, Major, and your lovely wife.
    The role of the family in providing support to individuals 
in government who hold these senior positions of importance and 
responsibility is something this committee has always stressed 
through the many years that I've been privileged to be on it. 
We thank the members of the families for your special role in 
supporting these individuals, particularly the long hours in 
the Department of Defense (DOD).
    I've often said based on my experience over there, every 
decision made after 7:30 is turned around the next morning. So 
I urge you to try and get your principals home again.
    Secretary England, of course, is well known to the 
committee and to the Senate as the 72nd Secretary of the Navy. 
He served from May 2001 until joining the Department of 
Homeland Security, as its first Deputy Secretary in January 
2003. During his initial tour of duty as Secretary of the Navy, 
Secretary England is to be commended for, among other things, 
his compassionate response to the families of those military 
and civilian personnel in the Department of Navy who died in 
the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
    The Navy command center was hit hard on that tragic day, 
and survivors of those brave sailors and Department of the Navy 
employees will always remember the strong leadership that you 
gave, Mr. Secretary, that you exhibited in the immediate 
aftermath of that attack.
    I'd like at this time to recognize our distinguished 
colleague, Senator Hutchison, for purposes of an introduction.

 STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 
                         STATE OF TEXAS

    Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so pleased 
to be here to introduce my friend, my constituent in Texas, 
Gordon England, to be number two at the DOD, and I can 
truthfully say I can't think of anyone more qualified.
    Mr. Chairman, all of you know people in Washington who 
clamor to get administration jobs, who clamor to move up the 
ladder. Gordon England is not one of those people. I don't 
think that he has asked for any of the promotions that he has 
ever received. He serves the President; he serves our country; 
and he does it because he wants to do something to make a 
difference.
    I have known him since before he came into this 
administration, because, of course, he was a leading citizen of 
Fort Worth. He was president of General Dynamics Aviation. His 
background is electrical engineering, and his career really was 
aviation-related. He became Secretary of the Navy, as you said. 
He then became number two at the new Department of Homeland 
Security, bringing a business management capability there that 
was so important. He then came back to his love, the Secretary 
of the Navy position, and has done a wonderful job there of 
trying to modernize our Navy for the security risks of the 
future.
    Today, you know his background; he's been to this committee 
several times. I can just say that in addition to his 
qualifications, in addition to his educational background, his 
business experience, and his management experience, Gordon 
England is the person who can take over the day-to-day 
operations of the Pentagon better than anyone I know. He has 
proven himself. Not only is he a great manager, not only is he 
a person who knows the business of the Pentagon, but he is also 
a good person, and I can't think of a better recommendation for 
this job.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Senator, we thank you. Those of us who had 
the privilege of serving with you have the highest respect for 
your judgment. You delivered that introduction with a 
tremendous sense of compassion and understanding and belief, 
and attaching your credibility to this individual is important 
to him and to the Senate. We thank you.
    Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. I recognize now the junior Senator from 
the State of Texas.
    Senator Cornyn.
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join 
Senator Hutchison, my colleague, the senior Senator, in 
speaking in support of the nomination of Gordon England to be 
our next Deputy Secretary of Defense.
    As you've already heard, he has an impressive record of 
accomplishments as a businessman and as a public servant. He's 
a person of the highest integrity, and I am delighted that the 
President has seen fit to nominate him as the Deputy Secretary 
of Defense.
    Senator Hutchison has already covered his impressive 
resume, but let me just try to bring one other nuance to those 
trying to piece together what kind of person this is. He was 
the first Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security, and first to take on that important challenge in the 
wake of September 11, trying to bring together disparate 
cultures of different agencies, and bring them together in the 
interests of the homeland security of this country.
    But something that gave me personal insight into what kind 
of man this was, is my daughter happened to be working at the 
Department of Homeland Security at just an entry-level 
position. The kind of kindness he showed to her in going out of 
his way to engage her and find out about her, it reflected to 
me the kind of character and the kind of person that he is in a 
way that I found very reassuring.
    So, we are fortunate to have public servants like Gordon 
England who have not only the necessary skills, but the vision, 
and are willing to take on tough challenges. I know at this 
stage in his career he might have just said I'll let this one 
pass me by and continue on as Secretary of the Navy or in some 
other capacity. But I'm delighted that he is willing to take on 
the tough challenge, and I'm sure Secretary Rumsfeld is looking 
forward to having someone of his caliber serve as his deputy.
    So in conclusion let me just reiterate my strong support 
for Secretary England and urge his speedy confirmation. Thank 
you very much.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. It's important that we 
have your perspective. You have a very special responsibility 
in this nomination, and I'd be happy upon the completion of the 
committee work to have you sign the papers to bring it to the 
floor. Thank you very much.
    The committee has asked Secretary England to answer a 
series of advance policy questions. He's responded to those 
questions, and without objection, I will make the questions and 
responses part of the record.
    I also have certain standard questions we ask of every 
nominee who appears before this committee. If you will respond, 
Mr. Secretary, I will now propound the questions.
    Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations 
governing conflicts of interest?
    Mr. England. Yes, sir, I have.
    Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken 
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the 
confirmation process?
    Mr. England. No, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Will you ensure your staff complies with 
deadlines established for requested communications, including 
questions for the record and hearings?
    Mr. England. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses 
and briefers in response to questions or requests?
    Mr. England. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from 
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
    Mr. England. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and 
testify upon request before any duly constituted committee of 
the United States Senate?
    Mr. England. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree, when asked by any duly 
constituted committee of Congress, to give your personal views, 
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
    Mr. England. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to provide 
documents, including copies of electronic forms of 
communications, in a timely manner when requested by a duly 
constituted committee, or to consult with the committee 
regarding the basis for any good-faith delay or denial in 
providing such documents?
    Mr. England. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. I thank you very much. I'll now ask 
Senator Levin to say a few words, and we'll then proceed by 
having the opportunity to listen to any opening comments that 
you may wish to make.

                STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN

    Senator Levin. I just have a few words, Mr. Chairman. I 
join you in welcoming Gordon England and his family to the 
committee. We appreciate the sacrifices which you and your 
family have already made and will continue to make in the 
service of our Nation.
    Secretary England has been the Department's ``Mr. Fix-it'' 
for the last 4 years. In his brief period of time, he has 
served as Secretary of the Navy, Deputy Secretary of the 
Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of the Navy again, 
and recently under consideration to serve as Secretary of the 
Air Force. At the request of the Secretary of Defense, he has 
taken on such critical jobs as designing the new National 
Security Personnel System (NSPS) and overseeing the review of 
the status of DOD detainees at Guantanamo.
    If there's a problem to be solved, Gordon England has 
frequently been the one that the President has looked to to 
provide that solution. Now, Secretary England has agreed to 
take on an even more critical position. The Deputy Secretary of 
Defense serves in a position of awesome responsibility. He is 
the alter ego of the Secretary. In this capacity, the new 
Deputy Secretary will play a key role in determining how our 
country will meet the national security challenges it faces 
today, including: the transformation of our military forces; 
including how do we balance the requirements of the current 
military missions, including operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, with the investments that we need to meet future 
national security threats; the problems of recruiting and 
retention; training, compensation, benefits; and how we balance 
force structure costs against other programs
    Mr. Chairman, particularly in recent months, we've had the 
problem of questionable acquisition practices on the part of 
the Air Force, which have resulted in heightened risk of fraud 
and abuse in terms of the lease of tanker aircraft. The 
Department has recently agreed to restructure two other defense 
acquisition programs--the Air Force's C-130J aircraft program 
and the Army's Future Combat System program.
    I want to particularly thank Senator McCain, who has 
highlighted, again, the very urgent need of this Nation to go 
back and review this acquisition system of ours, which has 
either been violated, obviated, voided, abused, or misused. We 
have problems, Mr. Secretary. We need you to use your 
particular talent to address those problems that we have.
    The demands and the problems in this department are huge. 
The Department of Defense now accounts for more than half of 
the 25 high-risk management problems that the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) has identified across the entire 
Federal Government.
    The GAO has identified more than half of those in the 
Department of Defense itself. This list appears to be growing 
longer rather than shorter.
    Secretary England, you bring the kind of strong management 
background and commitment to addressing these issues that are 
so needed in the Deputy Secretary position. The Department 
needs your leadership on these issues. We admire your 
willingness to take them on. I know very few people in this 
town who have almost no critics and who have as many friends as 
you do. You bring that particular personal talent to this job 
as well--the ability to work with people, to listen to people, 
to be accessible to people of all points of views, before 
making a balanced decision.
    We look forward to your continuing service, and again, we 
thank you and your family.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator. Any other 
colleagues desire to make some opening comments with regard to 
this nominee?
    Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Warner. Yes.
    Senator Kennedy.
    Senator Kennedy. We're looking forward to hearing from the 
witness. I just want to join with those that have welcomed 
Secretary England. I think we'll be very fortunate to have his 
service in the Department of Defense. We've had an opportunity 
to work with him in the past, in our subcommittee, as Secretary 
of the Navy. I think as Carl Levin mentioned, that the Fort 
Worth Star Telegram says--I don't often read that, and I don't 
often listen to it, but on this occasion they are 100 percent 
right--this man has no enemies in Washington after a long and 
distinguished career, which says something about his ability to 
bring divergent views together.
    Just finally, I would hope that you had a good hearing the 
other day on the personnel issues, trying to find ways of 
working together on them. I know that the Secretary will 
continue to work with us, and I'm grateful for that comment, 
and we look forward to his service.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. We'll now 
proceed to hear from the distinguished nominee.

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON R. ENGLAND, TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF 
                            DEFENSE

    Mr. England. Well, Mr. Chairman, first I'd like to express 
my deep appreciation to a pair of American patriots, my dear 
friends from the great State of Texas, Senator Kay Bailey 
Hutchison, and Senator John Cornyn. I thank them both for their 
kind introductions and their very kind remarks.
    Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, and members of the 
committee, it is a distinct privilege and a great honor to 
appear before you today. I am truly humbled by the confidence 
President Bush has shown in nominating me for the position of 
Deputy Secretary of Defense, and I sincerely value Secretary 
Rumsfeld's strong support.
    The opportunity for dialogue this committee has provided me 
during my time in government over the past 4 years is deeply 
appreciated. Be assured that if confirmed, I will continue to 
have candid dialogue with you and will be open to your comments 
and suggestions.
    As a citizen of this great Nation, I also wish to thank 
you, this entire committee, for your consistent and bipartisan 
commitment to the welfare of our military personnel, their 
families, and the security of our country. This committee has 
an historic role to ensure the defense of our Nation and the 
readiness of our Armed Forces. I thank each of you for that 
service.
    The first time I appeared before this committee was in May 
2001. The world and the security environment have changed 
dramatically. Americans, and most people throughout the world, 
will never forget where they were or what they were doing at 
just about this time on September 11, 2001. I vividly recall 
President Bush's visit to the Pentagon the very next day. The 
Pentagon was still burning. The President told the leadership 
of the Defense Department to get ready. He said that the war on 
terror would be a long struggle, that it would be diplomatic, 
economic, and military, but that the military had to succeed 
for the Nation to succeed.
    Since then, the American people and the world have 
witnessed the magnificent performance of our men and women in 
uniform, on whose behalf I vow to commit my time and my 
talents. Our military's efforts in support of the President's 
vision of freedom and liberty are already starting to make a 
profound difference in the Middle East. The world watched as 
the courageous people of Afghanistan cast ballots for the first 
time.
    Since then, we have seen historic elections in Iraq, among 
the Palestinians, and in the Ukraine twice. Syria is beginning 
to disengage in Lebanon, and other countries are moving closer 
to free elections. Freedom is on the march, but never 
guaranteed, even in America. The world is still a dangerous 
place. President Ronald Reagan, I believe, said it very well. 
The President said freedom is never more than one generation 
away from extinction. We don't pass it on to our children in 
the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed 
on for them to do the same.
    America no longer faces just the traditional and the 
predictable threats of the past. Rather, we are now also 
threatened by enemies who operate from the shadows, outside 
governments, outside the rule of law, and without compassion 
for humanity.
    From my time at the Department of Homeland Security, I am 
keenly aware that you cannot protect America from solely inside 
America. It takes both a defense and an offense. We need to 
continue to take the fight to the enemies of freedom, where 
they train and where they organize.
    To protect and defend our great Nation and to help those 
who still do not live on the right side of freedom, the 
Department of Defense recently published the new National 
Defense Strategy, aligning the Defense Department's efforts 
with the President's commitment to the forward defense of 
freedom.
    If confirmed, I will work alongside the Secretary of 
Defense and all committed patriots in the Department of Defense 
and in Congress to achieve the following goals: secure the 
United States from direct attack; secure strategic access and 
retain global freedom of action; strengthen alliances and 
partnerships; establish favorable security conditions; assure 
allies and friends; dissuade potential adversaries; deter 
aggression and counter coercion; and defeat adversaries.
    Our duty to the American people in carrying out these goals 
begins with earning and maintaining the trust and confidence 
our citizens have placed in the Department of Defense. My value 
system is aligned with President Bush's statement on this 
subject in his inaugural address. In America's ideal of 
freedom, the public interest depends on private character, on 
integrity, and tolerance towards others, and the rule of 
conscience in our own lives. Ethical leadership is especially 
critical in DOD, because trust and confidence define the 
strength of the link between a nation, her citizens, and her 
military.
    In closing, I am reminded of what President Kennedy said in 
his inaugural address in January 1961 at the height of the Cold 
War: ``In the long history of the world, only a few generations 
have been granted the role of defending freedom in the hour of 
maximum danger.'' It is a blessing for me, for our men and 
women who wear the cloth of our Nation, and for all Americans 
who live in this time of maximum danger, to have the 
opportunity to defend and advance the cause of liberty.
    Thank you for the confidence you have placed in me these 
past 4 years. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to 
work with you on the challenges ahead. Again, I thank each of 
you for what you do every day for our men and women in uniform.
    Mr. Chairman, I look forward to answering the questions of 
the committee.
    [The prepared statement of Secretary England follows:]
              Prepared Statement by Hon. Gordon R. England
    I'd first like to express my deep appreciation to a pair of 
American patriots . . . my dear friends from the great State of Texas, 
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Senator John Cornyn. Thank you for 
your kind introductions and remarks.
    Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, members of the committee . . . it 
is a distinct privilege and a great honor to appear before you today. I 
am truly humbled by the confidence President Bush has shown in 
nominating me for the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense and 
sincerely value Secretary Rumsfeld's strong support.
    The opportunity for dialogue this committee has provided me during 
my time in government over the past 4 years is deeply appreciated. Be 
assured that if confirmed, I will continue to have candid dialogue with 
you and will be open to your comments and suggestions.
    As a citizen of this great Nation, I also wish to thank you for 
your consistent and bipartisan commitment to the welfare of our 
military personnel, their families and the security of our country. 
This committee has an historic role to ensure the defense of our Nation 
and the readiness of her Armed Forces, and I thank each of you for that 
service.
    The first time I appeared before this committee was in May 2001. 
The world and the security environment have since changed dramatically.
    Americans and most people throughout the world will never forget 
where they were . . . or what they were doing . . . on September 11, 
2001.
    I vividly recall President Bush's visit to the Pentagon the very 
next day. The Pentagon was still burning. He told the leadership of the 
Defense Department to ``get ready.'' He said that the war on terror 
would be a long struggle; that it would be diplomatic, economic, and 
military . . . but that the military had to succeed for the Nation to 
succeed.
    Since then, the American people and the world have witnessed the 
magnificent performance of our men and women in uniform . . . on whose 
behalf I vow to commit my time and talents.
    Our military's efforts in support of the President's vision of 
freedom and liberty are already starting to make a profound difference 
in the Middle East. The world watched as the courageous people of 
Afghanistan cast ballots for the first time. Since then, we have seen 
historic elections in Iraq, among the Palestinians and in Ukraine. 
Syria is beginning to disengage in Lebanon and other countries are 
moving closer to free elections. Freedom is on the march, but never 
guaranteed, even in America. The world is still a dangerous place.
    President Ronald Reagan said it well:

        ``Freedom is never more than one generation away from 
        extinction. We don't pass it to our children in the 
        bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on 
        for them to do the same.''

    America no longer faces just the traditional and predictable 
threats of the past. Rather, we are now also threatened by enemies who 
operate from the shadows, outside governments, outside the rule of law, 
and without compassion for humanity.
    From my time at the Department of Homeland Security, I'm keenly 
aware that you cannot protect America from solely inside America--it 
takes both a defense and an offense. We need to continue to take the 
fight to the enemies of freedom where they train and where they 
organize.
    To protect and defend our great Nation, and to help those who still 
do not live on the right side of freedom, the Department of Defense 
recently published the new National Defense Strategy, aligning the 
Defense Department's efforts with the President's commitment to the 
forward defense of freedom.
    If confirmed, I will work alongside the Secretary of Defense and 
all committed patriots in the Department of Defense and Congress to 
achieve the following goals:

         Secure the United States from direct attack
         Secure strategic access and retain global freedom of 
        action
         Strengthen alliances and partnerships
         Establish favorable security conditions
         Assure allies and friends
         Dissuade potential adversaries
         Deter aggression and counter coercion and
         Defeat adversaries.

    Our duty to the American people in carrying out these goals begins 
with earning and maintaining the trust and confidence our citizens have 
placed in the Department of Defense.
    My value system is aligned with President Bush's statement on this 
subject in his Inaugural Address:

          ``In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends 
        on private character--on integrity, and tolerance toward 
        others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives.''
    Ethical leadership is especially critical in DOD because trust and 
confidence define the strength of the link between a Nation and her 
citizens and her military.
    In closing, I am reminded of what President Kennedy said in his 
inaugural address in January 1961 at the height of the Cold War:

        ``In the long history of the world
        Only a few generations have been granted
        The role of defending freedom
        In the hour of maximum danger.''

    It is a blessing for me . . . for our men and women who wear the 
cloth of the Nation . . . and for all Americans who live in this time 
of maximum danger to have the opportunity to defend and advance the 
cause of liberty.
    Thank you for the confidence you have placed in me these last 4 
years and, if confirmed, I look forward to continuing to work with you 
on the challenges ahead.
    Also, thank you again for what each of you do every day for our men 
and women in uniform.
    I look forward to answering your questions.

    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We'll proceed to 
a 6-minute round, and depending on the number of participants, 
the chair, in consultation with the ranking member, will 
determine if we can have a second round, given that we have a 
series of votes and we're very anxious to get to the second 
panel, namely, Admiral Mullen.
    Mr. Secretary, it's been my privilege to have had the 
opportunity to know and work under and with a number of Deputy 
Secretaries of Defense. I cut my teeth with Dave Packard. My 
first request of you, a personal one, would be to go back and 
review the Packard Commission Report as it relates to the 
acquisition process.
    Senator Levin quite justifiably recognized the strong 
contribution of our colleague here, Senator McCain, who is 
currently, as a subcommittee chairman, pursuing this subject of 
reviewing the acquisition process in the Department, and God 
willing, when I relinquish this seat, I expect that to 
continue.
    But I want to go back to, if I may be personal, Dave 
Packard used to call the Secretary of the Navy or the Under 
Secretary, depending on the subject matter, into his office, 
and I remember many times before he would let the Department of 
the Navy pursue a contract and affix the signatures on it, he 
would look you square in the eye and say, ``I'm holding you 
accountable for this contract.'' I remember that very well, 
because I did the F-14, and the S-3, among other airplane 
contracts, and many others. Believe me, I had personal 
involvement.
    As I look at this Air Force situation, it's a tragic 
situation. I'd like to say for the record at this time, I hope 
we can quickly put it behind us, and let that Department once 
again retain its distinguished position in the hierarchy of the 
Department of Defense, parallel with the other military 
departments, and get on with its business. Regrettably, there 
are still a number of things that have to be resolved before we 
can reset.
    What initiatives do you intend to take that your 
predecessor may not have taken? I do not suggest that by way of 
criticism. It's just that you have spent a life as a business 
manager and had that experience, which others have not had. I 
would want the record to say that I'm speaking for myself, and 
I think a number of this committee. We had a very high regard 
for Secretary Wolfowitz, but I think there have to be some new 
initiatives, a new approach. This is your opportunity to lay 
that foundation.
    Mr. England. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I have to tell 
you, I haven't read the whole Packard report. It's about 1,000-
1,300 pages, but I actually have read a lot of the Packard 
report, and I am familiar with the findings of the Packard 
report. This entire area, I've had a number of discussions with 
members of the committee, and I agree with the members of the 
committee that we do need to look at the whole acquisition 
area. That is part of the effort of the Quadrennial Defense 
Review (QDR) this year.
    I can tell you it has my personal attention. We have 
acquisition issues in the Navy. We do not have ethical issues 
in the Department of the Navy, and I believe that those issues 
have largely now been fixed in the Air Force in terms of the 
processes and the procedures to make sure that we don't have 
the kind of issues they have had in some of their procurements.
    But this is an area that will require a lot of attention 
and work, and I can commit to you that I will work with this 
committee and I'll work with Secretary Rumsfeld and everyone in 
the Department. It is part of my basic responsibility as the 
Deputy, and that is to put systems in place with defined 
accountability and responsibility, specific measures and 
metrics, so we can measure the health of the organization. So 
this will be my primary emphasis, and I will be working this as 
Deputy Secretary if I'm confirmed by this committee, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. We will work along with you. There will be 
a lot of attention from this committee on that subject.
    Integral to any review such as you're going to perform, and 
integral to your daily responsibilities, is just the 
fundamental doctrine of accountability, holding those with 
responsibility accountable. I mentioned the story of Dave 
Packard. I hope that you have your own system of 
accountability, and recognize those instances where it goes 
beyond the purview of your immediate office and it goes into 
the various judicial systems, to accord all of those full 
protection under the judicial system.
    In the end, there has to be, I think, a greater degree of 
accountability. Again, speaking for myself, but I believe 
others, we're very dismayed at the acting Secretary of the Air 
Force. The last thing he did when he walked out of office was 
to wipe the slate clean with regard to questions regarding the 
infamous scandals of abuse of the women cadets at the Air Force 
Academy. This case was reviewed by the Fowler Commission and 
many others. We, in Congress, and the Fowler Commission, 
expected a greater degree of accountability for that episode in 
the contemporary history of the Academy.
    So I just point out that the subject of accountability is 
high on the agenda of this committee. It's to be meted out 
fairly and in every way in accordance with due process. We 
expect it.
    Mr. England. Senator, if I could just make one comment. I 
believe the hallmark of my tenure and that of the CNO, Admiral 
Vernon Clark, is to set high standards, hold people 
accountable, and stay with those standards. We have a policy 
called the slippery slope policy; that is, you never even start 
down that slope. We hold people accountable even for the 
smallest transgressions, whether they be moral, ethical, or 
technical.
    I have with the CNO, I believe, set high standards for the 
Department of the Navy, and we'll continue to do so in the 
Department of Defense if I'm confirmed, sir.
    Chairman Warner. I think the combined team of yourself and 
the CNO have relieved about as high a number of ship captains 
as any Secretary and CNO have in recent history. I'm fully 
aware of the accountability standards that you've employed, and 
I commend you and the CNO.
    To the subject at hand, and that is Iraq, perhaps the most 
tragic chapters have been the start and stops and the failure 
to anticipate a number of situations. Foremost was the body 
armor, the uparmoring of trucks, and all of those issues. That 
should have been foreseen in some measure and planned for, but 
it wasn't.
    I believe today, everything that can be done is being done, 
but the tragic loss of the life and limb, the heartbreak to the 
families of the victims and others will never be replaced. 
Likewise, the improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and the task 
force assigned to look into the IEDs, I would hope that you 
would put both of these subjects as your very top agenda items.
    Mr. England. Mr. Chairman, you have my assurance I will. 
You know my capacity, again, as Secretary of the Navy, working 
with the United States Marine Corps, this was a very top 
priority. Also you should know, of course, I don't have the 
responsibility in my current job for Iraq, but I did have the 
responsibility to equip the United States Marine Corps, and we 
had every single marine with plates and armor before they 
entered into Iraq. I do understand the urgency of this, and we 
are working those issues today. They will receive my complete 
attention if confirmed, Mr. Chairman. I share your views on 
this subject.
    Chairman Warner. Well, now you don't have just the Marine 
Corps and the Navy. You have them all.
    Mr. England. Absolutely. I understand. It's daunting.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you.
    Senator Levin.
    Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In addition to the 
pervasive failure to establish accountability in the 
Department, particularly in the acquisition area, there's a 
number of other problems. We had some testimony recently where 
the acting Secretary of the Air Force acknowledged that his 
Department had gone too far in downsizing the acquisition 
organization and removed critical checks and balances from the 
acquisition process. That problem is not unique to the Air 
Force, by the way.
    Your strong background in acquisition puts you in a very 
advantageous position in terms of reversing some of the 
degradation that we've seen in the acquisition process. I 
welcome your assurance to this committee that you will work 
with us to re-examine the acquisition organization, the 
acquisition process in the Department of Defense, and to ensure 
that we have the structures and processes that we need to 
deliver high quality systems to the warfighters on a cost-
effective and timely basis.
    Mr. England. Senator, you have my personal assurance to do 
that. That is an area obviously of significant interest to me, 
so be assured that this will receive my highest attention, and 
we will indeed work with this committee, sir.
    Senator Levin. One of the principles that we've adopted in 
acquisition is that you ``fly before you buy'' for weapons 
systems. We have not followed that the way we should in the 
area of ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems. This letter 
came to us from Under Secretary Wynne last year, and I want to 
see if you would concur with Secretary Wynne's assurance to us. 
He said that he would ensure the Department conducts 
operational testing on that system as required by statute. The 
Department has committed to adequate testing, even at this 
early stage of the BMD system.
    Therefore, a focused operational test and evaluation (OT&E) 
consistent with the capability demonstrated during combined 
developmental and operational testing will be conducted on each 
future block configuration of the ballistic missile defense 
system. The director of OT&E, will approve the operational test 
planning, evaluate test results, and provide a characterization 
of operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability.
    Is that an approach which you are willing to support that 
Secretary Wynne laid out for us?
    Mr. England. Senator, that does sound appropriate. What I 
understand is we do now have the signed-off test plan by the 
director of OT&E as we go forward. The system, of course, was 
fielded, and I would say fielded earlier than some systems, but 
that was in accordance with the Missile Defense Act of 1999, 
which specifically said to start to field as soon as 
technically capable.
    That said, the design test in fielding as that proceeds 
does require a test plan that is operationally--that is 
operationally suitable, as close to operational as possible. I 
believe--without having the memo in front of me--I believe 
that's basically what Secretary Wynne is outlining.
    Senator Levin. The operational test plan that you make 
reference to is very different from a developmental test plan. 
What we would ask is that you would understand that difference 
and support the operational testing, which is required by law.
    Mr. England. Yes. Senator, I do support the operational 
testing. I believe we're doing operational development testing 
together as an integrated test plan. But I will definitely look 
at this, if confirmed. I will definitely look at this and I'll 
get back with you, Senator.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    In January 2002, the Secretary of Defense directed that the Missile 
Defense Agency be responsible for Developmental Testing and Evaluation 
(DT&E) of the Ballistic Defense System and its elements, and that 
Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) be conducted after a block 
configuration is transferred to service for production.
    The Missile Defense Agency has taken an aggressive approach towards 
ensuring that the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, and the 
Operational Test Agencies are involved in Ballistic Missile Defense 
System developmental test activities. This approach recognizes that 
early involvement by the users and operational testers leads to their 
deeper understanding of the Ballistic Missile Defense System 
development processes and operations, which can only serve to improve 
the operational Ballistic Missile Defense System.
    The Missile Defense Agency, the Director, Operational Test and 
Evaluation, and the Operational Test Agencies approved an Integrated 
Master Test Plan in December 2004. This plan adds operational realism 
to the test program, as directed by section 234 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. The Integrated Master Test Plan 
will be revised annually to expand on the combined developmental and 
operational test approach. More realistic operational testing will be 
planned and executed, consistent with the maturity and capability of 
the system, as we move from subsystem to fully integrated system-level 
testing for each block. Currently, every major Ballistic Missile 
Defense System ground and flight test includes operational test 
objectives to provide data for an operational assessment.
    To specifically address section 234 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 on Increasing Operational 
Realism, the Director, Missile Defense Agency and the Director, 
Operational Test and Evaluation, issued a joint report (Ballistic 
Missile Defense System, response to section 234, Increasing Operational 
Realism, April 4, 2005) which expanded on the criteria for 
operationally realistic testing provided in the Ballistic Missile 
Defense Integrated Master Test plan, and provided a brief description 
of the significant tests that were planned over the next 2 years. 
Because of our recent test setbacks, MDA has established a Mission 
Readiness Task Force to implement the corrections needed to ensure we 
return to a successful flight test program. To address the task force 
recommendations, the Department determined that we needed additional 
time to address mission readiness before meeting the test timeline 
specified in paragraph (b), section 234 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. Upon resumption of the flight 
test program, we will work with the Director, Operational Test and 
Evaluation, and the Service operational testing communities to ensure 
an adequate testing program is executed that provides essential data to 
evaluate and adequately demonstrate the operational capability of the 
Ballistic Missile Defense System.

    Senator Levin. Thank you. After your confirmation, 
Secretary England, do you expect to play a role in the QDR?
    Mr. England. Yes, I do, Senator.
    Senator Levin. One of the issues which has arisen relative 
to that is that former Department of Defense officials are 
going to be given a role inside the QDR development with panels 
that they are going to participate in. I just want to let you 
know that I find that troubling, that former officials would be 
playing a role internally with those panels, and I would only 
ask that you look at that and get back to this committee as to 
whether or not you think it is appropriate.
    Mr. England. Yes, sir, I will.
    Chairman Warner. Would you allow for an intervention?
    Senator Levin. Sure.
    Chairman Warner. Secretary Wolfowitz called me on that 
issue, and I seem to have a view that is different than yours. 
I believe that the breadth and scope of that review is such 
that if he wishes to access talent beyond what had been in 
previous reviews, it might strengthen the report. I just want 
that on the record.
    Senator Levin. Sure. My issue is not that he accessed 
talent with outside recommendations. It's that outside people 
formerly with the Department would participate on the internal 
panels reviewing the QDR, which is a very significant 
difference. I would just simply ask that you look at that 
difference and report back to this committee on it.
    Mr. Secretary, are you going to continue to play a leading 
role in the implementation of the National Security Personnel 
System (NSPS) the way you've done so far? It's been a 
critically important role. We've gone through this at other 
hearings, and we commend you again for your accessibility, your 
openness, your willingness to listen, and consider different 
points of view. I hope you're going to continue to play that 
role, but my question is, are you going to?
    Mr. England. Yes, Senator. I am going to continue that 
role. I would only moderate that and say I will continue that 
role at least through the publication of the final regulations 
and through the implementation of the first round. At some 
point we do hand it off, but I will make absolutely certain we 
get through the finishing of the development of the NSPS and 
the initiation then of the system in the first round.
    Senator Levin. Thank you. The report of Vice Admiral Church 
on interrogation techniques cited the fact that the Navy 
General Counsel, Alberto Mora, raised serious concerns 
regarding aggressive interrogation techniques which had been 
approved by Secretary Rumsfeld in December 2002 for use at 
Guantanamo Bay. According to the Church report, Mr. Mora said 
that the head of the Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) 
at Guantanamo, Mr. Brant, reported to him, Mr. Mora, that a 
detainee at Guantanamo was being subjected to physical abuse.
    Concerns about this interrogation were so serious that the 
Defense Department's Criminal Investigative Task Force, of 
which NCIS is a part, decided to disassociate itself from that 
interrogation. Now, after a briefing by Mr. Brant and the head 
of the NCIS, chief psychologist Dr. Gellis, Mr. Mora concluded 
that those interrogation techniques would ``be unlawful and 
unworthy of the military services.''
    Based in part on Mr. Mora's objection, Secretary Rumsfeld 
rescinded the approval of those aggressive interrogation 
techniques in January 2003. My question to you, Mr. Secretary, 
is whether you were aware of your General Counsel's objections 
to those aggressive interrogation techniques which had been 
approved for use at Guantanamo?
    Mr. England. Senator, I was aware, but retrospectively, 
because I had left about the end of November for the Department 
of Homeland Security. So I was aware, but frankly, I wasn't 
that deeply involved, so I'm really not in a position to 
comment on that, Senator.
    Senator Levin. You had left in November 2002?
    Mr. England. Yes, that's correct.
    Senator Levin. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. Senator McCain.
    Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to 
add my words of congratulations and support for your 
nomination, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. England. Thank you.
    Senator McCain. I've had the pleasure of working with you 
for many years, and I strongly applaud and appreciate the 
outstanding work that you've done in the past. I know you are 
keenly aware of the significant challenges that you face.
    I'd like to talk about acquisition and procurement with 
you, but first of all, I would like to mention I'm very 
interested in bringing closure to the whole Boeing affair, and 
I can't do it until we get the e-mails that were promised. The 
latest promise was the middle of February, and here we are in 
April and we still haven't gotten them, and it's largely due to 
the obfuscation by the General Counsel of the Department of 
Defense. I hope you would address that issue so we can bring 
closure to this issue and move on.
    Mr. England. I will address it, Senator.
    Senator McCain. On the issue of procurement, a specific 
question. We were told in testimony and published information 
that if the C-130J is canceled, which is the present budgetary 
proposal sent over by the President, that would increase the 
cost of the F-22, because they're made by the same 
manufacturer. When Boeing shuts down a line of their commercial 
aircraft manufacturing, they don't add cost to the other 
product.
    We're going to want some answers on that. I understand that 
it could be hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs 
to the F-22, which has already sustained significant cost 
increases. Will you look into that for me? I've asked the Air 
Force to give us some information on that. I'd appreciate it if 
you'd look at that.
    Mr. England. I'll definitely look at it. We'll get back 
with you, Senator. It sounds like it's an allocation of 
overhead, but I'll definitely look at it and we'll get back 
with you, sir.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    It is a common practice within industry to apportion overhead costs 
across a portfolio of products from a single manufacturer, shifting 
that spread as changes in the portfolio occur. In this particular case, 
the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) estimated that 
termination of the C-130J program would have added $175 million total 
overhead across F/A-22 lots 6-8 because the F/A-22 and C-130J share a 
production facility. Other Lockheed Martin programs would have also 
seen smaller increases in overhead. In each case the exact amount 
however would have been negotiated, had the C-130J multi-year contract 
not been re-instated.

    Senator McCain. Thank you. We'll get into it more later on. 
I'm sure you saw the article in today's New York Times which is 
very disturbing about Navy shipbuilding. We all know that the 
budget request for next year is for four new Navy ships, which 
is the all-time low that I've ever heard of. I guess, according 
to this article, we now have less Navy ships, than we've had 
since World War I.
    But the interesting thing in the facts that we have been 
able to obtain is the dramatic cost overruns that are 
associated with acquisition of ships. Now, it isn't just ships. 
We are running into the same thing with Future Combat System 
(FCS) and other weapons systems. We all know that Navy ships 
have more than one mission. One of them is to fight. Another 
one is for presence. Another is to be prepared to respond. In 
the new kind of warfare we're fighting, it may not require the 
most sophisticated weapons systems, and yet, we're now at a 
point where, at least according to this article, we may be 
building 4 or 5 of the new destroyers, as opposed to the 
original 24.
    Assistant Secretary Young is quoted as saying the 
shipbuilders' complaints about stability are way overstated. If 
I give you $30 a week, you'd find a way to eat lunch for a 
week. You'd find a way to do it, but if I said lunch for a week 
and whatever it costs, things would come out differently.
    We have to get a handle on this, Mr. Secretary, and if 
we're now evenly dividing the ship production between two 
shipyards and there's no real competition, then the only answer 
is some kind of government control, if there is no competition. 
We all want competition, but apparently there is none.
    I know you've been heavily involved in this issue before 
you went to the Department of Homeland Security. I know you're 
aware of it. When we have the increase in costs of $3 billion 
in 2005 dollars to $13 billion in 2005 dollars for aircraft 
carriers, we're just pricing ourselves out of the business.
    I'd be very interested in hearing your views as to how we 
can address this problem, and quickly.
    Mr. England. Senator, it is a significant problem. You're 
absolutely right. I do not disagree with you on this. This is a 
significant problem. I will tell you it does not lend itself to 
a simple solution. I believe this is very complex. A lot of the 
industrial base is basically ``captured by DOD,'' so we have a 
very small industrial base for the Department. A lot of that 
industrial base relies solely on funding from the Department of 
Defense. That makes it very difficult for the Department and 
for the companies, particularly when we're in a period of 
change and transition, as we are today.
    So I don't know the answers. I do know that we need to work 
this issue. We do have an effort underway as part of the 
Quadrennial Defense Review to look at the whole acquisition 
aspect. We're also looking at Goldwater-Nichols. Of course, it 
came out about 1986. It was a different world. It was a lot of 
contractors and large production, and now we have small rates 
and a small number of contractors, and speed is important.
    So we need to look at the whole premise of how we're 
proceeding on acquisition. There have been a lot of studies. I 
don't know the answer, Senator. The most I can tell you is I 
will be very open. I'll work with Congress and the industry and 
approach this problem, because it is an issue.
    Our cost in every single weapons system is going up 
dramatically, and is going up dramatically above the inflation 
rates.
    Senator McCain. Could I just mention, Mr. Chairman, I 
understand that the Center for Strategic and International 
Studies (CSIS) is doing a comprehensive study that may give us 
some ideas for reform. Clearly, we need to go back and look at 
Goldwater-Nichols. I think the fact that the Department of 
Defense encouraged consolidation amongst Defense corporations 
was a mistake in retrospect. We need to at least examine a need 
for possible legislation, and I'm obviously thinking out loud, 
but for us to impose more bureaucracies, more regulations, and 
more strictures, then that increases rather than decreases 
costs.
    Thank you for saying you don't know the answer. I don't 
either, but I do believe that it has to be of the highest 
priority. Obviously, I have some previous bias towards the 
Navy, but the thought of having less ships in the Navy than at 
any time in the last 100 years in an era when we're facing a 
challenge--I don't say a threat, but a challenge--in the 
emerging superpower in Asia, is something that I think should 
concern all of us.
    I thank you for your appreciation of the problem, and I 
believe that this committee should make it a very high priority 
to address this issue, and I thank you.
    Mr. England. We will definitely support you in those 
efforts, Senator.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator McCain. I'll volunteer, 
if I may, my time. On the floor right now we've got an $84 
billion supplemental, and much of that is to replenish and 
augment what's perceived to be the needs of the United States 
Army. I'm not here to argue that.
    This shipbuilding situation is going to get turned around 
only if a persuasive case is made to the President of the 
United States that he must direct his budget authorities to 
begin to include in the Department of Defense's budget 
earmarked for the United States Navy those funds sufficient to 
turn this curve around, and once again restore America to its 
preeminence in naval shipbuilding. That's this Senator's 
response to an answer.
    Senator Lieberman.
    Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary 
England, welcome. Thank you for being willing to accept this 
responsibility. You're making your way up rapidly at the 
Defense Department with a good cause, and I appreciate it.
    In a city that is very ideological and partisan, you are a 
wonderfully sensible man who keeps his head while a lot of 
others around are losing theirs.
    Mr. England. Thank you.
    Senator Lieberman. So I admire you very much. It's been a 
pleasure to get to know you, and I look forward to working with 
you in this new position. I must say also that I found your 
opening statement to be stirring, and I appreciate very much 
your patriotism.
    In the programmatic give and take that we have around here 
most of the time, we don't get to hear what motivates you, and 
I appreciate that very much. I'm not surprised by it, but I 
respect it. I thank you.
    You may get a feeling that we're either jumping on here 
today or we're all reaching a conclusion at a similar time, and 
there is clearly growing and deep concern about the acquisition 
process within the Defense Department on this committee, which 
is obviously a pro-Defense committee. To some extent, Senator 
McCain acting on his instinct that something was wrong with the 
Boeing tanker lease agreement, began the unraveling of a 
problem here that is much more complex and wide than the 
unethical conflict of interest behavior of one former employee, 
Ms. Druyan, who is now incarcerated as a result of her 
behavior. It is my pleasure to serve with Senator McCain as the 
ranking Democrat on the Airland Subcommittee.
    I do want to come back and ask you something and emphasize 
a point. I quoted, at the hearing we had last week, testimony 
by General Martin about the, not quite collapse, but the 
weakening of the acquisition offices within the Air Force, and 
that the offices were reduced in number during the 1990s as we 
scaled down the budget of the Defense Department, but now as 
we've raised it up again in the middle of a war now, we haven't 
raised up the acquisition forces within the office.
    General Martin, at least, thought that that was part of the 
problem beyond the ethics of Ms. Druyan. The failure of a lot 
of others besides Ms. Druyan to blow the whistle on that 
particular proposal with Boeing, and why the incredible cost 
escalation.
    So my question is, from the time you've been in the 
Department, do you think we've let the acquisition offices 
atrophy to our detriment?
    Mr. England. Well, Senator, I have to say I perhaps have a 
different view. Frankly, my view is we need to greatly simplify 
the system. I believe it's very complex. It's very difficult to 
do work with the Department of Defense. We have a lot of rules, 
regulations, and complexities.
    My tendency is, at least, to try to simplify. It's better 
oversight if it's better understood, and it's easier to manage 
if it's better understood. That may be difficult to do. We 
haven't been able to simplify it over these many years. It 
always gets more and more complex. But my tendency is, if it is 
simpler, then it is easier to manage; it's more 
straightforward, as we have better metrics to understand where 
we are. I think industry would understand our process better. 
We may open up the industry base to more competition across 
companies in America. So my tendency is to make it simpler.
    Now, do we have enough people or not? In the Department of 
Navy, my assessment is we do, and I believe we do the job very 
well. I really can't speak for the Air Force, Senator.
    Senator Lieberman. Well, that's not the answer I expected, 
but it may be the right answer. I wish you well, and please 
continue to be in touch with us about that. There's no question 
that some of the complications in the acquisition process, I 
presume, have been put there to instill accountability.
    But if they are part of the cause for the escalation in 
costs in acquisition, which is making it less and less possible 
for us to acquire the systems that we need, then let's give 
simplicity, or some more simplification, a try.
    Mr. England. Well, Senator, in the QDR this year, this is a 
key part of the QDR, the whole acquisition aspect. So with the 
QDR, which I will be managing for Secretary Rumsfeld, it will 
get my personal attention. Plus, in addition to that, it's 
going to get my personal attention because I'm interested and 
I'm concerned, as you are, about the whole acquisition process. 
I previously participated in a number of Defense Science Board 
studies before I came into government on this very issue. I am 
familiar with it, and so I will work this, because this is at 
the bedrock of what we do in the Department of Defense.
    Senator Lieberman. I appreciate that. Look, we're talking 
about cost, which is critical. I've always been amazed at how 
long it takes to get a new plane, a new ship from research and 
development to actual delivery. It's unbelievable, at a time 
when cycles of technology are changing every 6 months to a year 
in the private sector.
    Mr. England. That was a concern.
    Senator Lieberman. Go to it, and be as strong as you can. 
Obviously the other point we're making is set forth in the 
shipbuilding story in the paper today. I understand that the 
sophisticated systems we're building are better than single 
vessels or single planes produced before. But at some point, 
quantity does stop quality and inhibits our ability to defend 
ourselves.
    Thank you very much for your answers and for your 
willingness to serve in yet one more position in the Defense 
Department.
    Mr. England. Thank you very much, Senator.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Inhofe.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When Senator 
Lieberman talked about the time it takes for systems to be 
delivered after ordering, I remember the problem we had in some 
of the fast-moving technologies such as global positioning 
system (GPS). By the time the system was delivered, it was 
already obsolete. That is a serious problem that has been 
looked into and needs to be followed up on, I think.
    Secretary England, during the development of the budget and 
what came out of the administration, the thing that upset me, I 
guess, more in terms of being inadequate was the fact that 
they're cutting the C-130Js, J-models, and actually eliminating 
them and cutting the Marine version, which is the KC-130J, down 
from 51 to 33.
    When Secretary Teets was here about a month ago, just prior 
to his retirement, that was at a time when 30 of the KC-130Es 
were grounded and another 60 C-130 Es and Hs were restricted, 
or being restricted due to cracks and highly stressed areas. 
The study that has taken place, the mobility and capability 
study, was in process when they came out with the elimination 
of this program.
    I think there's one area that we are deficient in and that 
is the area of lift and lift capability. I know that they're 
talking about it. I've heard a variety of figures, on the 
termination costs. Apparently these were not considered at the 
time that the budget was developed. While I do agree with 
Senator McCain, and it may be a stretch sometimes talking about 
the effect on the F-22, certainly it would definitely have an 
effect on the KC-130J models that the Marines have.
    I think both Secretary Teets and General Jumper stated that 
there would be a review of this cancellation. I'd like to have 
you make some comments as to your feelings about that 
particular review and about the problem that we have in that 
capability.
    Mr. England. Well, Senator Inhofe, I do know it's being 
reviewed. We did have a requirement for an additional, as you 
indicated, I believe, 17 KC-130Js in the United States Marine 
Corps. That was part of the input that led the DOD to look 
again at the C-130J contract in terms of how to go forward.
    My understanding is it is being re-looked at, partly in 
response to the Department of the Navy. I don't know exactly 
where that is, sir, because that's really outside my purview 
now as Secretary of the Navy. But I will look into that. I'll 
be happy to get back with you, Senator, and I'll let you know 
the reports of that.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    The Department is reviewing the decision to cancel the C-130J 
multi-year contract, based on new information regarding contract 
termination costs. I anticipate Secretary Rumsfeld will announce his 
decision soon.

    My understanding is we are going to go forward at a minimum 
and build out the KC-130Js for the United States Marine Corps.
    Senator Inhofe. I'd like to have you really look at that 
and consider that, because when you go into the field and talk 
to these people, they talk about their deficiencies and lift 
capability, and this doesn't seem like the right time.
    Senator McCain ended his questioning by talking about the 
emerging superpower in Asia, obviously talking about China. 
I've had occasion to give four China speeches on some of the 
things that are happening recently. We remember back during the 
1990s, China was caught stealing some of our nuclear secrets, 
the W-88 warhead, the crown jewel, I guess you'd say, of our 
arsenal. They were able to get that and have capabilities and 
are trading those capabilities with North Korea.
    I'd like to have you comment as to your concern over that 
emerging superpower in Asia, as Senator McCain put it.
    Mr. England. Senator, obviously a concern, because it is a 
growing power, and so we obviously need to keep track from a 
military point of view to make sure we are prepared to 
dissuade. That said, I certainly hope that in the course of 
China's development, we find mechanisms to make them our great 
friends. Today they account for a lot of our trade, and a lot 
of our trade deficit, but the trade between countries is also a 
way to build ties of prosperity and peace so, hopefully, we 
don't end up in a conflict. China and all other countries need 
to be monitored by the Department of Defense.
    Senator Inhofe. I understand that, but let me specifically 
request that you spend some time on the Cox report. They spent 
about 4 years working on a bipartisan approach to the emerging 
threat that China presents. I will read you one of the 
statements that was very disturbing to me that came from two of 
the top senior Chinese colonels. As they said, military threats 
are already no longer the major factor affecting national 
security. Traditional factors are increasingly becoming more 
intertwined with grabbing resources, contending for markets, 
controlling capital, trade sanctions, and other economic 
factors. The destruction they do in the areas attacked are 
absolutely not secondary to pure military wars.
    It's something that I have been very much concerned about. 
While there's not time to pursue this, and I won't be here when 
Admiral Mullen is here, I would like to have him for the record 
respond to some of these things. Right now in certain areas, 
whether it's in Venezuela, Iran, or any number of countries 
like Benin and Nigeria in Africa, the Chinese are doing things. 
They're building stadiums, doing things free for all these 
countries.
    But what do they all have in common? They have in common 
that they have huge resources in terms of the deficiencies that 
China has. In other words, they have oil. The greatest need 
that China has right now, and that they can foresee in the 
future, is that of oil.
    So, I would like to have Admiral Mullen spend a little bit 
of time for the record in responding with his opinion. Also, as 
to what we should be doing and the threats that are there.
    I know that you have been confined to the Navy, but here's 
just one thing that came out of the report. China is looking 
not only to build a blue water Navy to control the sea lanes, 
but also to develop undersea mines and missile capabilities to 
deter the potential disruption of its energy supplies from 
potential threats, including the U.S. Navy, especially in the 
case of a conflict with Taiwan.
    Now, we know also that they have been in a position to buy 
in one purchase some 240 SU-30s, which are better--in so many 
ways--than our F-15s and F-16s. I consider this to be very 
serious, and would hope that you would share that concern and 
start addressing it.
    Mr. England. Senator, I do share that concern.
    Obviously, the Navy has taken a lot of actions. I'd like to 
not discuss it here, but would be pleased to get with you and 
have those discussions, and also with Admiral Mullen. From a 
naval point of view, we are keenly aware of the actions being 
taken by China. We would be pleased to meet with you at your 
convenience and discuss that, Senator.
    But as a matter of policy, I understand your input and do 
not disagree with this, sir. Obviously it's an area of 
interest.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Secretary England.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
    Senator Clinton.
    Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, and welcome indeed. 
I've enjoyed working with you in your capacity as Secretary of 
the Navy, and look forward to continuing that relationship.
    I think from the questions that have been posed thus far, 
Secretary England, you get an idea of the unanswered questions 
and some of the frustration that members of the committee feel. 
Speaking just as one member of the committee, it was a very 
difficult relationship with your predecessor. Very often we 
didn't get answers. We didn't get follow-up, we rarely got the 
kind of response that this committee and this body deserve to 
have. So it's a welcome change to have you before us.
    There are a number of concerns that have already been 
raised, and I'd like to focus on just a few more. I'm concerned 
about the continuing use of supplementals to fund permanent 
force structure changes. We've seen the Department rely on 
supplementals in both fiscal year 2005 and 2006 to fund 
existing or planned end strength increases, as well as 
permanent changes in force structure, known as modularity in 
the Army, and the force structure review group for the Marine 
Corps.
    Earlier this year, when I asked the Army's Chief of Staff, 
General Schoomaker, why the Army's 2006 budget did not fund the 
personnel level of 512,000 the Army actually plans to have 
instead of the 482,000 that are funded in the budget, he stated 
that he was given the option of funding those extra people in 
his core budget or in a 2006 supplemental. He chose the 
supplemental so he wouldn't have to displace other programs.
    Now, if the senior leadership of the Department gives the 
Services the choice of funding programs below the line or above 
the line, of course they're going to pick the same option that 
the Army did and that the Marines did in this budget, and put 
it on the supplemental tab. But programs like modularity are 
not surprises. They're intended to be permanent changes in the 
way services operate. In my view, it's not responsible 
budgeting.
    So let me ask you, do you believe it is sound budgetary 
management practice to submit budgets that do not fund the 
actual level of Active-Duty people DOD intends to have on board 
in 2006, and to include only a small portion of the operating, 
construction, and modernization costs of ongoing restructuring 
plans such as modularity? If confirmed, would you work with us 
to ensure that DOD sends us a budget that realistically 
reflects personnel levels and long-term modernization efforts?
    Mr. England. Senator, we will definitely work with you, and 
I appreciate the opportunity to do so. Regarding the 
supplementals, my understanding as the one responsible for the 
Department of Navy budget is that when we have predictable, and 
what I call everyday things that we know are going to happen, 
we put those in the budget. If it's unpredictable, like a war 
contingency, we put them in the supplemental.
    I don't know about the Army, Senator. I wasn't given an 
option about what goes in or out of the budget. I mean, it's in 
our budget. Now, the devil's in the details. Right now, we are 
working on the 2007 budget, so there is this long lead time in 
terms of what is predictable. When we know what it's going to 
be, and it is the course of business of the Department, it 
definitely should be in the budget. When we know those costs, 
they should be in the budget. However, for unpredictable, 
contingency sort of operations, obviously we'll need a 
supplemental.
    So, I think that's the policy, and I believe that is a 
valid policy. There may be some differences in the details, but 
keep in mind we have a long lead time in terms of putting those 
budgets together.
    Senator Clinton. Well, I'm very happy to hear that. The 
Senate passed a Sense of the Senate resolution yesterday making 
the same point so that we would have budgeting that would be 
reflective of the long-term costs that we know we're going to 
be incurring.
    With respect to that, my colleagues, Senator Reed and 
Senator Hagel, have been the leaders in arguing that we need to 
grow the end strength of the Army, and that is something that 
we've not yet really come to terms with from the Department's 
perspective. What are your views about increasing Army end 
strength, and is it something that will be addressed in the 
QDR?
    Mr. England. Yes, it will. We will specifically look at 
force size in the QDR, Senator, and I would recommend that we 
go through the QDR, because it will be starting with 
capabilities, but we will get down to a force-sizing construct, 
and that report is due next February. Hopefully, we can hold to 
that schedule.
    It is a very complex and a very important QDR. The last 
QDR, of course, was before September 11, so this is now 
reflecting the world that exists today. It will be very 
complex, but it will certainly point to force sizes. In terms 
of total force, my expectation is that we will be able to get 
down in terms of numbers of specific assets, and that's a 
question that's come up here today, how many of what assets do 
we need. There will be a very comprehensive look in the QDR, 
and, hopefully, we'll have some answers for you at the end of 
this QDR, Senator.
    Senator Clinton. We look forward to that. I know that 
there's a continuing effort on the part of many of us to try to 
get an answer on the end strength of the Army.
    My time is up, but yesterday on Long Island, my colleague 
from the House, Congressman Steve Israel, and I held a hearing 
with military families and vets, and the problems that our 
Guard and Reserve families are encountering are heartbreaking. 
Despite the fact that we have tried to address some of these 
issues like the absence of health care, like the continuing 
problems with companies foreclosing on homes, repossessing 
autos while a loved one is deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan, 
they are having a terrible impact on the morale of families, 
which of course has a boomerang effect on the morale of the 
serving Guard or Reserve member.
    I would just urge that some of us, Lindsey Graham and I and 
others, have been pushing for some very positive changes with 
respect to health care and retirement, and we need to do that. 
I'm worried about our recruitment and retention goals in the 
Guard and Reserve, and we would look for some support and 
guidance from you in your new position. I thank you very much.
    Mr. England. Thank you, Senator.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. I also have some 
concerns along the lines that you talked about concerning the 
Guard and Reserve, but I don't want to suggest that in any way 
are the Active Forces and the families of the Active Forces 
having similar experiences. So there's a uniqueness to those 
who are brought from civilian life rather abruptly and 
integrated, but there are comparable hardship cases in the 
Active Forces.
    Senator Collins.
    Senator Collins. Mr. Secretary, welcome.
    Mr. England. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Collins. The total shipbuilding budget has fallen 
from $11.4 billion in fiscal year 2004 to $10.4 billion in 2005 
to $8.7 billion in this year's budget request. Last week, 
Admiral Clark testified before the Seapower Subcommittee that 
he really needs $14 to $15 billion for shipbuilding.
    He also made a second, very important point. He talked 
about the lack of stability in the shipbuilding budget, and 
what he said he needs is level funding for a number of years. 
Similarly, the shipbuilding industry representatives testified 
last week that they are unable to respond economically and 
effectively to the instability in the budget fluctuations. 
Continual revisions to the Navy's shipbuilding budget has a 
ripple effect on their workforce, on their suppliers, and they 
made the point that this contributes to the cost growth problem 
that I know is of tremendous concern to you.
    In other words, absent a predictable plan, the industrial 
base cannot fully leverage its capabilities to provide the Navy 
with the most affordable ships possible. Do you believe that 
more stable funding, and an end to this up-and-down approach, 
as well as increased shipbuilding funding, would be better for 
the Navy, for the industrial base, and for our Nation's 
security?
    Mr. England. Well, certainly stability is good for 
everyone, Senator. There's no question. I would have to agree 
with that. I do have to comment, we are down this year, but our 
research and development is also at an all-time high. The Navy 
is at a point of transitioning to a whole new class of ships.
    So while everyone's concerned, and I am this year, we have 
four ships that we count, but we also have a vast amount of 
money in DD(X) and LHA(R) that do not ``count,'' so we're not 
counting them this year. That said, our procurement investment 
is down this year, but if you look at our projections as we go 
forward, it does continue to increase.
    Frankly, my concern is more on the increasing costs. We 
have 40 ships in the backlog right now, and almost all of those 
ships in the backlog continue to go up. I am concerned about 
the increasing costs of ships. I know it's an integrated 
problem. Certainly we like to have stable funding, but I 
believe it's more than just stable funding.
    Senator Collins. I think it's an important element. Mr. 
Secretary, in your answers to the advance questions submitted 
by the committee, you said, in discussing the DD(X) acquisition 
strategy, that, ``Competition is a key component of any 
strategy to control costs, however, it is not certain that the 
acquisition strategy for the DD(X) class will force a sole-
source environment for all future surface combatant work.'' You 
go on to say that yards that have not built surface combatants 
in the past may choose to enter that line of work.
    But the fact is, currently there are only two shipyards, 
Bath Iron Works and Ingalls, that have the capability to build 
major surface combatants, and indeed, all of the major surface 
combatants in the past 20 years have been built at just those 
two shipyards.
    Your comments, as well as the Navy's commitment to what I 
call the one shipyard acquisition strategy have led some 
observers to question whether the Navy plans to use foreign 
shipbuilders to lower costs and to ensure competition. In other 
words, is the Navy sacrificing an American shipyard, knowing 
that it could do this work and introduce competition eventually 
by using foreign sources?
    Have you had any discussions at all about using foreign 
shipyards to construct ships for the Navy?
    Mr. England. No, we haven't.
    Senator Collins. I'm glad to hear that. That is the rumor 
that is out there.
    Mr. England. That's not correct, Senator.
    Senator Collins. I'm glad that we can get that on the 
record.
    Finally, Secretary England, the Senate has sent numerous 
and strong messages that the Pentagon should take a second look 
at its winner-take-all acquisition strategy for the DD(X). 
Twenty of us have written to the President to express our 
concerns about the impact on the industrial base, our national 
security, and the future of the Navy. We have included language 
without any objection in the Senate in the budget resolution 
that passed. There is binding language that would prohibit the 
Navy from going ahead with the winner-take-all strategy that 
has been included in the supplemental appropriations bill that 
is on the floor.
    In view of these repeated, unambiguous, very clear messages 
that the Senate is sending to the Navy, are you taking a second 
look at the proposed acquisition strategy?
    Mr. England. Senator, obviously we're going to do whatever 
the law of the land is. If Congress takes action, obviously 
we're going to do that. We are at this decision point in terms 
of either competing a program or allocating, and with that 
choice is a very significant difference in cost. Cost has been 
an issue here today, and our analysis says we save $300 million 
a ship if we allocate, as opposed to competing. That's very 
significant for the Department of the Navy.
    So we propose what we believe is in the best interests of 
the Navy, but I understand there are other discussions and 
other views, and at the end of the day, whatever that decision 
is, the Navy will go forward. But, the Navy view is that we do 
need to compete programs, we do need to bring about 
efficiencies, and we do need to save costs on the programs. 
Otherwise, we will be, frankly, in a death spiral as the cost 
goes up. If we allocate and the cost goes up, then we build 
less ships. If we build less ships, they cost more. We need to 
break this cycle, and that's been part of the discussion today 
about the whole procurement aspect, to look at this whole 
acquisition policy, not just in the Navy, but across the entire 
DOD.
    I'm pleased to do that now on a much broader scale than 
just the Navy. I'm not sure this isn't a microcosm of perhaps a 
larger issue to be looked at in the whole Department of 
Defense.
    Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. England. But we'll be pleased to work with you on this 
as always, Senator. I mean, this is an issue important to the 
Navy and to America.
    Chairman Warner. We thank you, Senator Collins. I sit here 
year after year watching you--the Guardian of the industrial 
base for Navy shipbuilding. I'm working in my mind, feeble as 
it is, to try and draw an analogy between World War II and a 
famous woman, Rosie the Riveter, who exemplified the commitment 
to build our naval ships and commercial vessels in World War 
II. I don't wish to append that accolade on you now. I'll 
figure out a better one, but for the 21st century----
    Senator Levin. By the way, Rosie is someone who was 
building tanks and building planes as well, not just ships.
    Chairman Warner. We better bail out now while the getting 
is good.
    Senator Reed.
    Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first, let me 
commend Secretary England for his extraordinary dedication and 
patriotism in many different roles, and I look forward to 
working with the Secretary in his new role.
    Mr. England. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Reed. It's a very wise choice, and I know you will 
perform magnificently, as you have done in the past.
    Let me also associate myself with Senator Clinton's 
comments about the use of supplemental budgets. Technically, 
emergencies should go into supplementals, but when you have a 
3-year emergency in a global war on terror, which even the 
President talks about in terms of generational aspects, that's 
not really an emergency. I think we have a pretty good idea of 
end strength of the Army and Marine Corps particularly, that 
we'll need over the next several years to accomplish that 
mission.
    I think the supplemental budgets are just setting us up for 
a real shock and disaster, because I think it will be harder 
and harder to generate the kind of support for the huge 
supplementals we've seen the last few years going forward, 
leaving the military services to begin to cannibalize their 
other programs and accounts, because they won't get the extra 
funding they've been getting.
    I think if we recognize that now and start working now, it 
might provide for a smoother landing. I wonder if you have any 
additional thoughts, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. England. I understand the input, Senator. I'm not sure 
all these matters are predictable at the time we do the 
budgeting, because, again, we're working the 2007 budget now, 
and it's very hard to predict the number of people we'll have 
in Iraq, and the kind of equipment, what will be destroyed, et 
cetera.
    I think in theory I don't disagree, and I don't believe the 
Secretary disagrees, but in practice, we can only put in the 
budget those things we know about well in advance that are 
predictable in terms of the cost. So it's very hard. War is not 
very predictable by definition. Things happen that you don't 
know about, a lot of changes occur.
    Again, the devil's in the details, but from a policy point 
of view, I think we can all agree, but the problem is a 
practical problem of trying to project war costs in advance. I 
mean, that's why we have the supplemental. As far as I know, 
we're following that policy to the extent we can in terms of 
being predictable in the base budget but handling our 
contingency and war costs in the supplemental.
    Senator Reed. Well, Mr. Secretary, I think there are 
certain aspects which will change in that category, such as 
expenditure of ammunition and battle damage, but the end 
strength numbers for the Army, frankly, that's something that 
last year we knew. How many soldiers we needed for this year, 
about 512,000, around there. I think we have a good idea of 
what we need next year for the next budget cycle.
    I agree some issues are difficult to calculate, they are 
episodic. But, this end strength number I think is something 
that we have to recognize.
    Also, I continue to speak about the Army, but it pertains 
also to the Marines, who are doing an extraordinary job. I had 
a chance to see them on Good Friday, Holy Saturday, out in 
Fallujah. They need the same kind of support.
    Let me shift gears if I may. You talked about the QDR, and 
inherent in the QDR is looking forward based upon our recent 
experience about the size of all of our forces: air, naval, and 
land forces. Critical to the QDR are the assumptions that 
you're going to use, and that the Secretary is going to use. It 
strikes me that if we look at our experience in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, we understand that in addition to fast-striking, 
very decisive forces, air, naval, land forces, we need staying 
power, because in a lot of places we might be involved with 
will require the same after-conflict application of force that 
we see in Iraq, which argues for a large-scale land force at 
least.
    That assumption, I think, might be ignored or not used if 
we don't factor in our recent experience in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Can you comment on that, Mr. Secretary?
    Mr. England. We will definitely factor that in, Senator. 
The last QDR, again, was before September 11. We actually 
finished it just weeks before September 11. At that time, one 
of the conclusions was that terrorism was the greatest threat 
to America, and that was before September 11. But nonetheless, 
none of us were in, I would say, the mental frame back then 
that we are in today, now having had over 3 years of experience 
in this war on terror.
    Certainly this QDR is going to reflect, I would say, a more 
mature, more knowledgeable understanding of where we are with 
this war and what we see in the future. We will be looking at 
different kinds of threats to America, not just the 
traditional, but the catastrophic and the irregular, et cetera. 
We will be covering the full gamut of threats to America in 
this QDR, and we are much better informed now than we were 4 
years ago.
    Senator Reed. Just a final point, because my time has run 
out. But, it strikes me that we're preparing through our 
research and technology for high-tech solutions in the Air 
Force, and the Navy is beginning to downsize because they can 
take advantage of technology in their ships and their aircraft. 
When you get into a situation as we are in Iraq, however, and 
if you look around the globe, unfortunately there are other 
places that might be havens for terrorists that would have to 
be peremptorily reduced and taken out.
    That type of conflict is manpower-intensive, as we've seen 
in Iraq. It requires skills of translators, civil affairs 
officers, a new way to deal with the State Department and the 
Agency for International Development (USAID) in the aftermath 
of battle. My concern, frankly, is that if we don't factor that 
type of manpower-intensive operation into a QDR calculation, 
budget pressures, or other pressures could lead to a solution 
that is short on boots on the ground. I just want that concern 
to be registered.
    Mr. England. Senator, we do not disagree on the issue. I 
find a high degree of sensitivity in DOD to that exact topic, 
and I can assure you it will be addressed in the QDR.
    Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and again, 
congratulations. This is not only a well-deserved appointment, 
but one that your performance, I think, will justify everyone's 
faith in you. Thank you.
    Mr. England. Thank you very much, Senator.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Reed. I now wish the 
committee to turn to Senator Levin for a very important 
announcement.
    Senator Levin. Each of us have expressed our joy to Jack 
and to Julia. They were married last weekend at the chapel in 
West Point. A lot of notable events have taken place in that 
chapel. But, now your marriage is certainly added to that list. 
Each of us, expresses our own delight. But, we also should 
express the committee's delight. I thank our chairman and 
Senator Talent and others for suggesting that we do that right 
now, notoriously and openly. We will just take a moment to tell 
our dear colleague that he probably has set the record for the 
shortest period of time after marriage before returning to 
senatorial duty.
    This is probably the shortest honeymoon on record. We talk 
about acquisition policy. In the old days we could have talked 
about acquisition, but that no longer is politically correct. 
So we will just simply talk about Julia's acquisition in terms 
of Jack. We are really so pleased that the two of you are now 
married and that you join the Senate family.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Levin. 
Senator Talent, do you wish to be recognized on this subject?
    Senator Talent. Well, only to say that maybe what we've 
been telling the Department of Defense about revising their 
acquisition policy ought to go for Julia as well. Perhaps she 
ought to consider a--no, we--I certainly want to join with 
every member of the committee in expressing my felicitations to 
the couple. We're all pleased for Senator Reed.
    Chairman Warner. In consultation with the ranking member, 
the two of us are planning an event for the committee, as a 
formal event to recognize this very important point in your 
combined lives.
    Senator Reed. Mr. Chairman, if I could just simply thank 
you for your graciousness and your kindness, and Senator Levin 
also, and all my colleagues. It's very thoughtful. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. Dear friend, we're delighted.
    Mr. England. Senator Reed, the Department of the Navy 
wishes the Army very well. [Laughter.]
    Senator Reed. You did pick up on West Point.
    Mr. England. Yes, I did, sir.
    Chairman Warner. In consultation with the ranking member, 
it's the intention of the chair, at the conclusion of the 
questioning by the distinguished Senators from Texas and 
Missouri to then turn to the second panel, the President's 
nomination for the Chief of Naval Operations.
    Senator Cornyn.
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary England, 
when I travel back to Texas and I talk about the Federal 
budget, I try to explain to my constituents how we have two-
thirds of the budget for entitlement spending and one-third for 
so-called discretionary spending. But, I wanted to note how 
ironic it is that our defense budget is part of what's called 
discretionary spending, because obviously, providing for our 
common defense is not in the normal sense of that term.
    I expressed to you privately, and I just want to raise the 
issue again here publicly, as others have, my concern that the 
initial estimated costs of many of our weapons systems, 
airplanes, ships, things that are used to provide for that 
common defense, ultimately bear little resemblance or little 
relationship to the final cost. Others have expressed concerns 
about that.
    My concern specifically deals with the threat to our 
ability to provide for our military requirements. In other 
words, as the cost of these systems go up, we are buying fewer 
units, whether it's planes, ships, what-have-you, and thus 
falling short of meeting what our military leadership and 
civilian leadership are telling us are our military 
requirements.
    For example, the GAO just in March noted that it's not 
unusual for estimates of time and money to be off by 20 to 50 
percent. They note that when costs and schedules increase, 
quantities are cut and the value for the warfighter, as well as 
the value of the investment dollar, is reduced. They noted that 
just 4 years ago, the top five weapons systems cost about $281 
billion. Today in the same base year dollars, the top five 
weapons systems cost about $521 billion--$281 to $521.
    Of course, the GAO report notes, as you already know, and 
we've discussed privately, how the unit costs have gone way up. 
I know you expressed earlier your belief that this is a 
complicated subject, and I'm sure it is, and your commitment to 
work with the committee to try to find a way to address it. But 
in the subcommittee that I chair on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities, we recently had a hearing on the Chemical 
Demilitarization Program. That is another example of out-of-
control costs, but it really appears to be due to very poor 
management and oversight of a program, which ultimately may 
threaten our ability to comply with our international treaty 
obligations.
    I know you understand very well the seriousness of this 
matter, but I would appreciate your commitment to work with us 
to try to find the answer. All of us here on this committee are 
strongly pro-Defense. We believe that our national security is 
the paramount concern of the Federal Government, and so we're 
not talking about shortchanging our defense or our national 
security requirements.
    I know you understand how troublesome this matter is and 
how big a concern it is, and I'd just appreciate your strong 
commitment to work with us to try to find some answers.
    Mr. England. Senator, you have my commitment. We talk about 
acquisition, but you have to use the big ``A'' in terms of 
acquisition, because it's how fast and how hard we push the 
technology to set our requirements, this whole contracting 
process. So, I mean, it's a big ``A'' here. It is complex, but 
you do have my commitment, Senator, we will work this. We'll 
work it with the committee.
    I know Senator McCain had some discussions about 
potentially having some hearings. Obviously we'll support that. 
I would like to at least have the opportunity to work through 
this year with our QDR and our processes and understand this 
before we just try to put a fix in place, because the fixes 
generally add to the complexity. Again, my tendency is to try 
to simplify this process.
    We will work with you, and not prejudging the outcome, but 
it will get my personal attention. It has the attention of the 
Department. Obviously, we do need to do something. You can't 
have our top five programs go up by $200 billion.
    Senator Cornyn. Well, I appreciate that very much and I 
know you're sincere in that commitment, but I just wanted to 
make the point, and hopefully I did leading up to my first 
question, that this actually could have the potential of 
threatening our ability to meet our military requirements. As 
important as spending the tax dollar wisely is, that's not the 
only impact this could potentially have.
    Finally, let me just ask you, we're all anticipating, some 
with more anxiety than others, the upcoming release of the base 
realignment and closure (BRAC) list on May 16. In the past, the 
Department of Defense has put out a resource guide for 
communities that are impacted by BRAC that I believe helped 
explain to them the process, and helped them work through the 
issues that communities where military bases are located have.
    Do you know whether the Department of Defense plans to put 
out such a resource guide this year? I'd appreciate any 
observations.
    Mr. England. Senator, I don't, but I'll get back with you 
on that subject.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    The Department is in the process of conducting an extensive review 
of the Base Realignment Implementation Manual (BRIM) that was developed 
to implement the previous round of base closure recommendations. The 
purpose of this review is to provide a common set of guidelines for the 
2005 round of base closures and realignments that allows for 
flexibility in base use implementation, identifies common-sense 
approaches and general practices to follow from successful past 
practice, and provides supplemental guidance to carry out the laws and 
regulations for closing and realigning bases and revitalizing base 
closure communities. We hope to have this review completed by this fall 
and will provide you with a copy of the BRAC 2005 implementation 
guidelines at that time.

    Chairman Warner. Senator, if I might interject, I put an 
amendment on the current appropriations bill before us 
requiring that the Department do that in the forthcoming year, 
because, Mr. Secretary, that's been a very helpful document to 
those committees. The first news of a closing brings total 
distress, sadness, and concern. I think this document has some 
well-tested principles that have been utilized in previous BRAC 
rounds that can be of help to these communities and other 
interests affected by a closing. Thank you for the 
intervention.
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. England. Senator, I will look at the status of that 
today, and I'll get back with you before the day is over.
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. Senator Nelson has 
rejoined us. Senator Nelson.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, 
Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. England. Senator, good morning.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Do you, as a matter of Defense 
strategy, feel that the United States should have an aircraft 
carrier homeported in Japan?
    Mr. England. Yes, I do.
    Senator Bill Nelson. What is your feeling if the Japanese 
government, and this may be a municipal government, decides 
that they will not accept a nuclear carrier? Trace that out for 
us in your thoughts as to how we would project our force in 
that part of the world?
    Mr. England. Well, I think that's speculative at this 
point, Senator. Our plan is to decommission the U.S.S. John F. 
Kennedy, but keep it in mothballs so we could always bring the 
Kennedy back. We could also, if necessary, I would guess we 
could extend the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, so we would have a couple 
of options to do that. But those discussions are ongoing with 
the government of Japan right now.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Let me just continue the line of 
thinking here--the Kitty Hawk is the oldest of all the 
carriers, is it not?
    Mr. England. It is the oldest, but it is also 
extraordinarily well-maintained.
    Senator Bill Nelson. By 2008, the time of the retirement of 
the Kitty Hawk, if Japan said no on a nuclear carrier, are you 
suggesting that by 2008 that the Kitty Hawk could be extended? 
Or would she have to go into dry dock at that point?
    Mr. England. Senator, again, it's all speculative. I mean, 
there's no plan to do anything but retire the Kitty Hawk. That 
is the plan of the Department of the Navy.
    Senator Bill Nelson. That's right.
    Mr. England. So that's our plan.
    Senator Bill Nelson. I'm speculating because if that 
happens, I want to know about the defense interests of this 
country.
    Mr. England. Again, I think that's speculation as to what 
we would do. We're in negotiations right now with the 
government of Japan in terms of replacement carriers. So I 
think what we would do is wait for the outcome of those 
discussions before we would make those decisions.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Well, I'm posing a question to you, to 
not wait till the outcome. If Japan said no on a nuclear 
carrier, in 2008 how are we going to have a carrier in Japan?
    Mr. England. There would be two options, which, again, I'm 
sorry, Senator, I thought I answered those. There would be two 
options. There are two non-nuclear carriers, and either of 
those nuclear carriers would be options in terms of providing 
them for the country of Japan if we reached that point in the 
discussions.
    Senator Bill Nelson. So, you're saying that--I'd like a 
little more specificity--that in 2008 that the Kitty Hawk would 
be able to continue in service? You said there are two options. 
Is that one option?
    Mr. England. My understanding is we could extend the Kitty 
Hawk if that were necessary. It's not the plan of the 
Department of the Navy, but it could be done.
    Senator Bill Nelson. It would not have to go into dry dock 
at that point?
    Mr. England. That's my understanding.
    Senator Bill Nelson. The second option you said is to bring 
the John F. Kennedy out of mothballs. How long and how much 
money would that incur?
    Mr. England. I do not know. I have to get back with you on 
that subject, sir.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    At a minimum, the JFK would have to undergo the deferred complex 
overhaul (COH) and upgrades to modernize it for the point in time that 
it would come out of overhaul. That cost would increase over time due 
to the increased requirements for modernization upgrades. If 
reactivated in the 1-5 year period after mothballing, the cost to 
reactivate, including the deferred COH, is estimated to be in the $390 
million to $700 million range. An estimated 15-20 months would be 
required to accomplish the total task.

    Senator Bill Nelson. Okay. I think there has been ample 
testimony here in front of this committee that it is clearly in 
the defense interests of this country, with the looming 
challenges posed by China, that we have a carrier that is 
stationed in Japan. You have stated that today, and that has 
been stated on numerous occasions here by other witnesses, 
including the CNO.
    I would like also for you to get back with the committee on 
the question of the first option that you've mentioned, in 
2008, what is the additional life expansion of the Kitty Hawk 
without having to go into dry dock, because clearly if she had 
to, you can't bring another ship out of mothballs immediately. 
There is a cost associated with that, as we saw when the 
Kennedy in the 1990s was taken not into mothballs, but merely 
from operational status down to training status, and it cost 
$100 million plus to bring her back up to operational status 
from training status. Ergo, the cost to bring the ship out of 
mothballs would seem to be much more than the cost to bring out 
of training status to operational status.
    Looking at what's in the defense interests of the country, 
I would like you for the record please to answer both of those 
questions.
    Mr. England. We'll get back with you, Senator, absolutely.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    The time period from the end of one dry-dock period to the 
beginning of the next dry-dock period is 57 months. Kitty Hawk last 
came out of dry-dock in October 2003. Therefore the next dry-dock 
period would need to begin by July 2008. A life extension beyond 2008 
of up to 2 years would be possible based on a condition-based analysis 
of the underwater hull and running gear.

    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator. I'd like to 
interject here. As you're probably aware, a group of us 
introduced an amendment on the floor late last night to the 
effect that prudent planning would be to retain the Kennedy in 
an active status for some determinate period of time. I 
recognize this is in contravention to the views of the 
Department, but nevertheless, we have our own view, and we 
think that would be recognized by the Senate hopefully today.
    But I point out, and I'm not an expert, but I'm becoming 
one on the politics of Japan, you frequently said we're working 
with the government, but there is, I think, a very interesting 
dichotomy between the central government of Japan, and--is the 
word prefecture--that is, the mayors and so forth. Sometimes 
the last word doesn't rest with the government. It's with the 
mayor, and mayors change.
    Mr. England. Senator, I've used the term loosely. It is the 
local government, but I've also met with the mayors. So, you're 
right, it is local, and it's national, and I believe we do 
understand that situation.
    Chairman Warner. I wasn't giving you a tutorial, but there 
are those that may not be as familiar as you are. I'm pointing 
out that a future mayor may wake up one morning and have a 
different view with regard to this issue.
    I think a great deal of careful planning has to be put in 
place, and I think we're performing our duty here in the 
Senate, and we'll just see what happens today, tomorrow, and 
the next day.
    Senator Talent.
    Senator Talent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator, for your patience. You 
are the chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, so we'll give 
you an extra minute.
    Senator Talent. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had to be 
patient. I was late coming.
    I want to thank you for your service to the Navy, and look 
forward to your service to the whole Department of Defense. I 
want to say right up front I agree with you on the whole 
regulation issue. I do not think we will reduce development 
times or costs by having more acquisition regulations. My gut 
tells me that. I don't think the system will be more honest. 
People, bad actors, find a way to get around complex 
regulations too, so I think simplicity is a good direction to 
go in.
    I'm also hopeful that we can leave you enough time to run 
the Department of Defense or help run it, rather than have you 
down here all the time. Consultation is important, but so is 
you doing your job.
    Mr. England. Thank you.
    Senator Talent. Now, let me just express a concern that has 
been expressed a lot, but I really want to make certain that 
you hear it and that you hear it from somebody who has no 
parochial interest in the shipbuilding industrial base. I have 
plenty of parochial interests on this committee, but not in 
that.
    It's the conjunction of a number of things coming together 
that I think raises cause for concern. The last official 
statement we've had from the Navy is that we need 375 ships. 
I'm not so sure anybody's adhered to that. I know we have to 
have a QDR, but that's what the record says.
    We're all confronting the growing power of China. I agree 
with you there's no reason why China need be an enemy. But one 
way to make certain China does not become an enemy is to be 
strong, not provocative, but strong in the region. There are 
growing tensions between China and Japan, which I think will 
only be exacerbated by any sense or inkling that we are 
withdrawing from the region or that there may be a vacuum or a 
diminution of American presence or power.
    We have gone quietly in the Navy from a policy of forward 
presence to presence with a purpose. I understood why, and the 
response plan supported the CNO in doing that. But there's an 
inference available that maybe we're not as worried about being 
in the key parts of the world, and I think, hence, the 
questions to you about basing a carrier in Japan. The 
industrial base for shipbuilding is clearly a problem, 
whoever's fault that is.
    We all understand that you can't recover overnight if the 
Navy has gotten too small. We can't run out and do what we've 
done with the uparmored high mobility multipurpose wheeled 
vehicles (HMMWVs) and spend a lot of money and get a lot of 
uparmored HMMWVs. You just can't build ships in 6 months or a 
year.
    So these are the concerns that we feel. I really hope that 
both in your new post, assuming you're confirmed, and I hope 
you are, and also in choosing a new Navy Secretary, that 
commitments are made regarding stable funding at a level the 
Navy has indicated we need, at the $12 billion level. I'm not 
trying to tell you your job. I'm just saying that we should 
pursue, Mr. Chairman, these flexible funding avenues, and 
you've tried to do that, and the Navy supports us. We second 
just sit down with the appropriators and get it done.
    In some kind of organized way we should have--and this 
could be with us and you at the same time--a really empowered 
task force to look at shipbuilding expenditures. You can 
comment on this if you want. I just want you to take these 
comments that have been made here in a constructive fashion. 
All these factors coming together that lead us to have some 
concerns about whether the Navy is big enough and whether you 
all are focusing enough on that. If you want to comment, you 
can. You already have, I know.
    Mr. England. Senator, just one comment, and that is that 
rather than count ships, I'd rather talk about combat power 
forward. Our Navy and, hopefully, all of our Services must take 
advantage of technology to put more combat power forward. So 
it's not the numbers we have, it's the capability we have and 
the ability to put that forward. We have more combat power 
forward today than perhaps in the history of Navy, so it's not 
numbers of ships. The CNO has said the number of ships in our 
30-year plan is somewhere between 260 and 325, depending on how 
various concepts turn out. Our planning is at this point, while 
we're low this year, the numbers do go up, and we look at over 
300 ships in our Navy now in terms of our current 5-year 
planning.
    It is about capability. I believe we're on the right path, 
and we're trying to do that in a way to free up funds to move 
to the future. We are trying to do the things we need to do to 
combat an emerging threat against America and against our naval 
forces, and we need to transition to do that. It is stressful 
to change from the past to the future, and that's part of what 
the Navy is about, and we're trying to do that and have the 
funding and resources available to make that change.
    I believe we are acting responsibly for the American 
people. I understand it's stressful, but it's the right 
direction for the Navy.
    Senator Talent. I want you to hear the concern here. I 
mean, I agree. Capability is much less number-based than it 
used to be, but it still has some relationship to numbers, 
particularly when you're talking about sustainability over 
time. I just think the QDR must take that into account, must 
give us a number and explain how you get the metric, and then 
the Navy budget submissions should reflect that over time.
    I don't think you disagree with that. I think we have a 
commonality there, and I certainly want to work with you, and 
I'm sure the chairman and the ranking member do also.
    One other point I want to raise, and thank you for the 
extra minute, Mr. Chairman. On this committee, the audience 
should be aware, an extra minute is a great boon. I will talk 
for a little bit about the dangers of IEDs. I'm totally 
switching now. You and I have discussed this privately. I 
believe, it is the asymmetrical threat that is paramount that 
we have to be concerned about in the war on terror.
    Talk a little bit, if you will, about some of the things 
you've done already in your current role and what you want to 
do. I hope you will make this a personal priority as Deputy 
Secretary.
    Mr. England. First of all, it has been a personal priority, 
Senator. I've been personally involved since the first day we 
knew our marines were going to Iraq. We started taking 
measures, and the Department has $1 billion, and we have an IED 
Task Force working all aspects of this problem. By the way, the 
number of casualties is coming down, even though the number of 
attacks is about the same, our casualties are way down. The 
number of people killed is down from IEDs, but this is a long-
term threat, not just to our Armed Forces, but I think to our 
citizens. If there's ever an attack, it will be this kind of 
attack or potentially this kind of attack in America.
    We've also started a program in fundamental research to 
understand this in terms of new techniques that may be 
developed, not just in the near future, but what's the 
underlying physics so we may come out with some new 
technologies to attack this.
    We have discussed this with Dr. Marburg at the White House 
and also at the National Academy of Engineering and Science. 
They are taking the initiatives with us to start some 
fundamental research across America in this regard. I will 
continue to work this from the fundamental research to the 
application and make sure that we do everything America can do 
to defeat this threat.
    Senator Talent. Thank you.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question 
about Scott Speicher?
    Chairman Warner. Of course you may. It's a very important 
question, and we traditionally always want that as a part of 
the record through our proceedings.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, sir. Share with us the 
latest.
    Mr. England. Senator, about 2 weeks ago, we received the 
final highly classified report from the Defense Intelligence 
Agency that's been involved in all of the ongoing efforts in 
Iraq to find Captain Speicher. It summarizes all the efforts 
and all the intelligence and everything, and, hopefully, that's 
been made available to you at this point.
    When the report came to me, I stood up a board to look at 
this, assimilate it all, and decide what the next step should 
be. We are working with the families and with the investigators 
to try to understand and pull all this together for 
recommendations to me. That's where we are. If it comes to my 
office, if I'm still Secretary of the Navy at that time, then 
of course, I'll make a decision, whatever that may be. I don't 
know what the recommendations will be, either status quo or 
change designation. I don't know what that will be. I've had no 
recommendations.
    But, there has been a concerted effort by the country to 
find or find more information about Captain Speicher.
    Senator Bill Nelson. When do you anticipate the board will 
report to you?
    Mr. England. At first I said I wanted the report in, I 
believe it was like 2 months. But it's actually open-ended, 
because, frankly, in discussions with the family and with other 
people, they wanted to make sure we did not short circuit 
anything, and I said, just make sure this is thorough and 
complete and get back to me. About 2 weeks ago, that was the 
decision to leave this open-ended and work with the family. So 
that said, I asked for them to come in next week and give me 
their estimate of when they would come back with the 
recommendations.
    That's where we are today, sir. It is an extraordinarily 
serious effort on behalf of the government to find out 
information about Captain Speicher. That still continues, but 
now that the report's in, the question is, does that have any 
immediate impact in terms of any decisions by the Department of 
the Navy. That's still open.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Secretary, I think that you should 
double check with your people about the consultation with the 
family. I'm not sure those consultations are going on in the 
way that you have expressed here.
    Also, I think that you also ought to have your people 
inform you about whether, basically, they have pulled out of 
Iraq on any search for additional evidence.
    Mr. England. Senator, first of all, I don't want to discuss 
the report here, because the report is very classified. I know 
we've had people in Iraq all this time, but I can tell you my 
last discussion with all my people was after they had a 
discussion with the family regarding their involvement in 
providing input to the board. I'll verify that. I mean, if 
there's a misunderstanding, I'll make sure that's corrected, 
Senator. But our intent is to be thorough, to be all-inclusive, 
and I'll make sure that's the case.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. That's an important 
issue. Before we conclude, I'd just like to make an 
observation. Are you not the only Secretary of the Navy who 
served twice?
    Mr. England. I am the second Secretary of the Navy to serve 
twice.
    Chairman Warner. Second?
    Mr. England. Yes. There was another Secretary of the Navy 
who served, I believe, at one point when the Whigs were in 
power in 1844, and then served again several years later.
    Chairman Warner. I went back and checked the record. I was 
the only Secretary, I thought, that served both in the Navy and 
the Marines, but there was one fellow who preceded me back in a 
period that, I think, did that also.
    What a wonderful position. You and I have often talked 
about it, and I look back on it with such great respect and 
humility. What a privilege it is to have that position. I 
talked to the Secretary of Defense the other day about it a 
little bit, and he said he's overwhelmed with individuals who 
want to succeed you, who want the Senate to confirm you and 
move on.
    I have a great deal of respect for Secretary Rumsfeld, and 
he very much needs and looks forward to your service. Secretary 
Wolfowitz was a strong deputy, and I'm sure that you will in 
every way be the one that will help Secretary Rumsfeld in these 
very important times.
    I'm hopeful that the Senate will move expeditiously to your 
confirmation. We have two technical things remaining, which you 
fully understand, and that is some completion of your papers on 
the ethics side that are routine. Senator Levin and I still 
have to do the usual check on certain areas that we check on.
    With that having been said, we'll conclude this panel, but 
I wish to advise my colleagues that we'll now take up the very 
important nomination of Chief of Naval Operations. We're not 
going to rush it. We have adequate time. I'll inform all 
members who may not be here that it's my intention to continue 
this hearing. At the appropriate time we'll break for the two 
votes. I will return and preside for a period in which, if the 
votes run as scheduled, that it would be about 12:25 when I can 
get back here and reopen the hearing. If any member not present 
at this moment desires, please inform the chief of staff of the 
committee, and we will make certain that this hearing is 
available to all who wish to participate in the very important 
hearing for the next Chief of Naval Operations.
    So, we adjourn panel number one. I thank you, and in about 
2 minutes, we'll start panel number two.
    Mr. England. Mr. Chairman, thanks for your support. Thank 
you.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you. [Recess.]
    Admiral Mullen, we are delighted to have you appear before 
us, together with your lovely wife, Deborah, as the President's 
nominee to be the 28th Chief of Naval Operations. I now ask if 
you have any additional guests beyond your full partner in 
life?
    Admiral Mullen. No, sir. The rest of my family is serving 
as we speak.
    Chairman Warner. You might, if you wish, put into the 
record some details about them.
    Admiral Mullen. I am delighted to be able to introduce my 
wife, Deborah, who's been with me throughout this career, and 
it is very much a team effort. She's, in particular, very 
dedicated to our Navy families, has spent an awful lot of time 
working those very important requirements over the years, and 
has taught me a lot about that. Sometimes you don't get real 
information, and I can get it from her on what's going on.
    I have two sons, both of whom are in the Navy, one of whom 
is currently deployed to Japan and the other one is on a ship 
out of Norfolk. We're both very proud of them both serving in 
the Navy.
    Chairman Warner. Their ranks at this time?
    Admiral Mullen. One is an ensign and one is a lieutenant 
junior grade.
    Chairman Warner. As we say in the Navy, well done to both 
of you.
    Admiral Mullen. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Warner. You currently serve as Commander, U.S. 
Naval Forces, Europe, and Commander, Joint Forces Command, 
Naples. Just prior to this assignment in Naples you served from 
2003 to 2004 as the 32nd Vice Chief of Naval Operations. 
There's no question that you're a proven leader, having 
commanded the U.S. Second Fleet from 2000 to 2001, the George 
Washington Battle Group from 1995 to 1998, the Destroyer Group 
II, and on an earlier occasion, U.S.S. Noxubee, AOG 56, U.S.S. 
Yorktown, U.S.S. Goldsborough, and following your tour as 
commanding officer of the Goldsborough, you received the 
Admiral James Stockdale Award for inspirational leadership. I'm 
certain, Admiral, that is one of your most highly valued awards 
over your distinguished career. I was privileged to know Jim 
Stockdale very well when I was at the Department of the Navy 
and that was during the Vietnam period.
    Senator Levin, your opening remarks.
    Senator Levin. Let me join you in welcoming Admiral Mullen 
and his family. We thank them both for their service to the 
Nation. Admiral, you've had an extraordinary 37-year career in 
the Navy. We look forward to your being CNO.
    Admiral Mullen. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
    Admiral, you responded to the usual series of advance 
policy questions. Without objection, they'll be put into the 
record. If you will now proceed to reply to the standard 
questions given to each nominee and then we'll proceed to your 
statement.
    First, have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations 
governing conflicts of interest?
    Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken 
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the 
confirmation process?
    Admiral Mullen. No, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Will you ensure your staff complies with 
deadlines established for requested communications, including 
questions for the record and hearings?
    Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses 
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
    Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from 
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
    Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and 
testify upon request before this committee?
    Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree to give your personal views 
when asked before this committee to do so, even if those views 
differ from the administration in power?
    Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents, 
including copies of electronic forms of communications, in a 
timely manner when requested by a duly constituted committee, 
or to consult with the committee regarding the basis for any 
good-faith delay or denial in providing such documents?
    Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. If you have an 
opening statement, could you kindly proceed?

 STATEMENT OF ADM MICHAEL G. MULLEN, USN, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO 
    THE GRADE OF ADMIRAL AND TO BE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS

    Admiral Mullen. Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, distinguished 
members of this committee, it is a great honor to appear before 
you today as the nominee for the office of Chief of Naval 
Operations. I appreciate greatly the time you are affording me 
this morning.
    I want to thank you as well, Mr. Chairman, for your kind 
and generous introduction and the confidence you have expressed 
in me. I'm also grateful for the confidence expressed in me by 
President Bush and by the leadership of my Department, 
Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary England, and of course, Admiral 
Vern Clark, a dear friend who has led our Navy brilliantly for 
the better part of 5 years now.
    Perhaps more than anything, I am grateful for the 
opportunity to continue serving this Nation as a sailor in the 
United States Navy. To me, there is no higher honor. Our Navy 
men and women are the best they've ever been: talented, 
patriotic, courageous, as are their families. There are more 
than 38,000 forward deployed right now across the globe, in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, the Persian Gulf, and in support of East 
Asian nations hit hard by natural disaster. They are performing 
magnificently.
    I had the opportunity to visit with some of them in Iraq 
and in the Northern Arabian Gulf in Bahrain and in Kuwait not 
very long ago. I can tell you they know they're making a 
difference. They are proud of what they are doing, and I am 
proud to be on their team.
    Mr. Chairman, I have heard you speak often of your own 
humble beginnings as a sailor in World War II and as a marine 
in Korea, and how much that experience influenced your life, 
how it created opportunities only possible in this great 
country of ours. I must tell you, sir, that I feel much the 
same today myself. This country and this Navy I love so dearly 
have offered me opportunity beyond my wildest dreams and given 
me countless, priceless gifts, not the least of which are our 
two sons who serve our Navy on Active-Duty, and what will soon 
be 35 wonderful years with my partner for life, Deborah, 
present with me here today.
    That this same country would now offer me the opportunity 
to serve as the uniformed leader of the greatest Navy the world 
has ever known is humbling beyond words. I know that with great 
opportunity comes even greater obligation, an obligation to 
listen, to learn, and to lead. If you confirm me as the next 
Chief of Naval Operations, I pledge to you, to my counterparts 
in the other Services, and to everyone serving in our Navy 
today, my firm commitment to all three.
    I can assure you that I will lean upon and always know that 
I can rely upon the continued support of this committee and 
Congress as a whole. Your devotion to national defense, 
particularly during this time of war, has been unwavering, and 
I am personally very grateful.
    I come to this hearing as a Navy and North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO) commander in a theater undergoing 
remarkable and historic change. Fledgling new countries in the 
Balkans taking democracy on the wing; West African nations 
learning new ways to cooperate with each other; old and new 
NATO allies helping train Iraqi security forces. The face of 
the future is being drawn in colors, shapes, and sizes we 
wouldn't have dreamed of just a few short years ago.
    But the one constant, and what made the biggest impact on 
me, has been the need to create a safe and secure environment 
that allows democracy to flourish, and in so doing, creates 
opportunities for millions of families to live better, safer, 
freer lives.
    I believe the United States Navy is a big part of that and 
has been since the beginning of our republic. We take the 
power, will, and commitment of this Nation wherever we go, and 
we can go on short notice. We can stand watch over large areas 
of the globe, exert influence from near or far. We can be where 
the Nation needs us when it needs us to be there.
    Mr. Chairman, that's what navies do. Under Admiral Clark's 
exceptional leadership, our Navy has done it better than I've 
seen in my 37-year career. It would be difficult, indeed, to 
overstate the significance of the reforms he has put in place 
over these last 5 years.
    I see three principal challenges confronting our Navy. 
First is the need to preserve our current readiness, to answer 
the bell for the President and this Nation with exactly the 
right combat capability for exactly the right cost today.
    Second is the need to build a Navy for the future, to 
create a fleet that is properly sized and balanced to meet head 
on the uncertain and dynamic security environment that awaits 
us.
    Third, underpinning everything else, is the need to shape 
the Navy's uniformed and civilian manpower system for the 21st 
century, to transform our assignment, distribution, and 
compensation system into one that is more reflective of, and 
quite frankly, more responsive to, the men and women serving 
our Navy.
    These are tough challenges, and every one of them is 
significant, but I know that with the support of the Navy's 
leadership and the Department's leadership and this committee, 
we can and will succeed. I believe the only constant in our 
future is change. Our Navy, your Navy, is leading that change. 
It is a Navy that has met well the Nation's call since the 
world changed on September 11, but one that must continue to 
adapt to the ever-changing demands of this fight against 
terror. It is a Navy at war, but one that must also invest now 
in an uncertain future, balancing a multitude of capabilities 
with sound acquisition policies to meet our needs. It is a Navy 
of incredibly talented people, but one that must maximize the 
potential of all who serve, be they active, Reserve, or 
civilian.
    Mr. Chairman, I sit here today more dedicated than ever to 
that Navy and to its future. Should you choose to confirm me as 
the next CNO, I pledge to you and to the sailors I hope to lead 
the full extent of my effort. I know you expect it, and I know 
they deserve it. Thank you, sir, for your support, to this 
committee, and I stand ready to answer your questions.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Admiral. I appreciate the brief 
reference to my modest periods of Active-Duty and modest 
contributions while on Active-Duty and in the Reserves. But 
like you, I would not have achieved my goals in life had it not 
been for the training that I received, the discipline that I 
received, and the incentive I received as a very young man in 
World War II, a year in the training command and then in the 
Marines. I've always acknowledged that. I hope perhaps my 
statement and yours could provide some similar encouragement 
for the young people who are looking at military service today. 
I say to them, if I can do it, you can do it. You can come and 
be in this seat someday and any sailor hopefully will consider 
that he or she can be in your seat someday.
    Thank you, sir. I find that, Senator Levin, as you and I 
have sat here the many years together to be one of the most 
moving statements I've ever heard by any presidential nominee 
that has appeared before this committee. I congratulate you, 
sir, for your thoughtful and very wonderful statement.
    You perhaps listened to the very interesting and, I think, 
thorough colloquy between members of this committee and 
Secretary England with regard to the deep concern, not only on 
this committee, Admiral, but really throughout Congress and 
throughout the Nation regarding the size and composition of our 
current ship platforms.
    We always go back, and I don't say this for any reason of 
competition with the other branches of the Service, but the 
founding fathers wrote in the Constitution of the United States 
that it is the duty of Congress to raise an army, presumably 
when the Nation felt it was needed, but maintain a navy. I mean 
very explicit different instructions to Congress and the 
Commander in Chief of the United States, our President, under 
the Constitution.
    There's a deep concern about the size and number of our 
ships today. I can recall again in World War II, I think, we 
had close to 22,000 commissioned ships. Now, some of them were 
very small, and I acknowledge that. There were close to 100 
carriers in my recollection, 25 to 30 battleships, and on and 
on. There are marvelous scenes of the ships of the fleet as far 
as the horizon could see proceeding in a direction.
    Now, the world has changed a great deal. The threat to our 
Nation has dramatically changed. I stop to think--and I spoke 
about this the other day--as we sit here today, 60 years ago 
the last great naval battle of the last century took place, and 
that was at Okinawa. The United States Navy suffered, I believe 
history records, the largest number of casualties in terms of 
the ship damages and ships sinking it ever incurred. I think--
I'll correct the record if I'm wrong, but there was about 30-
some ships sunk, 260-odd ships damaged. The combined casualties 
of the Navy, the Army, and the Marine Corps, and perhaps 
elements of the Coast Guard and the Air Force, in that battle 
were 12,000 killed, some 36,000 wounded.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    The attack on Okinawa took a heavy toll on both sides. The U.S. 
lost 7,373 men killed and 32,056 wounded on land. At sea, the U.S. lost 
5,000 killed and 4,600 wounded. The Japanese lost 107,000 killed and 
7,400 men taken prisoner. It is possible that the Japanese lost another 
20,000 dead.
    The U.S. also lost 36 ships, 368 ships were also damaged, and 763 
aircraft were destroyed. The Japanese lost 16 ships sunk and over 4,000 
aircraft were lost.

    I mention that because the magnitude of those casualties is 
not likely to reoccur in military confrontation in the world 
today. The importance of our forward-deployed structure of the 
joint services to interdict terrorism beyond our shores, 
combined with the efforts here at home, is what will prevent a 
degree of casualties and damage comparable to that one battle, 
Okinawa, being suffered here at home, or possibly some 
scenarios abroad, given the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction.
    The Navy is the, so to speak, the point of the spear of our 
forward-deployed concept. Also, as Senator McCain pointed out, 
who is indeed an extraordinary naval historian of his own, a 
warship represents more than its combat functions. It's really 
an ambassador. The presence of a warship in a foreign port 
attracts a great deal of attention, not given, understandably, 
to other military types of platforms. That has been recognized 
since the very beginning of mankind.
    I think all of those who are entrusted with our respective 
responsibilities regarding the structure of our present force 
and future forces have to go back constantly and refer to the 
Constitution and that word ``maintain''.
    Now, you have the highest regard, as do I, for your 
predecessor, and he has courageously dealt with this issue of 
the levels of ship construction, and expressed his concern. I 
think you should have this opportunity today to give your 
thoughts on the direction and how we should proceed to augment 
the current size of our fleet today, and to redirect the 
shipbuilding so that we fulfill the constitutional mandate of 
maintaining that size and capability of a Navy that's needed to 
defend this Nation against any type of aggression.
    Admiral Mullen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a very 
thoughtful summary of a very important requirement and 
challenge. Clearly, the kind of capability that we need for the 
future is what we are trying to embed in the systems and the 
ships that we're buying now. We are in a time of transition and 
looking to the future. The current number of Navy ships we have 
today, which is 288, as I know you know and was pointed out 
earlier in the hearing by Secretary England. There is an up-
vector in the years to come.
    The concern I have is consistent I think with everybody 
else's. The enormous growth and cost, the spiral you get in 
when costs grow and you have to reduce quantity, and somehow 
moving ourselves forward from that position, I think, is a 
requirement. Obviously, if you confirm me, my job as a chief is 
to set the military requirement, and the impact of our Navy, is 
as you've described it. It needs to be out there. It needs to 
be in places with meaningful purpose, as it has been throughout 
the years. I personally experienced the kind of presence that 
you've described in terms of its impact.
    A navy gives you an opportunity to take advantage of 
freedom and maneuver space that you can't get as you look 
around the globe in places that are shutting down access 
rights. So that issue is also critical, and it's critical to 
have a navy properly sized for that.
    I am concerned about it clearly. In my tours in Washington, 
I have spent a significant amount of time looking at how to 
build ships and the impact of decisions that we make. I think 
the requirement to have a significantly larger and steady 
stream of income, if you will, is important. That kind of 
stability is critical.
    I also think that the discussions about alternative 
financing policies that get to other options and get at the 
entire spectrum of building a fleet for the future are really 
critical. If you confirm me as chief, I will spend an 
extraordinary amount of my time focused on that problem to make 
sure we get it right, and would hope that as a team, both 
industry, certainly Congress, as well as the Department and the 
Navy, are able to work together to try to solve this very tough 
problem.
    Chairman Warner. I thank you. I would also come back to an 
earlier comment I made. I feel strongly that the redirection of 
the type of naval shipbuilding program has to originate with 
the President. It's a privilege to work with the current 
President. He's a man of great courage and conviction, and his 
father was a naval person. I may ask his father to help me 
lobby a little bit to see what we can do to get some 
presidential direction with regard to the size and the 
magnitude of our budget in the remaining years of his 
administration.
    At this point in time, Admiral, I take note that the floor 
is awaiting--I see I've been abandoned ship here. So I will 
recess this hearing until the return of the first member of the 
committee following the two votes, at which time he or she--but 
I hope to be that first member--can resume the hearing. Thank 
you. [Recess.]
    Senator Levin [presiding]. The committee will come back to 
order. The chairman, with his usual graciousness, has 
authorized me to resume, even though we are in the minority 
here. I just have a few questions, Admiral, that I want to ask 
you. I know that the chairman is on his way back. There may be 
others who will come back too. That vote was unusual. That 
first vote took a lot longer than is usually the case, for all 
kinds of procedural reasons.
    Admiral, my first question has to do with the Aegis 
cruisers and destroyers and the ballistic missile defense 
capability, which the Navy is developing and fielding for those 
Aegis-equipped cruisers and destroyers. Some of the ships have 
a radar capability to track ballistic missiles and others have 
a capability to intercept missiles which are coming in. So we 
have both the radar and the actual intercept missiles 
themselves.
    The first question has to do with the operational testing 
of these systems as to whether or not there will be operational 
testing of those radars and those missiles.
    Admiral Mullen. Senator, I'll have to take that for the 
record. I just don't know the answer to that question. I'm 
familiar with the system. I just don't know where we are in the 
development cycle in terms of testing.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    Yes, there has been and there will be further operational testing 
of these radars and missiles. Navy has a significant advantage in the 
testing regime in comparison to the challenges faced by our sister 
Services. The firing tests of our Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) 
capability which includes the SM-3 missile--and we've been successful 5 
of 6 times on the test range with this capability over the past 3 
years--have been conducted by an operational cruiser with fleet sailors 
manning the control positions just as they'll do in combat. This 
provides a tremendous advantage in terms of operational realism to Navy 
Aegis BMD testing and represents a ``leap ahead'' as contrasted to 
controlled experiments with scientists, engineers, and contractors that 
are more often the rule in BMD testing. In fact, a Director, 
Operational, Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) official in attendance at our 
most recent successful firing in February 2005 stated: ``This is the 
most operationally realistic BMD test yet seen.''
    For a shipboard system to successfully and lethally engage the 
target, the entire combat system has to function perfectly; the 
tolerance for error is very small at the speeds and altitudes that are 
involved in ballistic missile defense. When we get a ``bulls eye'' on 
the test range, that really tells us everything we need to know: the 
ship's radar acquired the target properly and tracked the target 
correctly, the fire control system computed the fire control solution 
perfectly, and controlled the missile precisely to a direct hit. While 
the engineers examine the data minutely after each firing event, to a 
Navy operator the proof is contained in that last frame of video before 
impact. When a target hit occurs, the entire system has done its job to 
perfection.
    Navy and MDA are working very closely with Commander, Navy 
Operational Test and Evaluation Force (COMOPTEVFOR--the Navy's 
operational test authority) to ensure that the testing program for 
Aegis BMD comprises all of the elements that would normally be required 
of a conventional major defense acquisition program. The Director, 
Operational Test and Evaluation, has commented favorably on Aegis BMD 
testing in their fiscal year 2003 and 2004 assessments of MDA's 
Ballistic Missile Defense System. Additionally, the assignment by Navy 
of U.S.S. Lake Erie (CG 70) as the designated MDA test platform has 
enabled an increasing degree of operational realism in each succeeding 
test.
    In summary, the Navy takes operational testing very seriously; it 
is crucial to ensure that our systems will be reliable, maintainable 
and effective aboard our ships at sea. We're satisfied that the testing 
that MDA is sponsoring aboard our ships is getting the job done 
properly.

    Senator Levin. We're interested as to whether there's going 
to be realistic operational testing of both the radar 
capability and the interceptor capability.
    Admiral Mullen. Right.
    Senator Levin. Second, relative to the submarine force 
structure, some years ago, perhaps 6, there was a force 
structure requirement assessment and analysis, which stated 
that the Navy in the near term needed 55 attack submarines, and 
that by the middle of the next decade, in other words, this 
decade, that there would be a need for 68 to 72. So let's take 
the midpoint of that and say there would be a need for 70 
attack submarines in the fleet.
    Now 6 years later, the latest 30-year shipbuilding plan, 
which was submitted to us in March, indicates that the long-
term force structure goal for attack submarines would be 41 to 
45. The midpoint of that would be 43. Now that's quite a change 
from about 70 to about 43 in just 6 years.
    The Navy leadership has suggested that other systems or 
capabilities could provide adequate capability to substitute 
for some or all of the peacetime intelligence, surveillance, 
and reconnaissance needs that are being met now by the 
submarine force, thereby permitting us to drop to a smaller 
submarine force with acceptable risk in the future.
    I am wondering if you could share with us more specifically 
what systems or capabilities that the Navy has identified that 
would fulfill those peacetime intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance requirements of the combatant commanders.
    Admiral Mullen. The study to which you refer, Senator, I 
think is a 1999 study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 
subsequent to that, there was the 2001 QDR which laid a 
baseline out of a requirement for 55 submarines. I know that 
internal to the Department and to the Navy there's been a great 
deal of analysis which has occurred over the last year, which I 
believe supports a requirement that heads in the direction. I 
have not seen the analysis which gets us to 41 per se, but 
certainly heading in that direction, and I generally support 
that.
    There are investments in programs, I think both in--and 
your question was some--to replace some or all. I would 
probably find myself in the some part of that, that replacing 
some of that, and the investment in systems that are tied to 
distributed systems that we have looked at over the last year 
or two to try to basically give us the kind of intelligence or 
give us the kind of real time information that allows us to 
respond in a much shorter timeline. All these warfighting 
requirements are driven typically by the ability to do 
precursor operations, which is very important, as well as the 
requirements to respond once the balloon goes up.
    It is particularly important that the value of that 
information be evaluated early and then being able to respond 
with platforms like submarines to the requirement at the time.
    I can flesh this out more, but there are investments in 
space which also potentially would provide us the kind of 
information that would allow us to displace some of those 
requirements from the past.
    Senator Levin. Thank you. Senator Nelson.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Admiral Mullen. Senator Nelson, how are you, sir?
    Senator Bill Nelson. Good afternoon, Admiral. Since we 
talked a day or so ago, Senator Warner has in fact offered his 
amendment, which would extend the life of the U.S.S. John F. 
Kennedy aircraft carrier by going to dry dock using existing 
funds that have already been appropriated in the 2005 budget. 
Senator Warner is walking in right now, and I was just 
explaining to the CNO, Mr. Chairman, that since I talked to him 
that in fact you had offered your amendment, and what the 
amendment would do. It would have the Kennedy go into dry dock 
with the funds that are already appropriated in the 2005 
Defense budget. It would keep the fleet at 12 carriers, and the 
reasons being are reasons that we talked about, and we had a 
discussion with Secretary of the Navy England earlier today 
with regard to the delicacy of the issue of having a carrier in 
Japan in order to project our force, and what if Japan, or the 
local government, decides that it doesn't want a nuclear 
carrier? Then we have to have the backup of a conventionally-
powered carrier.
    Okay, all of that is preparatory for me now asking a 
question. It has been expressed to me by a number of 
constituents in Florida, specifically in Jacksonville, that the 
word is out on the street that if Senator Warner is successful 
with his amendment and that this goes all the way through, and 
that we extend the life of the Kennedy, that the Navy will 
punish the Jacksonville area by refusing to make plans for the 
preparation of a follow-on nuclear carrier at some point in the 
future. I'd like your comment.
    Chairman Warner. Might I interject here, my good friend and 
colleague? I had not heard of that, and you know full well that 
Senator Levin and I and others who are very active here 
wouldn't allow something of that nature to happen.
    I do feel the distinguished presidential nominee for CNO at 
this point in the Senate process of advice and consent should 
perhaps limit his views to his professional judgment and only 
those matters on which there's a factual basis. I wouldn't 
suggest you indulge in any conjectures or what-if type of 
response. I want you to respond to my colleague, but this is a 
matter on which the Members of the Senate have views that are 
in opposition to the decision by the Secretary and the current 
CNO, our very distinguished dear friend, Admiral Clark. I think 
until such time as confirmed by the Senate that we can't ask 
too much accountability from this individual.
    Senator Bill Nelson. I understand, Mr. Chairman. I'm just 
simply asking the question had the CNO nominee heard of any 
talk of the Navy wanting to punish Jacksonville under these 
circumstances?
    Admiral Mullen. No, sir. I have not.
    Senator Bill Nelson. As CNO, and you will be confirmed and 
you will have my vote, would you allow such a punishment to 
occur if Senator Warner is successful in keeping alive the 
Kennedy?
    Admiral Mullen. It is not my style to punish. I mean, 
that's just not how I handle my business. Clearly in the kinds 
of terms that you're describing, that's not a path that I would 
normally follow, or follow as you've described it. Along with 
what the chairman said, at this point it clearly is to some 
degree speculation on what might happen. I'm aware of the 
debate, I'm aware of the amendment, and I take that all in, and 
I recognize these are challenges I'll have to deal with, 
assuming I get confirmed.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Well, indeed it will be a challenge. 
But you need to know what's being said in Jacksonville.
    Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
    Senator Bill Nelson. The so-called attempted punishment 
would be that Jacksonville would never be fitted out for a 
nuclear carrier, and it would be beyond my realm of belief that 
the United States Navy would do that, and that they would 
rather make judgments as what's in the best defense interests 
of the country.
    Chairman Warner. Senator, if I might interject again, I 
assure you, and I said at a previous hearing publicly, that the 
QDR process, the BRAC process are important steps which could--
I'm not suggesting absolutely--but could develop facts and 
conclusions and decisions which would direct a course of 
action. I assure you that the Secretary of Defense, I'm 
confident, together with the Department of the Navy, will at 
the appropriate time decide whether or not the option to put a 
nuclear carrier in the Mayport facility is one that's in the 
interests of the national security structure of this country, 
not just Florida or Virginia, but the whole of the country, and 
outline to Congress the steps that they would take to arrive at 
a final decision.
    The threshold decision would be is this something that 
should be examined? If they reach that as a consequence of 
BRAC, QDR, and other decisionmaking, then if they reach the 
decision, we should look at it as a Nation. Then here are the 
steps by which we're going to look at it, and each of those 
steps will be carefully reviewed by Congress and members of the 
committee. Presumably the two of us will have a voice in those 
steps. We will be guardians to see that the type of 
hypothetical, as you said, punishment, will not take place.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, you know that I trust 
you, and I do, and you've been a great leader of this 
committee. You also know some of the emotion that has been 
brought to this table this morning by other Senators on both 
sides of the aisle with regard to matters that are in front of 
this committee and in front of the Pentagon. I think my 
philosophy is the best thing to do is get it all out on the 
table, and that's what I've attempted to do. I thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. I thank you for your active participation. 
One of the reasons I'm a few minutes late coming back, I 
consulted with your colleague, Mr. Martinez, on the floor about 
the bill of which you and I are the two sponsors. I feel 
obligated that the Senate should have a voice in this very 
important decision of the retirement of this ship, the Senate 
as a body, because it is a major decision with regard to force 
structure to go from 12 carriers back to 11. I don't think 
Congress should be silent.
    I don't know what the outcome will be. We have an unusual 
parliamentary procedure. Cloture will in all likelihood be 
invoked on the main bill, and that could pose some 
parliamentary problems, but we're going to diligently pursue 
allowing the Senate to have an expression, a voice in this 
matter. So as we say in the Navy, stand by to cast off.
    Thank you. Any further questions you might have of the 
distinguished witness?
    Senator Bill Nelson. Only just to mention in passing that 
as a Navy man the issue of Scott Speicher will continue to 
arise, and it will arise in this committee until evidence is 
found so that his family can reach closure.
    It is no secret that I am not happy with the Department of 
Defense when they abandoned the search over a year ago. I will 
continue to speak out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. Admiral, just one 
wrap-up question, and I once again announce for all those 
following this hearing that the chairman and ranking member 
announced that we would resume following the vote for purposes 
of entertaining questions by any Senator. It's an unusual 
situation on the floor now with party caucuses, and that 
explains the absence of so many members, but I'll now ask and 
concede to myself unanimous consent that the record for this 
hearing will remain open for a week's time within which 
Senators may submit questions to Admiral Mullen, and we'll 
await the responses.
    Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. It's giving all an 
opportunity to participate, because this is a very important 
hearing.
    I do wish to get one thing further on the record here. In 
its budget proposal for 2005, the Navy cut almost 8,000 Active-
Duty sailors from its end strength. By the way, that was one 
that I discussed at length with Admiral Clark. It came at a 
time when the Army was pressing for increased end strength. The 
Marine Corps likewise, needed additional end strength. But, I 
felt it showed a typical measure of courage that Admiral Clark 
has always manifested and a pragmatic assessment of the 
situation with respect to that proposal.
    In 2006, the Navy plans to cut over 13,000 more from the 
Active-Duty rolls. Again, a situation which the previous CNO 
worked. In order to achieve these reductions, the Navy has 
sought the authority to implement tools used during the 
drawdown of the 1990s, such as buy-outs and early retirement 
boards and reduced the number of new recruits. You characterize 
these reductions in your written responses as a ``goal,'' and 
state that the Navy's overall personnel policy is still 
evolving. But, it sounds as if the Navy is implementing the 
personnel cuts even as it deliberates where future manpower 
will go.
    What is the Navy's optimal Active-Duty strength, in your 
judgment? Or maybe you prefer to take this question for the 
record and do some careful research on that. How do you plan to 
achieve these cuts in such a way that some sailors who really 
made a decision to make the Navy a career could be affected by 
this? I know how well you understand the commitments we make to 
our people, and how they go on and work towards their careers, 
and the excitement within the family with every red stripe 
that's added to the sleeve or gold stripe to the cuff. The need 
to have it clearly understood in the greater family of the Navy 
that we are making these personnel decisions in the best 
interest of and in the security interests of this country. We 
want to minimize the hardship on those who have made 
commitments, and for whatever reason, the Navy has decided that 
maybe certain individuals just won't have the opportunity to 
fulfill their dreams.
    Admiral Mullen. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get back to you 
on what I think the optimal size would be, because I don't 
think we know that yet.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    Mr. Chairman, during my congressional confirmation hearing in 
April, you asked me two questions regarding future reductions in Navy 
manpower. Those questions were as follows:

        ``What is the Navy's optimal Active-Duty end strength in your 
        judgment?'' and, ``How do you plan to achieve these cuts . . 
        .?''

    In April, I asked for some time to consider what I thought the 
optimal size would be.
    On 4 November 2005, the Navy's active end strength was 361,478. The 
President's 2006 budget submission reflects Navy's fiscal year active 
end strength request of 352,700.
    Navy's optimal end strength numbers are determined by force 
structure. This process takes into account the current and future 
manning requirements of our ships, aircraft, and associated 
infrastructure, requirements that are even now under review as part of 
the QDR process. It is imperative that we more critically evaluate and 
manage our infrastructure and associated end strength, and we are 
actively pursuing further efficiencies.
    Navy is increasingly leveraging technology to improve our 
warfighting advantage. Advances in ships and system design are allowing 
us to shed some obsolete, labor-intensive functions while improving 
productivity and warfighting readiness. Economies are gained by 
eliminating redundant and nonessential skill sets. Until we have 
completed our review of force structure requirements, I cannot forecast 
Navy's exact long-term optimal end strength. However, I assure you that 
I am committed to determining that number, that it will reflect the 
economies derived from transforming the force to meet the challenges we 
face in this new century, and that I will share it with you in a timely 
manner.
    It is my intent that as potential reductions in manpower are 
identified, the Navy will execute these reductions in a planned, 
control, and responsible manner that is consistent with the security 
interests of the country.

    Chairman Warner. If you feel that you want to get onboard 
and get on the bridge for a while and take a look at it with 
the full authority and advice and consent of the Navy, I would 
urge you do that.
    Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. I don't think it's one you can answer in 
that quick of a period.
    Admiral Mullen. I would like to do that. Just a couple 
thoughts, however. One is that I know that these initial steps 
have been taken in a measured way. I was in the personnel 
business in the early to mid-1990s when we reduced our size 
dramatically. The intent of where we're headed now is to do it 
in a measured way so that we can reach the potential for every 
sailor that is a member of the United States Navy, and do it in 
a way in which we provide opportunity and we still hold out the 
kind of dream that you just described for each and every member 
of the Service.
    It's with that kind of thought we will proceed, and with 
recognition that we need to invest from a technological 
standpoint, because some of our ships, our future platforms, 
will require fewer people. We believe there is an opportunity 
in the future to actually reduce the size of the force. We just 
haven't, to the best of my knowledge, we haven't gotten to what 
we think the optimum number is. We don't know what that number 
is yet. There's an awful lot of work going on, and it's a 
priority for me, assuming I get confirmed, to continue that 
work to be able to answer the kind of question you asked, and 
do it in a way that makes sense not just to you and me, but to 
everybody in the Navy.
    Chairman Warner. I'm going to suggest the following. It's a 
bit unusual, but I think it's so important when a new Chief of 
Service steps up. We're going to proceed to mark up the 2006 
authorization bill in the coming weeks, and if we can have the 
good fortune, which I anticipate would be the case, of the 
Senate acting on your nomination promptly, to invite you to 
come back and brief the members of the committee before we go 
to print, so to speak. I can hear the reverberation of the 
staff behind me, but anyway, I'll take their wrath later.
    I want to make sure that this bill basically is consistent 
with your initial concepts of where you want to go with this 
great Navy. There may be some options by which we can 
incorporate a provision here or a provision there to begin to 
set your course of speed.
    Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir. I'd very much appreciate that.
    Chairman Warner. All right. We'll determine the time table 
for that.
    Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. But, in no way is this to suggest that 
you're going to change a great deal from the distinguished 
helmsman, Admiral Vern Clark, and his lovely wife, the First 
Lady of the Navy. We're going to--at least I am--going to be 
very sad to see him leave. I've enjoyed working with him. But, 
I really look forward to working with you.
    Admiral Mullen. Thank you, sir. Well, I've worked on and 
off for him since 1996, and I am a big believer in where he's 
taken us, and I expect to continue that momentum.
    Chairman Warner. I guess that change of command will take 
place at Annapolis, will it not?
    Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir. That's the plan.
    Chairman Warner. Well, I've been there many times for those 
change of commands. There isn't a one of us when that old flag 
comes down and the other one goes up that doesn't get a bit 
choked up. Thank you, sir.
    Admiral Mullen. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. The hearing is concluded.
    [Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the committee adjourned.]

    [Prepared questions submitted to Secretary England by 
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied 
follow:]
                        Questions and Responses

                            DEFENSE REFORMS

    Question. You previously have answered the committee's advance 
policy questions on the reforms brought about by the Goldwater-Nichols 
Act in connection with your nomination to be Secretary of the Navy.
    Have your views on the importance, feasibility, and implementation 
of these reforms changed since you testified before the committee at 
your last confirmation hearing on September 23, 2003?
    Answer. My views are unchanged regarding the emphasis in the 
Goldwater-Nichols Act on jointness and the establishment of unified and 
specified combatant commanders. The effectiveness of joint operations 
has been clearly demonstrated in OIF and OEF, and I strongly support 
continued and increased efforts to improve the jointness of our 
military forces. However, the acquisition reforms of Goldwater-Nichols 
were designed for a different world and need to be re-examined in light 
of a new environment with far fewer prime contractors, far fewer new 
starts, fewer production items and a need for speed and agility in 
acquisition.
    Question. Do you see the need for modifications of Goldwater-
Nichols Act provisions based on your experience as Secretary of the 
Navy and Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security? If 
so, what areas do you believe it might be appropriate to address in 
these modifications?
    Answer. The acquisition reforms of Goldwater-Nichols were designed 
for a different world and need to be re-examined in light of a new 
environment with far fewer new starts, fewer production items and a 
need for speed and agility in acquisition. In my judgment, we need to 
examine the entire spectrum of defense acquisition to include the 
authority and responsibility for establishing requirements, procurement 
processes themselves, and the aligning of authority and responsibility.

                             RELATIONSHIPS

    Question. What do you see as the relationship between the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense and each of the following?
    The Secretary of Defense
    Answer. Almost without exception, the Deputy and the Secretary 
share the same authorities and responsibilities. However, we will each 
emphasize different areas. My role, should I be confirmed as DEPSECDEF, 
will be more of a classic Chief Operating Officer responsible for the 
operation of DOD and implementation of national defense policy and 
strategy. This will include financial management, personnel policies, 
acquisition management and integrity, oversight of military 
departments' roles, BRAC, Quadrennial Defense Review management, 
legislative affairs, public affairs and the like. At the same time, 
SECDEF's and DEPSECDEF's area of emphasis will necessarily overlap to 
ensure consistency of leadership and direction.
    Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense
    Answer. I will ensure that the priorities of the Secretary are 
implemented and that issues of significant importance are brought to 
his attention with sufficient analysis and recommendations for his 
action. My relationships with the Under Secretaries of Defense will 
derive from my role as Chief Operating Officer. My management style is 
to form integrated project teams to work in a collaborative process to 
ensure that issues are fully considered, decisions weighed, accepted 
and implemented by each member of the management team.
    Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense
    Answer. As Chief Operating Officer, my relationship with the 
Assistant Secretaries of Defense (ASDs) that report to me will be 
similar to that of the Under Secretaries. For ASDs that report through 
Under Secretaries, I will rely on the Under Secretaries to manage their 
areas of responsibility.
    Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Vice 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
    Answer. As the principal military advisor to the President and to 
the National Security Council and to the Secretary of Defense, the 
Chairman has a unique military role. If confirmed, I will work closely 
with the Chairman and the Vice Chairman to ensure that their issues are 
addressed and to ensure that all essential matters are fully 
coordinated with them.
    Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments
    Answer. As the current Secretary of the Navy, I appreciate the role 
of the Secretaries in implementing the policies of the President and 
the Secretary of Defense. To ensure that the Secretaries are fully 
coordinated and operating in unison with each other and with the 
SECDEF's office, I plan to reinvigorate the Senior Executive Council 
consisting of the Secretaries and the USD (AT&L).
    Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services
    Answer. Regarding the Service Chiefs, I will work to see that they 
are fully cognizant of appropriate policies and initiatives of the 
Secretary's office and also ensure that appropriate actions from the 
Secretary's office and with the Service Chiefs are fully coordinated 
with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    Question. The National Intelligence Director (NID) and the Deputy 
NID
    Answer. It is premature to define precisely the relationship with 
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Deputy Director of 
National Intelligence. Most likely, the interface with the DNI will 
usually be handled directly by the Secretary of Defense and the 
interface with the Deputy DNI will usually be handled by the USD(I). My 
expectation is that I will be fully cognizant of these discussions and 
issues but not as an area of primary emphasis.
    Question. The Service Acquisition Executives
    Answer. I expect to be actively participating in setting the 
acquisition policies and the major acquisitions of the Service 
Acquisition Executives. However, most of their activities will be 
handled with me through the relevant military department secretary or 
the USD (AT&L). My objective will be to ensure that we have the 
appropriate policies and procedures in place such that all acquisitions 
meet all rules and regulations of the Federal Government, are conducted 
to the highest ethical standards and meet the needs of the military 
departments and are timely and affordable.
    Question. The Inspector General
    Answer. I expect to encourage the Inspector General to carry out 
his or her duties as prescribed in the Inspector General Act and will 
make sure that there are no impediments to that accomplishment. The 
most valuable contribution of an Inspector General, while preserving 
his independence, is to suggest constructive solutions of any problems 
or issues identified.
    Question. The General Counsel
    Answer. I expect to seek advice and counsel from the Department's 
Chief Legal Officer on all relevant matters.
    Question. The Service Judge Advocates General
    Answer. Judge Advocates General of the military departments and the 
military department general counsels are critical components of their 
respective departments' legal infrastructure. The military department 
Judge Advocates General and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant 
perform functions in their respective organizations that are essential 
to the proper operation of their Service and Departments as a whole. 
Their unique expertise and experience contribute significantly to the 
proper functioning of the Services, the military departments, and the 
Department of Defense.

                       QUALIFICATIONS AND DUTIES

    Question. Section 132 of title 10, United States Code, provides 
that the duties of the Deputy Secretary of Defense are to be prescribed 
by the Secretary of Defense.
    Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect that 
Secretary Rumsfeld will prescribe to you?
    Answer. Assuming I am confirmed, I expect to serve as a traditional 
deputy and alter ego of the Secretary. However, my expectation is that 
the Secretary of Defense will function as the Chief Executive Officer 
and the Deputy will function as the Chief Operating Officer. As such, 
the Deputy will be responsible to implement the Secretary of Defense's 
priorities, better integrate functional management of DOD to align 
authority and responsibility and accountability within DOD, manage BRAC 
to conclusion, manage financial and personnel policies and procedures, 
implement DOD-wide metrics as a management tool, meet the President's 
Management agenda, respond to the Government Accountability Office 
critiques and suggestions, and the like. While the Secretary and the 
Deputy emphasize different aspects of DOD, they will inherently overlap 
due to their joint overall responsibility and to ensure uniformity of 
leadership and direction.
    Question. What background and expertise do you possess that you 
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
    Answer. Deputy Secretary of Defense will be my fourth confirmed 
position in the Federal Government if my nomination is acted upon 
favorably by the Senate. My experience to date as the 72nd Secretary of 
the Navy, the 1st Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security and the 73rd 
Secretary of the Navy has provided me broad experience in dealing with 
matters within DOD, across Federal agencies, with Congress, with 
industry, and with a large number of foreign governments. My corporate 
experience includes president of a number of large companies with 
hands-on management and technical leadership for a broad range of 
domestic and international programs. I have also served on a City 
Council and have participated in a wide range of local and national 
boards and committees. That said, the Department of Defense is 
astonishingly broad in scope and complexity and will be a profound 
challenge for even the most experienced executive.
    Question. Do you believe that there are any steps you need to take 
to enhance your expertise to perform the duties of Deputy Secretary of 
Defense?
    Answer. In my judgment, no one is fully qualified to perform the 
duties of the Deputy Secretary of Defense without first serving some 
time in that position. As such, it is important for the Deputy 
Secretary to be very open to constructive inputs and opinions and to be 
sure that important issues are fully vetted prior to decision. 
Additionally, without presuming confirmation, I have been receiving 
many briefings to understand better the full breadth of DOD 
responsibilities and have also received views and opinions from many 
Members of Congress. My objective will be to utilize my experience and 
expertise while also expanding my knowledge and understanding and 
valuing the advice and counsel of other DOD, government, and corporate 
executives.

                            MAJOR CHALLENGES

    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting 
the next Deputy Secretary of Defense?
    Answer. As noted in the recently released National Defense 
Strategy, we live in a time of confrontational challenges and strategic 
uncertainties. Our Nation is confronted by fundamentally different 
challenges than those faced by the American defense establishment in 
the Cold War and in previous eras. The major challenge confronting the 
Secretary and the Deputy, along with our Nation, is to influence events 
before threats become more dangerous and less manageable. Our goal is 
to defeat today's threats and to prepare the DOD to meet the threats 
and uncertainties of the 21st century.
    Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these 
challenges?
    Answer. If confirmed, my immediate emphasis will be to manage the 
Quadrennial Defense Review that will specifically address traditional, 
irregular, catastrophic and disruptive capabilities and methods that 
threaten U.S. interests. For the longer term, I will work with 
Secretary Rumsfeld to implement the National Defense Strategy.

                       QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW

    Question. Congress recently received the National Defense Strategy 
and the National Military Strategy. These are the overarching 
strategies that will guide the conduct of the Quadrennial Defense 
Review (QDR) in which, if confirmed, you will play a major role. There 
has been a major shift in recent years in the way the Defense 
Department establishes its military requirements, with a focus on 
capabilities rather than a threat-based approach.
    Do you envision the results of the QDR addressing not only required 
capabilities, but the force structure needed to ensure those 
capabilities are available at the times and places necessary?
    Answer. The QDR will address not just required capabilities, but 
the force structure needed to ensure those capabilities are available 
at the times and places they are necessary.
    This QDR will consider the proper mix of military capabilities the 
Nation needs. Given today's complex and uncertain security environment, 
these challenges involve not only the traditional threats from nation-
states that we've faced throughout the past century, but also a new set 
of post September 11 national security challenges. These include 
irregular threats of unstable environments, catastrophic threats of 
devastating attacks on the homeland, and disruptive threats of new 
asymmetric military technologies getting into the hands of our 
adversaries before we've developed adequate defenses.
    Based on a determination of this capability mix needed to meet 
these traditional, irregular, catastrophic, and disruptive national 
security challenges, the QDR will suggest a force sizing construct that 
appropriately accounts for the contribution of our interagency partners 
and international allies, as well as our own forces.
    Question. As part of the 2005 QDR process, you were designated to 
lead a panel that would examine aspects of the United States Code that 
might have to be changed to allow the Department to implement proposed 
changes to the U.S. military.
    What areas of the U.S. Code, in your view, require examination as a 
part of the QDR process, in order to implement necessary changes?
    Answer. The panel is looking at a very broad range of authorities 
that DOD needs to accomplish its mission. In addition to applicable 
statutes, directives, and policies, the panel is also looking at 
international and interagency agreements. An additional focus is to 
ensure the existing authorities are properly aligned with the 
responsible entities within DOD to speed and streamline mission 
accomplishment.
    Question. Who do you anticipate will head this panel if you are 
confirmed?
    Answer. My expectation is that the Department will name another 
senior DOD official and that I will replace Secretary Wolfowitz as the 
co-lead of the Capabilities Panel along with General Pace as the other 
co-lead.
    Question. If you are confirmed, what role do you expect to play in 
the QDR?
    Answer. My expectation is that that I will replace Secretary 
Wolfowitz as the co-lead of the Capabilities Panel along with General 
Pace as the other co-lead. I also expect to manage the QDR process for 
Secretary Rumsfeld.
    Question. We understand that the Department may plan for senior 
officials currently leading integrated product teams responsible for 
developing options for the ongoing QDR to continue serving in those 
roles even if they leave the Department.
    What role, if any, do you believe is appropriate for former DOD 
officials to play in the QDR?
    Answer. QDR 2005 seeks a greater degree of inclusion than past 
QDRs. Consultation, input, and sometimes participation, is being sought 
from Defense Boards, interagency partners, Congress, key allies, 
industry, and knowledgeable individuals--all of which are composed of 
membership from outside the department.

             SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FUNDING AND PRIORITIES

    Question. The Department's science and technology (S&T) programs 
are designed to support defense transformation goals and objectives. 
These programs should ensure development of the latest, most 
technologically advanced devices, capabilities, equipment, and 
protection solutions for the current and future warfighter. The Defense 
Science Board and the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review recommended a 
general funding target of 3 percent of the total Defense Department 
budget for the S&T program, a goal which has been endorsed by the 
Secretary of Defense and other Department officials. However, the 
proposed DOD budget for fiscal year 2006 for S&T falls short of this 
goal.
    What, in your view, is the role and value of S&T programs in 
meeting the Department's transformation goals and in confronting 
traditional and asymmetric threats?
    Answer. Science and technology, when integrated with new 
operational concepts and organizational constructs, are critical 
elements of transformation. Leveraging technology is the key to 
ensuring a decisive U.S. advantage across the range of military 
operations, from asymmetric threats to major combat operations. The 
results of past S&T investments are used to win today, and DOD is 
keeping the pipeline full to win tomorrow.
    Question. If confirmed, what direction would you provide regarding 
funding targets and priorities for the Department's long-term S&T 
research efforts?
    Answer. The Department pursues an integrated and comprehensive S&T 
program, from basic research through manufacturing technology. Long-
term S&T is our ``seed corn.'' DOD programs emphasize integrating basic 
research with applied science and technology, and promoting the 
effective and expeditious transition of discovery and invention into 
real-world applications. Moreover, ``transition'' has become of utmost 
importance, as the success of S&T is not measured simply by the basic 
science it supports, but also by the active and successful transition 
of that science to supporting America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
marines. If confirmed, I will support a balanced program of DOD 
investment in basic research, applied research and advanced development 
across the spectrum of military needs.
    Question. Do you believe there is an adequate investment in basic 
research to develop the capabilities the Department of Defense will 
need in 2020?
    Answer. At this time, the Department's basic research program is 
balanced and appears adequate to support the needs of the warfighter in 
2020. However, the results of the 2005 QDR could emphasize new areas of 
S&T and also affect the level of S&T investment.

                         TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION

    Question. The Department's efforts to quickly transition 
technologies to the warfighter have yielded important results in the 
last few years. Challenges remain to institutionalizing the transition 
of new technology into existing programs of record and major weapons 
systems and platforms. The Department's fiscal year 2006 budget request 
proposes increases across a spectrum of technology transition programs.
    What are your views on the success of the Department's technology 
transition programs in spiraling emerging technologies into systems?
    Answer. The Department of the Navy has been fairly successful in 
spiraling emerging technologies into systems. Budget submittals 
routinely include improvement changes for our ships, airplanes and 
other systems. That said, it is still a time-consuming and difficult 
process to upgrade many existing weapon systems. For that reason, the 
Department of the Navy took a new approach with the Littoral Combat 
Ship (LCS). The LCS is a multi-purpose ship based on a modular design 
concept wherein the ship itself uses modular design/construction 
approaches, and the weapon systems are being designed to be of a roll-
on/roll-off modular construction. This allows easier reconfiguration, 
quicker and less expensive upgrades with new technology. With the rapid 
pace of technological change and the military's reliance on 
technological advantage, it's evident that DOD will need to improve 
continuously its processes for technology insertion into systems.
    Question. What challenges to transition do you see within the 
Department?
    Answer. Rapid transition of technologies to the warfighter has been 
a continuing difficult issue for the Department of Defense. The 
problems encountered in the past have dealt with the inherently long 
budgeting cycles of DOD and the challenges in providing adequate 
support when systems are fielded quickly. Some modest successes in 
quick reaction programs to speed new technologies to warfighters have 
been achieved, specifically to counter improvised explosive devices 
(IEDs), provide personnel protection and meet other urgent needs. 
However, this is an area that will require continued attention and 
improvement and, if confirmed as Deputy Secretary, will receive my 
personal attention.
    Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to enhance the 
effectiveness of technology transition efforts?
    Answer. One of the challenges I will face, if confirmed, is to 
provide flexibility for just-in-time application of funds in a highly 
constrained and competitive funding process. Recent years have seen 
many situations in which rapidly evolving threats create needs and/or 
rapidly evolving technologies create opportunities that move faster 
than our normal planning and budget processes were designed to 
accommodate. Notably, we have had some significant successes in quick 
reaction programs that speed new technologies to warfighters to counter 
IEDs, provide personnel protection, improve communications and 
intelligence capabilities, and meet other urgent needs. I am also 
pleased to report that we have been successful across the spectrum of 
transition programs, including those that resolve risks and qualify new 
technologies for insertion into programs of record--programs such as 
Small Business Innovative Research, Advanced Concept Technology 
Demonstrations, Defense Acquisition Challenge Program and several other 
DOD and military department technology transition initiatives.
    If confirmed, I will work to continue to build the trust in the 
Department's technology transition programs that will go hand in hand 
with our requests for increased funding flexibility.

                      CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION

    Question. The Department does not appear to be on track to 
eliminate its chemical weapons in accordance with the timelines 
established by the Chemical Weapons Convention.
    What steps is the Department taking to ensure that the U.S. remains 
in compliance with its treaty obligations for chemical weapons 
destruction?
    Answer. My understanding is that if the Chemical Demilitarization 
Program continues on its current path, the United States will not meet 
the Convention's extended 100 percent destruction deadline of April 29, 
2012. Accordingly, the Department requested that alternative approaches 
be developed to evaluate whether the deadline can be met using a 
different approach.

                 POST-CONFLICT AND STABILITY OPERATIONS

    Question. The Secretary of Defense is currently considering a new 
directive on post-conflict and stability operations.
    What changes, if any, do you believe the conventional and Special 
Operations Forces need to make to better plan for, and be better 
trained and equipped for, post-conflict and stability operations?
    Answer. With regard to my personal observations, the Department 
should:

         Continue to build on ongoing stability operations 
        initiatives within the U.S. Government and clarify roles and 
        responsibilities within DOD;
         Incorporate stability operations into all phases of 
        military planning, training and exercises and into professional 
        military education;
         Set up a management structure and reporting 
        requirements to ensure that stability operations capabilities 
        are developed in an integrated manner;
         Create a comprehensive joint doctrine for stability 
        operations;
         Increase involvement of other USG Departments and 
        agencies, international organizations, non-governmental 
        organizations and the private sector into DOD military 
        planning, training and exercises; and
         Develop a concept for working with civilian-military 
        teams based on the Provisional Reconstruction Team model used 
        in Afghanistan.

    Question. What changes, if any do you believe are needed to ensure 
that U.S. forces can operate effectively in coordination with foreign 
forces in such operations?
    Answer. Based on my experience as Secretary of the Navy, we have 
been reasonably successful in working interoperability with navies 
throughout the world. We meet regularly with the Chiefs of Naval 
Operations (CNOs) from other countries (for example, in 2003, 55 CNOs 
at the Naval War College at Newport and the Southern Hemisphere CNOs in 
San Diego) and regularly have staff-to-staff interfaces. Additionally, 
the Navy has many joint exercises and operates with other naval 
forces--in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, for 
example--and in other key areas throughout the world. I believe that 
the other U.S. military departments have similar regular contact with 
their counterparts throughout the world. In my judgment, high levels of 
interface, joint exercises and compatible equipment have been effective 
in making sure that U.S. and foreign forces can operate together. It 
is, therefore, important that DOD have broad flexibility in training 
with and equipping foreign forces.

                       SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES

    Question. Given the current and projected operational and personnel 
tempo for Special Operations Forces, what changes, if any, do you think 
are needed in the size of these forces?
    Answer. The Quadrennial Defense review will consider Special 
Operations Forces (SOF) capabilities to meet the four challenge areas--
traditional, irregular, catastrophic, and disruptive.
    The appropriate mix of capabilities needed to meet all these 
missions will be a primary focus of QDR 2005. Once able to determine 
the right mix of capabilities across the total force, then DOD will be 
positioned to determine what is the appropriate force planning 
construct from which to size the force while keeping current 
operational and future risk within a moderate and acceptable range.
    Question. What steps, if any, do you believe are needed to ensure 
that the immediate demands for direct action in counter-terrorism 
missions do not undermine our ability to conduct an appropriate number 
and quality of special operations foreign training missions?
    Answer. I do not have significant direct experience in this area 
except for the relationship of the U.S. Marines with the SOF and the 
interface of the U.S. Marines with other international Marine forces. 
However, I would be pleased to work with Congress on this important 
issue, if confirmed.

                  COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAM

    Question. Do you support the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) 
program?
    Answer. Yes. CTR is an important program that addresses highly 
dangerous WMD, related infrastructure and delivery systems at their 
sources--primarily in the former Soviet states.
    Question. Do you envision a need to expand the CTR program either 
geographically or programmatically?
    Answer. Section 1308 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2004 provided authority for CTR to conduct activities 
outside the Former Soviet Union (FSU) in special circumstances. CTR's 
first use of this authority is to eliminate poorly guarded chemical 
weapons in Albania. This new authority recognizes that the WMD threat 
is not confined to one region, although we do not expect significant 
expansion of CTR activities outside the FSU. The administration may 
request a modification of section 1308 to make the authority more 
flexible.
    Question. If so, what goals do you believe would be achieved by the 
expansion of the CTR program?
    Answer. Wherever CTR activities occur, the goals should always be 
to address the threat of WMD, related infrastructure or delivery 
systems.

                   TASK FORCE ON NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES

    Question. The Defense Science Board recently established a Task 
Force on Nuclear Capabilities to examine options for the nuclear 
weapons stockpile.
    If confirmed, what role do you expect to play on these issues? Do 
you expect to have any input to the DSB study?
    Answer. The Defense Science Board is an advisory body to provide 
independent advice to senior DOD leadership. The study to which you 
refer was requested by the Secretary of Defense as a part of a broader 
review of the status of the process of the transformation of U.S. 
military capabilities. Upon receipt of their findings and 
recommendations, however, the Department will take them under 
consideration and determine a proper course of action after a detailed 
assessment of the issue.

                       EXECUTIVE AGENT FOR SPACE

    Question. Do you believe that the Under Secretary of the Air Force 
should retain responsibility as Executive Agent for Space? Why or why 
not?
    Answer. I have no preconceived notion regarding the role of the 
Under Secretary of the Air Force as Executive Agent for Space. I 
understand that the former Under Secretary of the Air Force has 
expressed important views on this. Those views will be considered.

                       DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES

    Question. As the Secretary of the Navy, you have observed the 
working relationship between the Navy General Counsel, the Judge 
Advocate General of the Navy, and the Staff Judge Advocate to the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps in providing legal counsel and services 
within the Department.
    What are your views about the responsibility of the Judge Advocates 
General of the Services and the Staff Judge Advocate for the Commandant 
to provide independent legal advice to the service chiefs, particularly 
in the area of military justice and operational law?
    What are your views about the responsibility of staff judge 
advocates within the Services, the Joint Staff, and the combatant 
commands, to provide independent legal advice to military commanders?
    Answer. The Judge Advocates General of the military departments and 
the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, like their civilian 
counterparts, and their staffs provide invaluable service to the 
Department of Defense. Senior leaders within the Department of Defense 
are best served by lawyers at all levels who provide objective and 
candid legal advice that faithfully reflects the law. I am aware that 
Congress addressed the roles of uniformed lawyers in the Ronald W. 
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. 
Congress also mandated the relationships between the legal elements of 
the military departments. The panel has been selected and is beginning 
this important task. I assure you that, if confirmed, I will carefully 
consider the panel's recommendations.

                             TRANSFORMATION

    Question. Secretary Rumsfeld has established transformation of the 
Armed Forces to meet 21st century threats as one of the Department's 
highest priorities and has stated that only weapons systems that are 
truly transformational should be acquired.
    How would you assess the level of risk to each of the Services of 
foregoing or curtailing current acquisition programs in favor of future 
transformation?
    Answer. For 229 years, a strength of the U.S. military has been its 
ability to adapt and change. As the rate of change of technology 
continues to accelerate, it will be even more important that the U.S. 
military keep pace. Recognizing this need, the Department established 
an integrated risk framework for decision making which was first 
articulated in QDR 2001.
    Question. Can we afford this risk considering the current level of 
global threats?
    Answer. Some enemies of the United States have also kept pace with 
technological change and are quick to take advantage. The greater 
institutional risk for DOD is over reliance on traditional platforms 
and delaying the advent of new technologies and systems.

                       BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

    Question. The fielding of initial elements of the Ground-Based 
Midcourse Defense system has begun as part of the ballistic missile 
defense test bed and for use in an emergency. In accordance with 
section 234 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2005, the system has not yet been subject to the 
operational test and evaluation process applicable to other major 
weapon systems.
    What role do you believe independent operational test and 
evaluation should play in ensuring that the Ground-Based Midcourse 
Defense system will work in an operationally effective manner?
    Answer. DOD is committed to conducting operationally realistic 
testing of our missile defense program. Our test program has become 
more robust and realistic over time. I expect that this trend will 
continue.
    I also understand that in November 2004 the Director of OT&E 
(DOT&E) approved the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) Integrated Master 
Test Program and that he will continue to work closely with MDA to 
ensure an increasingly operationally realistic test program.
    Question. What steps do you believe should be taken to ensure that 
ground-based interceptors will work in an operationally effective 
manner?
    Answer. The ground-based interceptors are designed to be 
operationally effective and the testing to date has demonstrated the 
basic hit to kill functionality. The recent test failures indicated a 
need for more component qualification testing and a more robust 
approach to quality control. Steps have been taken by the Director of 
the Missile Defense Agency to address these shortfalls. DOD expects a 
return to a robust flight program will occur this year to demonstrate 
the interceptor's effectiveness with operationally realistic tests 
agreed upon by the DOT&E.
    Question. The Ballistic Missile Defense System is being developed 
and fielded by the Missile Defense Agency using Research, Development, 
Test, and Engineering funds.
    At what point do you believe that elements of the system should 
transition to the military departments and procurement funds?
    Answer. My personal experience as Secretary of the Navy is that 
systems should transition to the military departments and utilize 
procurement funds when the design is stable, tested and ready for 
production. Until that time, systems should remain in RDT&E where 
greater flexibility is available to make necessary and appropriate 
changes to the design.
    Question. Do you believe that the Department should be developing 
scientific plans for this transition now?
    Answer. Each of the individual missile defense program elements is 
in a different stage of its development; consequently, some are much 
more mature than others.
    I support close collaboration between the Missile Defense Agency 
and the military departments so the Department can understand the 
costs, logistics and other implications of transitioning missile 
defense capabilities to better prepare for transition.

                      SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIAL BASE

    Question. In a recent letter to several Senators regarding the 
Navy's intent to change the acquisition strategy for the DD(X) program, 
you minimized the value to the Navy of avoiding a sole source 
relationship with a single shipyard for building major surface 
combatants.
    Was avoiding a sole source relationship considered in the Navy's 
decision for adopting a new DD(X) strategy?
    Answer. Competition is a key component of any strategy to control 
costs. The effects on the future ability to hold competitions for 
follow-on surface combatants were factored into the Navy's decision-
making process. However, it is not certain that the acquisition 
strategy for the DD(X) class will force a sole-source environment for 
all future surface combatant work. A given shipyard could compete on 
other work, either commercial or military, and yards that have not 
built surface combatants in the past may choose to enter that line of 
work.
    Question. What are your views on this issue?
    Answer. The decision to review the DD(X) acquisition strategy was 
necessitated due to the number of DD(X) destroyers to be procured 
between fiscal years 2007 and 2011. This DD(X) procurement profile 
represents a build rate of one ship per year versus the two to three 
ships per year previously programmed. The Navy's assessment of the 
impact of the decline in the number of DD(X) hulls in the Future Years 
Defense Plan upon the surface combatant industrial base indicates that 
the remaining workload is not sufficient to support two shipyards in a 
cost-effective level of operation. Building DD(X) in two shipyards at 
the lower build rate is significantly more costly because the overhead 
burden is spread across a reduced business base.
    The revised DD(X) acquisition strategy is intended to reduce ship 
unit cost by concentrating the workload associated with the lower build 
rate at a single shipyard. Navy analysis indicates that sufficient 
production capacity exists in either surface combatant shipyard to 
support a build rate of up to two DD(X) destroyers per year. The Navy 
expects to save in excess of $1 billion over the FYDP by avoiding the 
premium required to maintain a second shipyard building DD(X).
    Question. Have the Navy and the Department of Defense already 
arrived at a conclusion as to how many DD(X) vessels to build before 
having conducted the QDR analysis?
    Answer. The CNO has spoken of a range of total combat ships. In the 
case of DD(X), the draft 30-year shipbuilding plan calls for 8 to 12 
DD(X)s. Clearly, while the QDR will guide future shipbuilding rates, 
the Navy's analysis does not predict procuring more than two per year.

                     LOW DENSITY/HIGH DEMAND FORCES

    Question. If confirmed, how would you address the challenges of the 
Army and Air Force in manning low density/high demand units and officer 
and enlisted career specialties?
    Answer. I have not focused previously on the specific challenges of 
the Army and the Air Force in low density/high demand units. My 
experience with the Navy and Marine Corps has shown that an effective 
way to address the issue is to create incentives for people to pursue 
understaffed specialties. With Navy end strength declining, we have 
created opportunities for Sailors to transfer into other less populated 
ratings. A typical indirect benefit of such rate transfers to the 
Sailor is greater promotion potential. While this is proving to be an 
effective short-term solution, changing our recruiting, training and 
assignment processes will be key to ensuring we have the right numbers 
and skill mix that we need for the future. This is an issue that 
requires constant close monitoring and adjustment as necessary.
    Related to this issue, the Navy has recently undertaken initiatives 
to better support joint requirements to relieve stress on Army forces. 
Specific examples include the training of Navy Masters-at-Arms to 
replace soldiers in detainee operations and the upcoming deployment of 
Navy helicopters for air ambulance and medium lift missions in Iraq. 
Should I be confirmed, I will work with the leadership of the military 
departments to develop specific actions to address this concern.

                         READINESS DEFICIENCIES

    Question. In response to the committee's advance policy questions 
in connection with your previous confirmation hearing, you indicated 
that the Navy had made good progress in meeting readiness deficiencies.
    What do you view as the major readiness challenges that need to be 
addressed in each of the Services, and, if confirmed, how would you 
approach these issues?
    Answer. My experience as Secretary of the Navy is that readiness is 
a direct function of Operation and Maintenance (O&M) dollars available. 
Underfunding O&M adversely affects readiness. On the other hand, 
overfunding O&M does not necessarily provide improvement. Therefore, a 
balance needs to be struck in the O&M account. However, it is 
critically important that O&M adequately fund training, spares, depot 
maintenance, fuel, equipment and the like.
    Question. Section 482 of title 10, United States Code, requires the 
Department to submit a quarterly readiness report to Congress. The 
Department is nearly a year behind in providing this information, and 
has failed to provide the required reports for the last three quarters 
of calendar year 2004.
    If confirmed, would you place a priority on ensuring that the 
Department timely submits the reports required by law under section 
482, title 10, United States Code?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will seek timely submissions of the 
quarterly readiness reports to Congress.

             ARMY AND MARINE CORPS RECRUITING AND RETENTION

    Question. The Army, Army Reserves, Army National Guard, and the 
Marine Corps have experienced shortfalls in achieving recruiting goals. 
Many concerns have been raised about the ability of the ground forces 
to recruit effectively during wartime.
    How would you evaluate the status of the Army, Army Reserve, Army 
National Guard, and the Marine Corps in recruiting and retaining high 
caliber personnel?
    Answer. At this time, I am only qualified to discuss the U.S. 
Marine Corps regarding recruiting and retention of high-caliber 
personnel. The Marine Corps continues to meet its recruiting missions, 
having shipped 13,738 new recruits against an accession mission of 
13,477, 102 percent. The Marine Corps did miss the new contract mission 
in January, February, and March. The Marine Corps is on track to meet 
yearly recruiting goals, however, this recent experience is an 
indicator of increased recruiting difficulties. On the other hand, 
retention is higher than planned, and retention among deployed forces 
is higher than among forces that are not deployed. In the aggregate, 
the Marines do not have a recruiting/retention problem of high-caliber 
personnel, but are taking steps to improve recruiting with particular 
emphasis on improving communications with parents of potential 
recruits. I realize the importance of looking at this problem in depth 
for all the Services.
    Question. What initiatives would you propose? If confirmed, to 
further improve the attractiveness of active and Reserve component 
service?
    Answer. My sense is that we should present the U.S. military as a 
way for young men and women to serve their country and to protect 
freedom and liberty for future generations while also utilizing the 
enhanced enlistment and re-enlistment incentives provided by Congress.

                           ARMY END STRENGTH

    Question. The task of establishing the appropriate size of the 
active-duty Army and budgeting for projected increases in end strength 
have presented challenging issues for the Department and Congress. 
These issues have been compounded by uncertainties associated with 
recruiting for an All-Volunteer Force.
    What recommendations do you have, if any, for changes in the size 
of the Army's Active Force or in the manner in which planning and 
budgeting for this force takes place.
    Answer. Although I am not familiar with the specifics of Army end 
strength, the Secretary of Defense has directed that an extensive 
review of the total force size be undertaken as part of the fiscal year 
2005 QDR.
    Question. The Department of Defense has relied on supplemental 
appropriations to fund increases in end strength and permanent changes 
in force structure, known as ``modularity'' in the Army and ``Force 
Structure Review Group'' for the Marine Corps.
    Do you believe it is sound budgetary and management practice to 
fund these costs through supplemental appropriations rather than 
through the Department's annual budget submissions? Please explain.
    Answer. The annual budget funds daily and predictable requirements 
of the DOD while the supplemental funds less predictable requirements 
like the cost of war and other contingencies. War funding is directly 
related to the pace of operations and the situation on the ground. It 
is not practical to fund a war this dynamic far in advance.

                      INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE

    Question. Witnesses appearing before the committee in recent years 
have testified that the military services under-invest in their 
facilities compared to private industry standards. Decades of under-
investment in military installations have led to increasing backlogs of 
facility maintenance needs, created substandard living and working 
conditions.
    Based on your private sector experience, do you believe the 
Department of Defense is investing enough in its infrastructure?
    Answer. During my tenure as Secretary of the Navy, I have seen 
continuing, significant progress in solving longstanding housing and 
other facilities concerns, both within the Department of the Navy and 
across the Department of Defense, by embracing private sector practices 
and capabilities. Housing is an excellent example. First pioneered by 
the Department of the Navy, and with the strong support of Congress, 
all the military departments have now moved aggressively to solve their 
longstanding family housing needs through the use of private sector 
capital using public/private ventures. The Department of the Navy has 
secured almost $3 billion in private sector investment from $300 
million of Navy investment in 15 housing privatization projects. The 
Department of the Navy is now pursuing applying privatization benefits 
to solve bachelor housing concerns. Moreover, in the area of facilities 
management, DOD has implemented facilities sustainment and 
recapitalization metrics based on private sector benchmarks.

          APPLICABILITY OF BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)

    Question. Last year the Army started using emergency authorities to 
buy temporary buildings to station the first of the new so-called 
``modular'' brigades. The Army provided a series of information papers 
to this committee on July 28, 2004, stating that, with respect to these 
10 new brigades, ``Permanent stationing for all units will be fully 
addressed through the BRAC 2005 process.'' However, the Army has 
subsequently qualified this language and removed the direct reference 
to BRAC. Last September when DOD submitted its ``Strengthening U.S. 
Global Defense Posture'' report to Congress, Under Secretary of Defense 
Feith stated in the introduction to that report that ``the Defense 
Department will incorporate its projected overseas posture changes into 
the BRAC 2005 process.'' In testimony before the committee this year, 
the Navy has taken the position that some decisions related to the 
basing of aircraft carriers will be made as part of the base 
realignment and closure (BRAC) process while others will not.
    How does the Department of Defense intend to address these basing 
issues? Will these basing decisions be subject to the review of the 
base closure commission, or will they be presented to Congress using 
the normal authorization and appropriation process?
    Answer. The 2005 base realignment and closure process will permit 
the Department to assess comprehensively its infrastructure assets and 
to rationalize those assets with the Department's force structure and 
mission needs. All military installations in the United States, its 
territories, and possessions are being assessed within this process. 
The Global Defense Posture review resulted in a number of decisions 
that will reposition some U.S. military forces currently permanently 
stationed abroad to domestic installations in the United States. In 
those cases, the BRAC process has been informed by those decisions.

                   NATIONAL SECURITY PERSONNEL SYSTEM

    Question. Since March 2004, you have served as the Department's 
senior official directing implementation of the National Security 
Personnel System (NSPS).
    What are your views of the challenges faced by the Department in 
implementing the NSPS?
    Answer. NSPS is a mission-driven, performance-based system to 
motivate, recognize and reward excellence which will result in an 
overall improvement to mission effectiveness and enhanced national 
security. It is also a significant change, and change is always 
stressful even when beneficial to employees and to the Nation. 
Accordingly, the largest challenge to implementing NSPS is managing the 
change processes. It will require training in both soft skills and in 
training employees and all members of the management organization in 
the implementation processes and procedures. It is vitally important 
that personnel be appropriately trained to implement NSPS fairly across 
DOD.
    Question. If confirmed, what role would you play in the 
Department's implementation of these far-reaching reforms?
    Answer. I expect to remain fully engaged in the NSPS design and 
implementation and continue as the Department's Senior Executive for 
NSPS. The Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT) and the Program 
Executive Officer (PEO) will continue to report directly to me, at 
least until publication of the Final NSPS Regulations and until the 
first phase of NSPS is implemented. When direct leadership is 
transitioned, I will continue in an active oversight role.
    Question. Do you believe that the long-term research and 
development mission of the defense laboratories and technical centers 
and the unique recruiting and retention needs of those laboratories and 
technical centers warrant a specialized personnel system tailored to 
their unique mission?
    Answer. Based on progress to date in defining NSPS, I believe that 
the new NSPS system will be sufficiently flexible and adaptable to 
apply eventually across DOD, including laboratories and technical 
centers. The labor relations sections will apply across DOD after 
publication of the Final Regulations, but the Human Resources (HR) 
system will not apply for laboratories and technical centers until at 
least 2008. The law requires that the NSPS system be certified as 
superior to the existing laboratories and technical centers personnel 
system, and my expectation is that that certification will be obtained 
and that the conversion date for the HR system will occur in 2008.

                        UNIFIED MEDICAL COMMAND

    Question. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz directed the Under Secretary 
of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) to develop a plan for a unified 
medical command in the DOD.
    What are your views on the advantages and disadvantages of a 
unified command structure for military medical programs? and
    If confirmed, how would you assess the impact of a new structure in 
support of joint warfighting capabilities and the delivery of quality 
health care to family members and retirees?
    Answer. While there appear to be many operational and economic 
benefits to a unified medical command in DOD, this is not an area that 
I have personally examined. However, since it appears to offer 
considerable benefit, it will receive my attention as the Deputy, if 
confirmed.

                             SEXUAL ASSAULT

    Question. The Department has made significant progress in 
establishing policies relating to the prevention of sexual assault and 
improved services for its victims. If confirmed, what policy would you 
establish to ensure accountability of commanding officers and all 
senior officials in the Department of Defense for performance of their 
responsibilities with respect to the prevention and identification of 
crimes of sexual assault?
    Answer. DOD established a policy this winter that set high 
standards. If confirmed, I will hold people accountable and responsible 
for their actions to uphold these standards.

                             DETAINEE ABUSE

    Question. Do you believe that the Constitution, laws, and treaty 
obligations of the United States prohibit the torture or cruel, 
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons held in DOD 
custody?
    Answer. For me, it is unequivocal that persons held in DOD custody 
will be treated humanely and certainly will not be tortured. Violations 
to this policy cannot be tolerated. More importantly, this has been the 
consistent policy of the President and the Secretary.

                    MILITARY TO CIVILIAN CONVERSION

    Question. Under your leadership as Secretary, the Navy developed an 
aggressive plan to eliminate thousands of medical billets from the 
active and Reserve components.
    What guidance did you give regarding the end state of Navy medicine 
that caused these reductions?
    Answer. The guidance was to ensure operational and other missions 
that required military personnel would not be adversely affected by any 
Navy medical personnel conversions. Guidance also stressed that access 
to health care services should also not be affected.
    Question. Did that guidance include a business case analysis to 
assess the cost and feasibility of converting military medical and 
dental positions to civilians?
    Answer. Yes. Because the majority of Navy medical department 
personnel are required for (and assigned to) support missions or 
platforms that support operations (i.e., fleet hospitals, hospital 
ships), the guidance provided included two significant decision points. 
First, were medical personnel required for a valid operational mission? 
If the answer was yes, those billets were not part of the military-
civilian conversion. If the answer was no, then a business case 
analysis was performed to see if those billets could reasonably be 
converted. If the business case analysis supported that the personnel 
could reasonably be obtained by hiring from the civilian sector, then 
the Navy moved to convert the billets from military to civilian. If the 
business case analysis did not show benefit to the government, the 
Department of the Navy did not move to convert.
    Question. Were the needs of the Army and Air Force taken into 
consideration before eliminating Navy medical assets?
    Answer. Yes, the Navy consulted with the Army and Air Force about 
military billets it converted.
    Question. If confirmed, you would inherit plans for military to 
civilian conversions across all the military departments. How would you 
assess these plans, particularly in terms of actual cost savings for 
the Department?
    Answer. Pending other input, I would assess plans across the 
Department the same way as they were assessed across the Department of 
the Navy; namely, based on operational need and business case analysis.

                           MANAGEMENT ISSUES

    Question. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) is 
intended to provide managers with a disciplined approach--developing a 
strategic plan, establishing annual goals, measuring performance, and 
reporting on the results--for improving the performance and internal 
management of an organization.
    What are your views on this law and your experience with it?
    Answer. GPRA and similar legislative initiatives have had a 
positive impact on the Department. As a businessman, I fully appreciate 
the benefits that clear plans, goals, expectations, and results can 
bring to an organization. For me, as Secretary of the Navy, the 
issuance of annual goals has been a critical joint endeavor with the 
Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. 
Progress to these goals is measured monthly, and yearly results 
published throughout the Department of the Navy. The tenets of GPRA 
have been reinforced through the President's Management Agenda, which I 
energetically support and will continue to do so if confirmed.
    Question. Are you familiar with the strategic plan, annual 
performance plans, annual accountability report, and financial 
statements of the Department of Defense?
    Answer. Yes. As Secretary of the Navy, I have been responsible for 
direct input to the Annual Defense Report, which serves as the 
Department's performance plan. The Department of the Navy works closely 
with the staff of the Secretary of Defense on the performance 
information in that plan and in the annual accountability report, and 
also provides financial statements.
    Question. What do you consider to be the most important priorities 
and challenges facing DOD as it strives to achieve these management 
goals?
    Answer. Clearly, the Department's first priority must be to provide 
the men and women of our Armed Forces the training, equipment, and 
support necessary for them to do their jobs, while ensuring security 
for their families. The foundation of this effort is an effective and 
agile management system.
    Question. What changes, if any, do you feel might be necessary in 
these plans?
    Answer. It is important for the Department to link strategy, goals 
and individual objectives with a feedback system of metrics to measure 
performance to goals. In this regard, the NSPS system will be most 
helpful. NSPS' pay-for-performance will require definitive and 
measurable goals for every person in DOD. Accordingly, when fully 
implemented, the pay-for-performance system will link the Secretary of 
Defense's goals to the individual performance of each employee and at 
all locations. Since each employee's objectives need to be measurable 
for pay-for-performance determination, a performance feedback system 
will be inherent in the process.
    Question. How would you determine whether the Department has in 
place the key information management processes required by law, 
including a detailed architecture, an investment control process, and 
appropriate information security plans?
    Answer. The Defense Business Systems Management Committee (DBSMC) 
was recently established as the management mechanism for the Department 
to provide direction and oversight of architectures, investments, 
security and measures of effectiveness to support business processes. 
The deputy chairs this committee and, therefore, if confirmed, I will 
be directly responsible for these plans and implementations. This 
management structure will also ensure that DOD business systems comply 
with applicable laws such as the Clinger-Cohen Act.
    Question. If confirmed, what role do you envision you will play in 
managing or providing oversight over these processes?
    Answer. In addition to managing the Department's processes and 
procedures, as the COO and as Chairman of the Defense Business Systems 
Management Committee, I will continue full implementation of the 
President's Management Agenda to fully support the administration's 
goals of more effective and efficient government.
    Question. GAO has consistently stated that cultural resistance to 
change and the lack of sustained leadership are two key underlying 
causes of DOD's inability to resolve its long-standing financial and 
business management problems.
    Do you believe the Department needs to have a single leader with 
sufficient authority and span of control to bring together all of the 
functional areas of the Department and be accountable for the success 
of the Department's management reform efforts?
    If so, how do you believe this function ought to be performed?
    Answer. During my tenure as Secretary of the Navy, this topic has 
been the subject of considerable discussion and debate within DOD and 
with the Government Accountability Office. If confirmed, this question 
will be examined in depth under my cognizance as Deputy. It would be 
premature to speculate on the outcome of these efforts, except to state 
that it is vitally important that the Department have a coherent 
management process to set goals and objectives, measure performance and 
respond rapidly to changing world events. If confirmed as Deputy 
Secretary of DOD, I would continue to work directly with Congress, the 
GAO, independent advisory boards, and the leadership team of DOD to 
address this issue.
    Question. The DOD workforce has undergone significant downsizing in 
the past several years, and with the current labor market, it is 
becoming increasingly difficult to attract and retain talent.
    How would you work to attract and retain individuals with the 
experience, education, and skills needed throughout the Department of 
Defense?
    Answer. Agile military forces on the front lines need an agile 
civilian workforce behind the lines. Congress was highly supportive of 
DOD in passing the NSPS provisions in the 2003 NDAA. NSPS will improve 
the effectiveness of the Department through a modern civilian personnel 
system that will improve the way DOD hires and assigns, compensates and 
rewards employees. This modern, flexible, and agile human resource 
system will be responsive to the national security environment, while 
preserving employee protections and benefits, as well as the core 
values of the civil service. Pay for performance is expected to be an 
important factor in hiring and retaining top performers.
    Question. GAO has consistently taken the position that strategic 
human capital management must be the centerpiece of any serious effort 
to transform the workforce of a government agency. Last June, GAO 
reported that ``DOD and [its] components do not have comprehensive 
strategic workforce plans to guide their human capital efforts. `` In 
particular, GAO found that DOD had consistently failed to analyze the 
gaps between critical skills and competencies in the current workforce 
and those that will be needed in the future.
    Do you believe that strategic human capital management must be a 
centerpiece of any successful effort to address the Department's 
management problems?
    Answer. Our human capital is the most valuable resource within the 
Department of Defense. To recruit and retain top-caliber personnel, it 
is essential that the department have a strategic human capital 
management approach. DOD human capital strategic plan does identify 
gaps in competencies and skills. It needs to ensure that these gaps in 
competencies and skills are continuously updated to reflect new 
missions and technologies of the Department. Personally, I view human 
capital as vitally important to the Department and, if confirmed, will 
ensure that DOD planning is comprehensive and timely.
    Question. If confirmed, what role, if any do you expect to play in 
ensuring that the Department addresses deficiencies in its human 
capital planning?
    Answer. If confirmed, my role as COO will include ensuring that the 
Department's strategic planning and metrics are adequate to safeguard 
against deficiencies and promote the effective use of human capital.

                          FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

    Question. Four years ago, DOD promised to establish a new business 
enterprise architecture and transition plan to transform its business 
operations. GAO has reported that DOD still does not have a 
comprehensive architecture and transition plan and that the way that 
DOD makes business systems investment decisions remain largely 
unchanged.
    Do you believe that a comprehensive business systems architecture 
and transition plan is the key to reform in this area?
    Answer. Yes. The Department needs a systems architecture, and is 
building one that clearly delineates between the DOD level enterprise 
systems and the component level systems. Just like any large 
corporation that consists of multiple operating divisions, the best 
business systems architecture for an organization of DOD's size is one 
in which clear standards and report elements are defined so that the 
subsidiary organizations can comply with those requirements. With this 
architecture in place, the transition plan will guide migration from 
legacy systems to a transformed end state.
    Question. If so, what role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in 
ensuring that the Department develops and implements such an 
architecture and transition plan?
    Answer. If confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Defense, I will be the 
Chairman of the Defense Business Systems Management Committee and will 
oversee business transformation efforts including the Business 
Management Modernization Program (BMMP).
    Question. Four years ago, senior DOD officials took the position 
that the Department's financial problems had to be attacked at the 
root, by developing and fielding new systems. Over the past 2 years, 
however, the Department has turned in the direction of a new goal of 
having auditable financial statements by as soon as fiscal year 2007, 
even though the military services won't have new business management 
systems in place until 2012 at the earliest. To this end, the 
Department has proposed to increase its audit spending by more than a 
billion dollars over the FYDP.
    Do you believe that it is reasonable for the Department to try to 
get auditable financial statements before it has effective business 
systems in place, or is such an effort likely to result in large 
expenditures on audits without producing sustainable results?
    Answer. That is not a reasonable approach, and it is not the 
approach the Department is taking. The Department understands the time 
involved in delivering new systems, and also recognizes the 
responsibility to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars. For this 
reason, DOD is continuing to improve financial management practices to 
achieve a sustainable audit capability.

                           ACQUISITION POLICY

    Question. What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in the 
development and implementation of acquisition policy for the Department 
of Defense?
    Answer. I plan to work closely with USD (AT&L) to better align DOD 
acquisition policies to the world environment that exists today. When 
Goldwater-Nichols was enacted, the Nation was in the Cold War, 
acquiring large quantities of defense materials with many new starts 
and a large and diverse industrial base. DOD is now at low rates of 
production with few new starts, a downsized industrial base and the 
vital need to respond quickly to operational needs.
    Question. What steps do you believe the Department should take to 
improve the management and efficiency of its spending on contract 
support services?
    Answer. DOD now spends more on services than on equipment. It is, 
therefore, essential that the Department ensure that services are 
acquired strategically and efficiently.
    Question. What steps do you believe the Department should take to 
improve the management and efficiency of its major defense acquisition 
programs?
    Answer. A business practices/processes IPT has been established as 
part of the QDR to examine the structure of the defense acquisition 
programs, to improve acquisition performance and streamline the 
acquisition of goals and services for the warfighter. I will strive to 
ensure that other management initiatives are coordinated with the QDR.
    Question. The Department has chosen to rely increasingly on so-
called ``incremental'' or ``phased'' acquisition approaches in its 
defense acquisition programs.
    What is your assessment of the benefits and drawbacks, if any of 
incremental and phased acquisition strategies?
    Answer. The use of an ``incremental'' or ``phased'' approach to 
deliver advanced capabilities to the warfighter as expeditiously as 
possible is appropriate for some programs. The principal benefit of 
such an approach is speed of delivery of new technologies or 
capabilities. This is an increasingly important factor as technologies 
mature more rapidly than ever before, and we are engaged in a war with 
an adaptable enemy who has shown an ability to exploit new 
technologies. A challenge with such an approach is ensuring the 
adequacy of processes to properly match desired capabilities with the 
maturing of the new technologies and the availability of budget 
resources to finance acquisitions. I do not, however, endorse 
``incremental'' funding as a means to increase production. Great 
caution needs to be applied to ``incremental'' funding to assure that 
the out-year financial obligations that result can be funded within the 
DOD top line.
    Question. What steps do you believe the Department should take to 
ensure accountability for cost, schedule and performance when it 
pursues incremental and phased acquisition strategies?
    Answer. Accountability for costs, schedule and performance should 
be applied the same for phased acquisitions as for any other 
acquisition.
    Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics has testified that ``any further reductions 
[in the defense acquisition workforce] will adversely impact our 
ability to successfully execute a growing workload'' and ``Now more 
than ever, I believe we need to increase the size of the acquisition 
workforce to handle the growing workload, especially as requirements 
increase in the coming years.''
    What are your views on this issue?
    Answer. The acquisition process has become too complex, cumbersome 
and slow. Larger organizations do not always provide more effective 
oversight and accountability. The issue of how to better structure and 
resource the acquisition functions of the Department of Defense to 
support wartime operations is under review as part of the Quadrennial 
Defense Review. This effort should provide the Secretary with 
recommendations to make the acquisition processes more effective and 
more attuned to the current acquisition environment.

                        CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information.
    Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before 
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views, 
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as the Deputy Secretary of 
Defense?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

               Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner

            TRANSITION OF SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE RESEARCH

    1. Senator Warner. Secretary England, the Small Business Innovative 
Research (SBIR) program was established in 1982 to meet agency mission 
needs through the use of unique expertise found in the Nation's small 
business community. The Department of Defense (DOD) invests over $500 
million each year in these programs, which have yielded many successful 
results to improve current systems and platforms and to accelerate 
development of new capabilities. The Department has a more limited 
track record in timely transition of technology into major acquisition 
programs and systems. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) noted 
in a program assessment rating accompanying the fiscal year 2006 budget 
request that the Department had taken no action over the last year to 
implement a recommendation to ``seek to get highly successful awardees 
to enter the mainstream of Defense contracting.'' Each year, small 
businesses who have successfully completed Phase II of the SBIR 
process, and who have technologies available to meet Department 
requirements, visit Congress seeking assistance with transition funds. 
Should the Department pursue a more aggressive approach to funding and 
transitioning successful SBIR Phase II technologies to meet Department 
needs?
    Mr. England. My experience in the Department of the Navy with the 
Small Business Innovative Research Program has been quite positive. The 
SBIR program has been very good for the Department. It includes a large 
business sector of the country not previously involved in support of 
DOD. We have had numerous programs that have gone from SBIR initiatives 
to being fully embedded in acquisition programs. These programs have 
gone on to make a difference in the fleet. The Department of the Navy 
has an aggressive program to move promising programs into mainstream 
contracting. It has exploited the legal advantages that small business 
has in transitioning to major companies. Having worked with small 
businesses while in the private sector, I fully recognize the fragile 
nature of this group as a whole. Funding flow and timing of contracts 
make or break such companies. I believe DOD must have an aggressive 
approach to transitioning successful SBIR initiatives. We have to work 
hard both for the good of small business and for the benefit of the 
Department of Defense. If confirmed, I will aggressively support 
transition of successful SBIR Phase II projects that meet Department 
needs.

    2. Senator Warner. Secretary England, are there best practices 
within the Services such as the Primes Initiative and the Technology 
Assistance Program, that could be disseminated across the Department to 
improve the transition process and time frame and to address internal 
and external transition challenges?
    Mr. England. From my Department of the Navy experience, we have 
several initiatives in which we solicit new small business, help those 
new to the process of working with the government, and make early 
connections of SBIR performers to potential transition customers. These 
customers include both government agencies and relevant potential prime 
contractors. These are practices we share with other DOD and non-DOD 
SBIR managers, and we learn to do better each year. Thus there are 
numerous best practices including the Primes Initiatives and the 
Technology Assistance Program that are shared within the Services and 
Government as a whole.
                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Senator James M. Inhofe

                   C-130J PROCUREMENT RECONSIDERATION

    3. Senator Inhofe. Secretary England, in early March, Secretary 
Teets, just prior to his retirement, testified before this committee. 
At that time, 30 C-130Es were grounded and another 60 C-130s, both Es 
and Hs, were being restricted due to cracks in the highly stressed 
wingbox area. That is still the case today. Because of the heavy 
employment of the C-130 and the need for additional tactical airlift 
we, as Congress, approved the purchase of the C-130J. A Mobility 
Capability Study was commissioned in order to determine exactly just 
how short we were in strategic and tactical airlift resources. We are 
awaiting the results of this study. I have expressed concern 
repeatedly, as I did with Secretary Teets, about why the Department of 
Defense and the U.S. Air Force decided to cancel the C-130J at this 
time. First, there are extensive termination costs, some say as much as 
$1.3 billion, associated with the cancellation. I cannot understand why 
such a decision would be made without even an estimate of termination 
costs. It should be one of the data points in such a decision. We never 
seem to learn from the past. We did the same thing with the Army's 
Crusader program--no analysis and huge termination costs. Second, the 
Air Force's C-130J cancellation will have an additive impact on the 
cost per unit of the Marine Corps KC-130J. Finally, we don't know 
exactly what the final disposition or cost will be to repair the 90 
grounded and restricted C-130 E and H models. As I have stated, I 
believe we have been quite shortsighted in the cancellation of the C-
130J based on my earlier comments. I think the Air Force and the DOD is 
being ``penny-wise and pound-foolish,'' with regard to this program. As 
a result, both Secretary Teets and General Jumper stated that there 
would be a review of this cancellation.
    You may not be able to comment on the specifics of this matter 
given that it is about the Air Force, at a time when you were focused 
on the Navy. However, I would like you to comment on the way we reach 
these decisions, and how you believe we can improve the process around 
which DOD program cancellation decisions are made.
    Mr. England. I believe all complex program decisions should be made 
in consultation with relevant DOD stakeholders and utilize the best 
available data--including relevant contract termination costs--to make 
the decision. The C-130J decision is being reconsidered based on new 
data. If confirmed, and as I become more knowledgeable of the details 
of this issue, I would be happy then to discuss this specific issue 
with you.

                     BUDGET AND BUSINESS OPERATIONS

    4. Senator Inhofe. Secretary England, a few years ago, Secretary 
Dov Zakheim, DOD Comptroller, addressed the Armed Services Committee. 
He showed us a very complex chart, a ``spaghetti'' chart with lots of 
lines and data showing this committee how we could save a percent of 
DOD budget according to Secretary Rumsfeld if we successfully 
modernized our DOD systems and reduce inefficiencies. I can tell you I 
was very excited about this possibility. In his prepared statement 
before the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee last week, Mr. 
David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, said that 
the DOD has not been all that successful in addressing inefficiencies 
and that ``the Secretary of Defense has estimated that improving 
business operations could save 5 percent of DOD's annual budget.'' This 
is a savings of about $22 billion a year based on the fiscal year 2004 
budget. Personally, I am a little outraged that with all the business 
systems and best practices that we have been translating from the 
private sector, and with the expertise of executives and mid-level 
managers that have been hired into the government, we have not been 
able to realize these results. The realized savings could go a long way 
to addressing the proposed reductions for much needed systems that 
appear to be cut mainly due to budgetary whims since no studies and 
data have been presented to this committee to show the justification 
for these cuts based on future capability or military needs. Is anyone 
working on fixing these business operations issues? What would you 
propose we do in order to capture these unrealized savings?
    Mr. England. There are many people at all levels of the Department 
working to improve our business operations and, if confirmed, I expect 
to play a major role in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of 
our business systems--where there is significant potential for savings. 
Systems modernization is only a part of what it takes to realize such 
savings. In private industry, continuous business process improvements 
result from holding leaders accountable for achieving clear, 
quantifiable and measurable objectives. I would emphasize a similar 
approach for the Department's critical business transformation 
priorities including business systems transformation efforts.

                             TRANSFORMATION

    5. Senator Inhofe. Secretary England, Secretary Rumsfeld has now 
been in office for more than 4 years. When appointed to and confirmed 
for the role as Secretary of Defense, he and his team took on the 
transformation of the military as a critical goal for this 
administration. During the assessment and formulation of the plan for 
this transformation, the tragedy of September 11 struck our great 
Nation and the global war on terrorism began. Since that time, our 
military has been involved in a war unlike any we have seen before. 
Operation Enduring Freedom, followed by Operation Iraqi Freedom, has 
taken our military resources, stretched them and utilized our Active 
Duty, Reserve, and National Guard components in ways that we would not 
have anticipated prior to September 11. These two major campaigns have 
gone very well, with the post-war phase in Iraq now yielding tremendous 
results. I am sure you will agree that though attention on the 
transformation initiative was momentarily diverted, given all that the 
DOD has confronted over these last 4 years, it is now keenly refocused. 
You have been a part of Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership team. As you 
review all that our military has faced since September 11, do you 
believe that we are on the right path for transformation?
    Mr. England. As a Department we have set a strategic course for 
transformation and have promulgated that vision in both our strategic 
documents and by our actions. The Services and the CoComs have 
incorporated our vision of transformation into acquisition programs and 
operational plans. For the Department of the Navy, fiscal year 2006 is 
the first year where all ship procurements will consist of vessels 
designed since the end of the Cold War. The Army Future Combat System 
(FCS) will incorporate networked communications and sensors into each 
vehicle and every soldier's equipment. The Air Force is creating a 
network of persistent long-range surveillance/reconnaissance Unmanned 
Aerial Vehicles like Global Hawk. There are numerous joint programs 
such as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and the Joint Unmanned Combat 
Air Vehicles (J-UCAS). The CoComs are continuously exploiting options 
to employ new, transformational capabilities.

    6. Senator Inhofe. Secretary England, with such current programs 
such as Missile Defense, the Army's Future Combat System, the Air 
Force's F/A-22, and the Navy's need for a new carrier, what are the one 
or two ``must-dos'' to keep this transformation initiative moving 
forward?
    Mr. England. The programmatic efforts to move the transformation 
initiative forward such as those you note plus others such as Joint 
Strike Fighter, MV-22, and U-UCAS are well underway. The actions most 
necessary to keep the transformation initiative moving forward are 
those associated with making sure the Department operates as 
efficiently and effectively as possible. The three most important 
initiatives to this means are the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure 
processes, the deployment of the National Security Personnel System, 
and execution and implementation of the Quadrennial Defense Review.
                                 ______
                                 
              Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins

                            RELEASE OF FUNDS

    7. Senator Collins. Secretary England, during our discussion at 
your nomination hearing this week, when asked if you were taking a 
second look at the Navy's proposed DD(X) ``one shipyard'' acquisition 
strategy, you responded by saying, ``Senator, look, obviously, we're 
going to do whatever the law of the land is, so if this Congress takes 
action, obviously we're going to do that.'' The enacted fiscal year 
2005 defense appropriations bill specifically directs $84.4 million 
funding ``only for design and advance procurement requirements 
associated with construction of the second (DDX) ship at an alternative 
second source shipyard.'' Why hasn't the Navy and the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense (OSD) released these funds, given the unambiguous 
law and clear direction from Congress?
    Mr. England. OSD has released the $84.4 million Advance Procurement 
funds to the Navy but they are on hold pending conduct of Milestone B 
and a decision on the shipbuilder portion of the acquisition strategy. 
The DD(X) acquisition strategy requires a successful Milestone B review 
prior to proceeding with ship detail design and construction. The Navy 
is currently in discussions with OSD as to when to conduct the 
Milestone Review to evaluate the shipbuilder portion of the strategy. 
The Navy is also reviewing its acquisition strategy options in light of 
congressional action and is developing a way to proceed.
    USD (AT&L) has authorized actions to separate the systems 
development and the software development contracts from the shipbuilder 
detail design effort. Actions are being taken to implement this change 
immediately and award those contracts using lead ship advance 
procurement funds.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin

                        CHIEF MANAGEMENT OFFICER

    8. Senator Levin. Secretary England, for several years, the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that DOD continues 
to confront pervasive, decades-old management problems related to 
business operations that waste billions of dollars annually. GAO 
recently testified on key elements needed to successfully transform 
DOD's business operations, including the need to create a full-time, 
executive level II position for a Chief Management Official (CMO), who 
would serve as the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management. This 
position would be filled by an individual appointed by the President 
and confirmed by the Senate, for a set term of 7 years with the 
potential for reappointment. Senators Ensign, Akaka, and Voinovich 
recently introduced legislation to create this CMO position. What is 
your position on the proposed legislation for creating a CMO at DOD who 
would serve as the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management?
    Mr. England. My recommendation is that the Senate take no action on 
this legislation until I have had sufficient time after confirmation to 
review the overall structure of DOD and decide on an appropriate course 
of action. If I am confirmed, the management of the Department will be 
a high priority, and this topic has been discussed with Secretary 
Rumsfeld. While I am open to a potential position of a Chief Management 
Officer within DOD, that is not a foregone conclusion. Rather, I would 
appreciate the opportunity to gain hands-on experience and then make a 
recommendation based on a better understanding of the full spectrum of 
DOD processes and operations.

    9. Senator Levin. Secretary England, if Congress creates this 
position, what term limits should be set? What is your position on a 7-
year term?
    Mr. England. My suggestion is that the Congress not create this 
position until Secretary Rumsfeld and I (if confirmed) have an 
opportunity for further examination and determination of the best 
management structure for DOD. If we conclude that a Chief Management 
Officer is appropriate, then we will also make recommendations for a 
specific term limit.

    10. Senator Levin. Secretary England, if you do not support the 
concept of a CMO, how will the Department address the significant 
problems that have resulted in the addition of a number of DOD's key 
business operations to GAO's High-Risk List of government programs and 
activities at risk of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement and how 
will DOD demonstrate results and progress in successfully transforming 
its business operations to the committee?
    Mr. England. If confirmed, my general approach will be to set 
specific objectives with schedules and appropriate metrics that address 
all business aspects of the Department. My initial judgment is that we 
need to greatly simplify business processes within DOD and better align 
authority and responsibility. That said, it may still be appropriate to 
have a Chief Management Officer to assist the Deputy Secretary to 
better accomplish this task. I can assure that I am very open on this 
subject and will recommend whatever is most appropriate to achieve 
maximum efficiency and effectiveness in the Department.
                                 ______
                                 
               Question Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson

                       KENNEDY AIR CRAFT CARRIER

    11. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary England, on April 20, 2004 in 
your speech before the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce and Northeast 
Florida Navy League, it was reported by the Florida Times Union, 
``England said JFK would return and remain at Mayport until it is 
decommissioned in 2018.'' Then in December you called me to announce 
that the Kennedy would be mothballed. Please explain this discrepancy.
    Mr. England.
      
    
    
      
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of Gordon R. England follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                     April 7, 2005.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    Gordon R. England, of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of Defense, 
vice Paul D. Wolfowitz, resigned.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The biographical sketch of Gordon R. England, which was 
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was 
referred, follows:]

             Biographical Sketch of Hon. Gordon R. England

    Gordon England was confirmed as the 73rd Secretary of the Navy on 
26 September 2003 and sworn in on 1 October. He becomes only the second 
person in history to serve twice as the leader of the Navy-Marine Corps 
Team and the first to serve in back-to-back terms. Prior to his return 
to the Navy Department he was the first Deputy Secretary of the 
Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security 
was established on January 24, 2003, to integrate 22 different agencies 
with a common mission to protect the American people.
    Secretary England served as the 72nd Secretary of the Navy from May 
24, 2001, until he joined the Department of Homeland Security in 
January 2003. As Secretary of the Navy, Mr. England leads America's 
Navy and Marine Corps and is responsible for an annual budget in excess 
of $110 billion and more than 800,000 personnel.
    Prior to joining the administration of President George W. Bush, 
Mr. England served as executive vice president of General Dynamics 
Corporation from 1997 until 2001. In that position he was responsible 
for two major sectors of the corporation: Information Systems and 
International. Previously, he served as executive vice president of the 
Combat Systems Group, president of General Dynamics Fort Worth aircraft 
company (later Lockheed), president of General Dynamics Land Systems 
Company and as the principal of a mergers and acquisition consulting 
company.
    A native of Baltimore, Mr. England graduated from the University of 
Maryland in 1961 with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering. In 
1975 he earned a master's degree in business administration from the 
M.J. Neeley School of Business at Texas Christian University and is a 
member of various honorary societies: Beta Gamma Sigma (business), 
Omicron Delta Kappa (leadership) and Eta Kappa Nu (engineering).
    Mr. England has been actively involved in a variety of civic, 
charitable and government organizations, including serving as a city 
councilman; Vice Chair, Board of Goodwill, International; the USO's 
Board of Governors; the Defense Science Board; the Board of Visitors at 
Texas Christian University; and many others.
    He has been recognized for numerous professional and service 
contributions from multiple organizations such as Distinguished Alumnus 
Award from the University of Maryland; the Department of Defense 
Distinguished Public Service Award; the Silver Beaver Award from the 
Boy Scouts of America; the Silver Knight of Management Award from the 
National Management Association; the Henry M. Jackson Award and the 
IEEE Centennial Award.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals 
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a 
form that details the biographical, financial, and other 
information of the nominee. The form executed by Gordon R. 
England in connection with his nomination follows:]

                          UNITED STATES SENATE
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              Room SR-228
                       Washington, DC 20510-6050
                             (202) 224-3871
                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
      BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES

    Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If 
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the 
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation 
of your answer applies.


                    Part A--Biographical Information
    Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in 
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for 
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in 
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.

    1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
    Gordon Richard England.

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

    3. Date of nomination:
    April 7, 2005.

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

    5. Date and place of birth:
    September 15, 1937; Baltimore, MD.

    6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
    Married to Dorothy Marie Hennlein.

    7. Names and ages of children:
    Gordon England, Jr., 42; Margaret Kristen Rankin, 39; and Marisa 
Claire Walpert, 32.

    8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
    Graduate, Mount St. Joseph High School, Baltimore, Maryland, 1951-
1955, June 1955.
    University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, 1956-1961, BSEE, 
June 1961.
    Graduate, Texas Christian University, 1968-1975 (night school), 
MBA, May 1975.

    9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the 
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of 
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
    10/03-present  Secretary of the Navy, Department of Defense, 
Pentagon.
    1/03-9/03  Deputy Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, 
Nebraska Avenue Complex.
    5/01-1/03  Secretary of the Navy, Department of Defense, Pentagon.
    3/97-4/01  Executive Vice President, General Dynamics Corporation, 
Headquarters, Falls Church, VA.
    3/95-3/97  CEO, GRE Consultants, Inc., Fort Worth, TX.

    10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, 
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, 
or local governments, other than those listed above.
    Benbrook Texas City Council and mayor pro tem, 1982-1986, no party 
affiliation.
    Member of the Defense Science Board from 1991 to 1996.
    Member of the Defense Science Board Acquisition Subpanel, 1997 to 
1998.
    Member of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Globalization and 
Security, 1998 to 1999.
    National Research Council, Vice Chairman of Study on the Future of 
U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure, 2000-2001.

    11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an 
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, 
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other 
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
    None.

    12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in 
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and 
other organizations.
    Member, Omicron Delta Kappa (leadership).
    Member, Beta Gamma Sigma (business).
    Member, Eta Kappa Nu (engineering).
    Lifetime member, Navy League of the United States (Mr. and Mrs. 
England).

    13. Political affiliations and activities:
    (a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or 
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
    None.
    (b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered 
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5 
years.
    None.
    (c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign 
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar 
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
    GD PAC contributions (withheld from paycheck).
      2000-$1,000.

    Personal Contributions.
      2005--Kay Granger Re-Election--$2,000.
      2004--Armendariz Klein Campaign--$500.
      2004--Kay Granger Campaign Fund--$2,000.
      2004--Bush-Cheney 2004 (Primary) Inc.--$2,000. (G. England)
      2004--Bush-Cheney 2004 (Primary) Inc.--$2,000. (D. England)
      2003--Kay Granger Re-Election--$2,000.
      2002--Good Government Fund (Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson 
sponsor)--$5,000.
      2002--Congressman Joe Barton Committee--$2,000.
      2001--Kay Granger Re-Election Campaign Event, April 11, 2001--
$1,000.
      2000--Johnson for Congress 2000--$1,000.
      2000--Texas Freedom Fund--$1,000.
      2000--Texas Freedom Fund--$1,000.
      2000--Tiahrt for Congress--$1,000.
      2000--Re-Election Campaign of Cong. Chet Edwards--$1,000.
      2000--Common Sense, Common Solutions PAC--$500.
      2000--Lazio 2000--$2,000.
      2000--RNC Victory 2000--$2,000.
      2000--Texas Freedom Fund PAC, Inc.--$1,000.
      2000--Kay Granger Campaign Fund--$1,000 (by Dorothy H. England)
      2000--Kay Granger Campaign Fund--$1,000.

    14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions 
for outstanding service or achievements.
    Henry M. Jackson Distinguished Service Award.
    Distinguished Alumnus Award for 2002, University of Maryland.
    DOD Medal for Distinguished Public Service.
    Department of the Air Force Exceptional Public Service Award.
    Department of the Army Exceptional Public Service Award.
    Honorary Doctor of Science, School of Engineering, Oakland 
University.
    Louis V. Koerber Patriotism Award.
    Citizen of the Year, Goodwill Industries, Fort Worth.
    Distinguished Alumnus of 2005, Texas Christian University.
    Silver Knight of Management Award, National Management Association.
    Silver Award, National Defense Industrial Association.
    Selected to Aviation Heritage Hall of Fame, Fort Worth.
    Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering Centennial 
awardee.

    15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of 
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have 
written.
    Boston Herald--U.S.S. Constitution, a reminder of our heroes, July 
4, 2002.
    Washington Times--Chief Executive Transformed--September 10, 2002.
    Naval Institute Proceedings--One Team--One Flight--November/
December 2002.
    Sea Power Magazine--Our Mission is Clear--December 2001.

    16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal 
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have 
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have 
been nominated.
    Please see attached copies of speeches.
    [Nominee responded and the information is contained in the 
committee's executive files.]

    17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree, 
if confirmed, to appear and testify upon request before any duly 
constituted committee of the Senate?
    Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the 
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set 
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to 
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
                                ------                                

                           Signature and Date

    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete.
                                                 Gordon R. England.
    This 14th day of April 2005.

    [The nomination of Gordon R. England was reported to the 
Senate by Chairman Warner on July 29, 2005, with the 
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. Mr. England 
received a recess appointment as Deputy Secretary of Defense on 
January 4, 2006. The nomination was confirmed by the Senate on 
April 6, 2006.]
                              ----------                              

    [Prepared questions submitted to ADM Michael G. Mullen, 
USN, by Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers 
supplied follow:]
                        Questions and Responses

                            DEFENSE REFORMS

    Question. Almost two decades have passed since the enactment of the 
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and 
the Special Operations reforms. You have had an opportunity to observe 
the implementation and impact of those reforms, particularly in your 
joint assignments as Commander, Striking Fleet Atlantic/U.S. Second 
Fleet, and Commander, Joint Force Command Naples/U.S. Naval Forces 
Europe.
    Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
    Answer. Yes. I strongly support full implementation of the 
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. 
These changes were the right approach and have resulted in a stronger, 
more capable and responsive defense organization.
    Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense 
reforms have been implemented?
    Answer. I believe that we have made great strides in implementing 
these defense reforms and these reforms have enhanced our Nation's 
warfighting capabilities. Examples include the changes I've seen in my 
current assignment in Europe and the U.S. military's support of 
Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. In the European Theater, 
it is clear many other nations have adopted similar reforms and are 
moving in the right direction.
    I also believe there is room for improvement. The future lies in 
leading and supporting coalition forces and this will require further 
integration of these reforms. We have made major progress in developing 
joint perspectives. It is now time to examine joint educational 
requirements, joint billet structure and joint service credit to ensure 
we are best postured, from a statutory point of view, for the 21st 
century. If confirmed, one of my goals will be to the make the Navy a 
more joint force.
    Finally, additional reforms are required, I believe, in the 
acquisition process to ensure that new systems are in full compliance 
with joint interoperability requirements, and in improving the 
coordination and interaction between the uniformed requirements 
personnel and the civilian acquisition professionals to deliver systems 
which are ``born joint.'' Among the greatest risks facing us is the 
spiraling cost of the procurement of modern military systems. 
Additionally, implementation of the act's provisions giving ``sole 
responsibility'' for acquisition to the Service Secretaries has 
effectively cut the Service Chiefs out of the acquisition process. The 
voice of the Service Chiefs in the process should be enhanced.
    Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of 
these defense reforms?
    Answer. I believe the most important aspect of these defense 
reforms is the emphasis and commitment to joint warfighting with 
commensurate regard for each of the Service's core competencies. I 
believe our Nation has been well-served by operations conducted under 
the command of regional combatant commanders with joint forces from all 
the Services. As noted above, this is critical for the success of 
future operations and missions.
    Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms, 
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of 
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian 
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the 
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring 
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their 
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and 
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense 
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and 
improving the management and administration of the Department of 
Defense.
    Do you agree with these goals?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Recently, there have been expressions of interest and 
testimony from senior military officers recommending modifications to 
Goldwater-Nichols.
    Do you believe that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might 
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
    Answer. I am not familiar with any particular legislative proposals 
to amend Goldwater-Nichols. However, after 20 years, a comprehensive 
review might be an idea worthy of consideration. If confirmed, I will 
work closely with the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Navy if 
I see the need to seek improvements.
    Question. What do you understand the role of the Chief of Naval 
Operations to be under the Goldwater-Nichols Act relative to the 
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the other members of the Joint Chiefs, and the 
combatant commanders?
    Answer. I am comfortable with the Chief of Naval Operations' (CNO) 
interaction with these principal leaders. If confirmed, I will work for 
the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy, who will be my 
direct civilian superior. Along with the other Service Chiefs, I will 
be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) tasked with the 
responsibility for actively reviewing and evaluating military matters 
and offering professional military advice on any issues relevant to our 
national defense. Finally, Title X makes the CNO responsible for 
organizing, training, and equipping forces in support of the combatant 
commanders with whom I will endeavor to foster close working 
relationships.

                             RELATIONSHIPS

    Question. Section 5033 of title 10, United States Code, discusses 
the responsibilities and authority of the Chief of Naval Operations. 
Section 151 of title 10, United States Code, discusses the composition 
and functions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including the authority of 
the Chief of Naval Operations, as a member of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, to submit advice and opinions to the President, the National 
Security Council, or the Secretary of Defense. Other sections of law 
and traditional practice, also establish important relationships 
outside the chain of command. Please describe your understanding of the 
relationship of the Chief of Naval Operations to the following offices:
    Secretary of Defense
    Deputy Secretary of Defense
    The Under Secretaries of Defense
    The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
    The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
    The Secretary of the Navy
    The Under Secretary of the Navy
    The Assistant Secretaries of the Navy
    The General Counsel of the Navy
    The Judge Advocate General of the Navy
    The Commandant of the Marine Corps
    The Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force
    The combatant commanders
    Answer.
Secretary of Defense
    The Secretary of Defense is the principal assistant to the 
President in all matters relating to the Department of Defense. As a 
Service Chief and member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of 
Naval Operations is a military adviser to the Secretary of Defense, 
particularly regarding matters of naval warfare, policy, and strategy.
Deputy Secretary of Defense
    The Deputy Secretary of Defense, on occasion, serves as acting 
Secretary in the absence of the Secretary. During these periods, my 
relationship with the Deputy Secretary will essentially be the same as 
with the Secretary. The Deputy Secretary is also responsible for the 
day-to-day operation of the Department of Defense. If confirmed, I will 
endeavor to regularly interact with him and provide him with the best 
possible professional military advice and the same level of support as 
I would the Secretary.
The Under Secretaries of Defense
    Under current DOD Directives, Under Secretaries of Defense 
coordinate and exchange information with DOD components, to include the 
services, in the functional areas under their cognizance. If confirmed 
as CNO, I intend to respond and reciprocate. If confirmed, I will use 
this exchange of information as I communicate with the CJCS and provide 
military advice to the Secretary of Defense.
The Assistant Secretaries of Defense
    All assistant secretaries are subordinate to one of the Under 
Secretaries of Defense with two exceptions. This means that any 
relationship I would have with subordinate assistant secretaries would 
be with and through the applicable Under Secretary of Defense. Since 
the Assistant Secretaries of Defense for C3I and Legislative Affairs 
are principal deputies to the SECDEF, my relationships with them would 
be conducted along the same lines as those with the various under 
secretaries. Additionally, if confirmed as CNO, I intend to foster 
collaborative working relationships with the civilian leadership in the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense and to consult with them on matters 
within their respective areas of responsibility.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
    If confirmed, I look forward to working with and through the 
Chairman in the execution of my newly assigned duties as the Chief of 
Naval Operations member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. My statutory 
responsibility as a Service Chief would be to provide properly 
organized, trained, and equipped forces to the combatant commanders to 
accomplish their military missions and to provide military advice to 
the President and Secretary of Defense.
The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
    When functioning as the acting Chairman, the Vice Chairman's 
relationship with combatant commanders is exactly that of the chairman. 
The 103rd Congress amended Title 10 to give the Vice Chairman the same 
rights and obligations of other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
If confirmed, I would exchange views with the Vice Chairman on any 
defense matter considered by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Vice 
Chairman also heads or plays a key role on many boards that affect 
readiness and programs and, therefore, the preparedness of naval 
forces. If confirmed, I will endeavor to establish a close relationship 
with the Vice Chairman on these critical issues.
The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
    The Assistant to the Chairman represents the Chairman in the 
interagency process; while there is no command relationship between the 
Assistant to the Chairman and a Service Chief, informal exchanges of 
view are of mutual benefit. If confirmed, I would expect to participate 
in such exchanges, especially regarding initiatives and support for the 
global war on terror. In addition, if confirmed, I would be committed 
to exploring methods of improving interagency cooperation, including 
interagency participation on the staffs of combatant commanders.
The Director of the Joint Staff
    The Director of the Joint Staff is generally the Joint Staff point 
of contact for soliciting information from the combatant commanders as 
the chairman develops a position on an important issue.
The Secretary of the Navy, the Under Secretary of the Navy, the 
        Assistant Secretaries of the Navy, the General Counsel of the 
        Navy, the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, and the Secretary 
        of the Navy
    Statutorily, the CNO performs his duties under the authority, 
direction, and control of the Secretary of the Navy. Specifically, the 
CNO is responsible for providing properly organized, trained, and 
equipped forces to support the Combatant Commanders in the 
accomplishment of their missions. In addition, the CNO assists the 
Secretary of the Navy, through the OPNAV staff, in the development of 
plans and recommendations for the operation of the Department of the 
Navy. In my opinion, the interaction and coordination between these two 
organizations and staffs has improved markedly during the last 4 years, 
to the direct benefit of the readiness of our Navy. There is a much 
more collaborative environment within the Department of the Navy, and 
if confirmed, I intend to work closely with the Secretary of the Navy 
to continue this positive progress.
The Under Secretary, the Assistant Secretaries and the General Counsel
    These principals of the Secretary of the Navy, and their staffs, 
work to implement the Secretary's vision for the Navy and Marine Corps 
of tomorrow. If confirmed, I will work closely with each of them to 
achieve the Secretary's goals.
The Judge Advocate General of the Navy
    Under 10 USC Sec. 5148(d), the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the 
Navy performs duties relating to any and all Department of Navy legal 
matters assigned to him by SECNAV. The JAG provides and supervises the 
provision of all legal advice and related services throughout the 
Department of the Navy, except for the advice and services provided by 
the General Counsel.
    It is important that the CNO receive independent legal advice from 
his senior uniformed judge advocates. He/she is a significant component 
of the Department's legal service infrastructure and performs functions 
that are essential to the proper operation of the Department as a 
whole. I believe that no officer or employee of the DOD may interfere 
with the ability of the JAG to give the CNO independent legal advice.
    If confirmed, I will endeavor to establish a close working 
relationship with the JAG and will seek his/her independent legal 
guidance.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps
    I believe there is a close historical, operational and joint 
relationship between the Navy and the Marine Corps. If confirmed, my 
relationship with the Commandant of the Marine Corps must necessarily 
be exceptionally close. Many of our capabilities, programs, and 
personnel issues are inextricably linked; our forces deploy together, 
and both must be ``ready on arrival.'' If confirmed as CNO, I will work 
to make the Navy-Marine Corps team stronger wherever possible
The Chiefs of Staff of the other Services
    In my view, the only way for our Armed Forces to be truly effective 
on behalf of this Nation is to work together, to recognize each other's 
strengths and to complement each other's capabilities. We can--and 
must--achieve synergy in warfare, training, and procurement to ensure 
each Service contributes optimally to joint and combined operations. If 
confirmed, I am absolutely committed to making the relationships with 
my counterparts as mutually beneficial as possible and to enhance, 
wherever possible, joint interoperability and other aspects of the 
joint relationship in order to improve the warfighting capabilities of 
the United States.

                            MAJOR CHALLENGES

    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting 
the next Chief of Naval Operations?
    I think the major challenges confronting the next Chief of Naval 
Operations are:

    1) the need to maintain and sustain our Navy's current readiness, 
to deliver for the President and this nation exactly the right combat 
capability for exactly the right cost--today. Admiral Clark's 
innovative organizational and financial reforms these last 5 years have 
produced a Navy far more combat-ready than it has been since the end of 
the Cold War. One need look no further than the Navy's extraordinary 
contributions to Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom or our rapid 
response in support of East Asian nations hit by the devastating 
tsunami in December to see the truth in that statement. We are, as one 
journalist recently so aptly put it, a ``force for good,'' but we 
cannot rest on those laurels;
    2) the need to build the Navy of the future--to create a Fleet that 
is properly sized and balanced to meet head-on the uncertain and 
dynamic security environment that awaits us over the next 20 to 30 
years. I believe our Navy must be prepared to fight major conflicts 
against aggressor states while simultaneously dealing with the 
asymmetric warfare this global war on terror will continue to present. 
We are ready now for the war we are fighting, but we are not yet 
appropriately shaped for the types of threats we will most assuredly 
face in the future, and
    3) the need to likewise shape the Navy's manpower and personnel 
system for the 21st century--to transform a Cold War-era assignment, 
distribution and compensation system into one that is more reflective 
of and, quite frankly, more responsive to the unique and incredible 
talent of the men and women serving our Navy today. Our readiness--
current and future--is inextricably tied to the growth and development 
of our people and to the quality of service we provide them and their 
families. I believe that, though we are clearly winning the battle for 
talent, the marketplace for that talent will grow increasingly 
competitive in the future. Admiral Clark's emphasis this year on the 
development of a Human Capital Strategy is well-placed and, in my view, 
an imperative for the future.

    Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these 
challenges?
    Answer. If confirmed, I plan to focus my efforts early and firmly 
on these three challenges.
    I will ensure we continue to put to sea a combat-ready Navy through 
the tenets of the Fleet Response Plan, and that through this plan we 
remain a rotational force for the Nation--forward deployed, fully 
engaged and surge capable. I believe strongly in the notion of 
``presence with a purpose'' and will work hard to provide the President 
and the people of the United States a Navy that can--and will--be where 
they need it to be, when they need it to be there. Likewise, if 
confirmed, I plan to ensure our units are ready for combat operations 
earlier in the training and maintenance cycles, and that they remain so 
for a longer period of time, generating a higher return on our 
country's investment. Thus, I intend to advance our Integrated 
Readiness Capability Assessment (IRCA) process.
    Having held joint command and served these last 6 months as a NATO 
commander in Europe, I am well-versed in the importance of joint and 
combined operations. I know the Navy brings to the fight unique 
maritime and expeditionary warfighting capabilities, but I also realize 
that such capabilities are only as good as the contribution it makes to 
the overall strategic effort. If confirmed, I plan to work to improve 
``jointness'' in the Navy--from a systems acquisition, operational 
planning and execution, and manpower perspective. I am convinced this 
is one, very significant way we can increase both the effectiveness and 
the efficiency of our current operational readiness. If the war on 
terror has taught us nothing else, it is that the future of national 
and international security lies in mutual cooperation and 
interoperability--not only with our sister services but also with 
allies, coalition partners, and a host of corporate and nongovernmental 
agencies.
    As to the challenge posed by building our future Navy, I intend to 
remain true to the vision articulated in Sea Power 21. Through that 
vision--and its pillars of Sea Strike, Sea Shield, and Sea Basing--I 
believe the Navy has laid the groundwork to truly transform itself for 
the century to come. If confirmed, I will focus my efforts on 
evaluating the composition and capabilities required to make that 
transformation a reality and will work with the Secretary of Defense, 
Congress, and industry to more effectively and efficiently deliver to 
the Nation those precise capabilities, as well as the fleet that will 
take them to sea.
    In particular, I believe we must continue--through Sea Enterprise--
to reap the savings necessary to buy our future Navy and to balance our 
investments with those of our sister services. Continued increased 
productivity is vital as well. We must aggressively pursue the 
acquisition of systems that are ``born joint,'' and we must be 
courageous enough to further accelerate the testing and fielding of 
these new systems. Technology is changing--and our enemies are 
adapting--far too fast for us to remain hamstrung by Cold War era 
procurement practices. In a similar vein, I am convinced the 
shipbuilding challenge before us is significant and portends to stifle 
the development of the very Navy we will need to win this war on terror 
and protect the homeland. If confirmed, I look forward to working 
closely with OSD, Congress, and industry leaders to develop a 
shipbuilding plan that delivers the fleet our Nation needs to prevail 
in war and live in peace.
    Finally, as we build this future Navy, we must stay mindful of the 
impact our decisions have on our people and their families. Recruiting 
and retaining the very best talent and providing these brave men and 
women meaningful, rewarding career opportunities remains critical to 
the readiness and combat capability of our Navy. If confirmed, I will 
aggressively pursue the development of a Human Capital Strategy that 
maximizes the potential of all who serve, be they active, Reserve, or 
civilian. We will continue to pursue the kinds of new technologies and 
competitive personnel policies that will streamline both combat and 
non-combat personnel positions, improve the two-way integration of 
active and Reserve missions, and reduce the Navy's total manpower 
structure.
    We expect to be a better educated and trained, but smaller, 
workforce in the future. Getting there will likely require changes in 
the way we recruit, assess, train and manage the workforce. It will, 
therefore, also require some flexible authorities and incentive tools 
to shape both the career paths and our skills mix in ways that let us 
compete for the right talent in a competitive marketplace.

                         MOST SERIOUS PROBLEMS

    Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in 
the execution of the functions of the Chief of Naval Operations?
    Answer. In my view, the most serious problems that the next Chief 
of Naval Operation will face in terms of executing his duties are: 
ensuring cost effective readiness while achieving increased 
productivity; properly balancing current resources allocated to 
maintain, train, and equip the Navy; obtaining the necessary resources 
to build the future Navy; managing personnel through an outdated, 
cumbersome manpower system; improving the speed, agility, and 
flexibility of naval forces; and reconciling acquisition policies and 
methodologies to meet our needs.
    Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines 
would you establish to address these problems?
    Answer. Mindful of both the results of BRAC and the QDR, if 
confirmed, I will move immediately to review in-place execution issues 
in the fleet; craft a clear, concise vision and execution plan; develop 
a plan to track real savings for future use; aggressively pursue the 
development--and delivery--of a 21st century Human Capital Strategy; 
maintain and strengthen organizational, financial, and operational 
alignment across our Navy; work closely with OSD, Congress, and 
industry leaders to develop a shipbuilding plan that delivers the fleet 
our Nation needs; foster amongst our Navy's four-star admirals a broad 
and productive guiding coalition; and deepen the relationship between 
our Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps.

   STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS

    Question. Chapter 505 of title 10, United States Code, provides the 
statutory framework for the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and 
delineates the authority and duties of the Chief of Naval Operations, 
Vice Chief of Naval Operations, the Deputy Chiefs of Naval Operations, 
and Assistant Chiefs of Naval Operations.
    Based on your extensive experience serving in the Office of the 
Chief of Naval Operations, what recommendations for legislative changes 
do you have, if any, to chapter 505?
    Answer. I do not currently have any recommendations for legislative 
changes for chapter 505. I believe the current authority is appropriate 
and commensurate to the many designated duties required of the Chief of 
Naval Operations. If confirmed and if I do have any recommended 
changes, I will work closely with the Secretary of the Navy on such 
initiatives.

                             QUALIFICATIONS

    Question. Section 5033 of title 10, United States Code, requires 
the Chief of Naval Operations to have had significant experience in 
joint duty assignments, including at least one full tour of duty in a 
joint duty assignment as a flag officer.
    What background and experience do you have that you believe 
qualifies you for this position?
    Answer. I believe I am qualified to serve as Chief of Naval 
Operations and have significant experience in the duties required. I 
had the privilege of six command tours from which I gained a solid 
operational foundation. I have served in two joint flag positions: 
Commander Striking Fleet Atlantic and currently as Commander, Allied 
Joint Force Command Naples, Italy. Further, I served in the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense, completed four tours at Navy Headquarters, a 
tour with the Bureau of Naval Personnel and one in naval training. I 
have an MS in Operations Research and Analysis from our Naval Post 
Graduate School, and I completed an Executive Business Course at 
Harvard University. Finally, I believe my programmatic background and 
experience will be beneficial in leading the Navy through the fiscal 
challenges that lie ahead.

            UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

    Question. At her confirmation hearing in January, Secretary of 
State Rice expressed the administration's strong support for the U.N. 
Convention on the Law of Sea. She stated that she would work with the 
Senate leadership to bring the Convention to a vote during this 
Congress. You have been a strong advocate of the Convention and 
testified in favor of its ratification before congressional committees 
in 2003 and 2004.
    Do you continue to support United States accession to the United 
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea?
    Answer. Yes, I support United States' accession to the Law of the 
Sea Convention, and I believe that joining the Convention will 
strengthen our military's ability to conduct operations.
    Question. In your opinion, is this Treaty in the national security 
interest of the United States? If so, why?
    Answer. Yes, I believe that accession to the Law of the Sea 
Convention is in national security interest of our Nation. The basic 
tenets of the Law of the Sea Convention are clear and the U.S. Navy 
reaps many benefits from its provisions. From the right of unimpeded 
transit passage through straits used for international navigation, to 
reaffirming the sovereign immunity of our warships, providing a 
framework for countering excessive claims of other states, and 
preserving the right to conduct military activities in exclusive 
economic zones, the Convention provides the stable and predictable 
legal regime we need to conduct our operations today and in the future.
    The ability of U.S. military forces to operate freely on, over and 
above the vast military maneuver space of the oceans is critical to our 
national security interests, the military in general, and the Navy in 
particular. Your Navy's--and your military's--ability to operate freely 
across the vast domain of the world's oceans in peace and in war make 
possible the unfettered projection of American influence and power. The 
military basis for support for the Law of the Sea Convention is broad 
because it codifies fundamental benefits important to our operating 
forces as they train and fight:

         It codifies essential navigational freedoms through 
        key international straits and archipelagoes, in the exclusive 
        economic zone, and on the high seas;
         It supports the operational maneuver space for combat 
        and other operations of our warships and aircraft; and
         It enhances our own maritime interests in our 
        territorial sea, contiguous zone and exclusive economic zone.

    These provisions and others are important, and it is preferable for 
the United States to be a party to the Convention that codifies the 
freedoms of navigation and overflight needed to support U.S. military 
operations. Likewise, it is beneficial to have a seat at the table to 
shape future developments of the Law of the Sea Convention. Amendments 
made to the Convention in the 1990s satisfied many of the concerns that 
opponents have expressed.
    Since 1983, the U.S. Navy has conducted its activities in 
accordance with President Reagan's Statement on United States Oceans 
Policy, operating consistent with the Convention's provisions on 
navigational freedoms. If the U.S. becomes a party to the Law of the 
Sea Convention, we would continue to operate as we have since 1983, and 
would be recognized for our leadership role in law of the sea matters. 
Joining the Law of the Sea Convention will have no adverse effect on 
the President's Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) or on U.S. 
intelligence gathering activities. Rather, joining the Convention is 
another important step in prosecuting and ultimately prevailing in the 
global war on terrorism.

                             TRANSFORMATION

    Question. If confirmed, you would play an important role in the 
process of transforming the Navy to meet new and emerging threats.
    What are your goals regarding Navy transformation?
    Answer. I fully support the Navy's ongoing transformation efforts. 
If confirmed, Sea Power 21 will remain the Navy's vision for the 
future, and I firmly believe we have made great strides through that 
vision towards developing the capabilities we will need in coming 
years. But, much work remains. I believe our Navy is not yet properly 
shaped for the future, especially for operations in the littoral. We 
must continue to refine and accelerate Sea Power 21, particularly Sea 
Basing and FORCEnet capabilities. Both are vital to providing national 
capabilities that enhance our warfighting potential--as a Navy and as 
part of the joint force.

                          FLEET RESPONSE PLAN

    Question. The Fleet Response Plan has been implemented to provide a 
surge capability for ``presence with a purpose.'' There have been some 
reports indicating sailors' dissatisfaction with the unpredictability 
of the new deployment schedules.
    What strengths and weaknesses have you perceived to date with the 
implementation of the Fleet Response Plan?
    Answer. The Fleet Response Plan is a new operational construct, 
which retains and builds on our current force rotation concept, to 
better leverage the Navy's force and provide the President more 
responsive, flexible, and combat credible options.
    I believe we have demonstrated the viability and value of FRP--the 
ability to surge more Carrier and Expeditionary Strike Groups and 
combat power than before, largely within the resources already planned 
(OIF, Summer Pulse 2004, and tsunami). At the same time, we have a 
better understanding of how we must continue to assess, refine and 
improve the associated training and maintenance cycles needed to 
support FRP in the long term.
    There is a certain amount of unpredictability to the FRP, though 
frankly I view this as a strength and a deterrent to those who have 
long studied and contemplated taking advantage of our historical ``heel 
to toe'' schedule of deployments. While unpredictability may initially 
cause some angst in the fleet, my experience with Sailors and their 
families throughout my career is if we remain honest and upfront with 
them about what we are doing and why--they will readily accept the 
mission and accomplish it with the same exceptional level of 
professionalism and dedication they have demonstrated in the past.
    Question. After a surge, do you feel there is sufficient 
maintenance and repair capability in the public and private sector to 
quickly reconstitute the force?
    Answer. Yes, there is sufficient maintenance and repair capability 
to reconstitute the force after a surge. This ability was amply 
demonstrated during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), during which we 
surged seven Carrier Battle Groups and 75 percent of our amphibious 
force. In all, more than half the fleet deployed and was then 
reconstituted using both public and private ship depot repair 
facilities. A big part of our success was due to the superb support 
from this committee and the rest of Congress--for which the Navy 
remains extremely grateful.
    Question. How does ``presence with a purpose'' differ from other 
concepts such as ``virtual presence''?
    Answer. Simply put, ``Presence with a purpose'' is about being 
there for a reason. We can no longer afford to stay on station, 
``boring holes in the water'' as sailors like to say, merely for 
``presence'' sake. The Navy's response to the Asian tsunami is a 
telling example. U.S. naval units involved in theater engagement 
activities were diverted and quickly arrived on scene, providing vital 
support in the early hours after the tsunami. This highlights both the 
value of ``presence with a purpose'' and the responsiveness of naval 
forces rotationally deploying overseas.
    In addition to actively assisting the tsunami victims as no other 
military or organization in the world could have in such a timely 
manner, there was a significant down payment made on the prevention of 
terrorism in that vital part of the world. You have to actually be 
there to achieve that.
    ``Virtual presence'' on the other hand, is actual absence.

                          NAVY FORCE STRUCTURE

    Question. Until recently, the Navy had a stated requirement for 375 
ships, based on the Sea Power 21 vision. In a recent report by the 
Congressional Research Service (CRS) concerning alternative funding 
approaches for shipbuilding, CRS postulates ``the fundamental cause for 
instability in the shipbuilding industrial base may be the absence of a 
current, officially approved, consensus plan for the future size and 
structure of the Navy.'' A Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is now 
underway, based on a new National Defense Strategy that could affect 
the Navy's force structure.
    If confirmed, how do you intend to work within the QDR process to 
gain consensus on the number and types of ships required in the Navy?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the full 
capabilities of naval forces are judiciously considered and weighed 
against other alternatives as the QDR seeks to provide the most 
effective joint force to our Nation within a resource constrained 
environment. My recommendations will be based on detailed analysis of 
the capabilities required to defeat the future threat.
    I believe that the value of--and the need for--naval forces will 
increase as very significant numbers of troops currently based overseas 
redeploy back to the United States without replacement, and our 
adjustment continues to the reality of the reduction of our ability to 
freely use the sovereign territory of other counties, even that of our 
allies. I believe there is--and must be--a balance between the size of 
the fleet and the combat capability of individual platforms.
    Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom proved the value of 
the combat readiness in which this nation has invested and the 
importance we must place on improving the fleet's ability to respond 
with decisive, persistent combat power for major combat operations.
    This is an enduring requirement for naval forces.
    These operations demonstrated the importance of the latest 
technology in surveillance, command and control, and persistent attack. 
Sensors and precision weaponry are changing everything we know about 
the balance between firepower and maneuver in a battlespace defined 
increasingly by time and information rather than by distance and 
geography. In this environment, time critical targets will increasingly 
be the norm rather than the exception, and the speed of action will 
demand that we deal more effectively with the doctrinal problems 
associated with fratricide. Distributed and networked solutions must 
become the norm.
    Our operations over the last few years have also highlighted once 
again that over-flight and basing overseas are not guaranteed. 
Therefore, our supremacy of the maritime domain and our consequent 
ability to quickly deliver an agile combat force is a priceless 
advantage.
    Question. The Navy is already 25 ships below the level that was 
determined to be required in the last QDR. Most of these shortfalls are 
in surface combatants, but there is also a shortage of submarines. If 
the Navy decommissions an aircraft carrier, as it has announced it 
intends to do, a shortfall will arise in that category as well.
    With an ongoing QDR and Global Posture Review, and Base Realignment 
and Closure process commencing, what are your views about the Navy 
proceeding now with major force structure changes?
    Answer. I believe that our first commitment must be to maintaining 
the requisite combat readiness to fight and win the global war on 
terror and to respond to major crises. The Fleet Response Plan has 
enabled the Navy to deliver significantly more combat power faster, 
thereby increasing the operational availability and utility of the 
fleet even as the size of that fleet has decreased in terms of numbers.
    So, while the Navy is currently below the levels determined in the 
last QDR, we continue to meet our operational requirements through 
innovative operational, maintenance, and manning policies. Resources 
must, however, be found for the recapitalization of the Navy. We are 
not yet properly shaped for the future. While I support the 
decommissioning of the aircraft carrier now, I would not support any 
additional major force reductions until I have an opportunity to assess 
the results from the global posture review, BRAC, and the QDR.

             ALTERNATIVE FINANCING METHODS FOR SHIPBUILDING

    Question. Navy leaders have testified that alternative financing 
methods must be found for shipbuilding.
    What are your views and recommendations on the benefits and 
feasibility of alternative financing methods, such as incremental 
funding and advance appropriations?
    Answer. I believe that alternative financing methods in conjunction 
with a shipbuilding plan could be very helpful in reducing uncertainty 
for our Nation's shipbuilders and could ultimately lead to more 
affordable ships and a larger fleet.
    I believe that funding lead ships of new classes that introduce 
advanced technologies with research and development funds is both 
appropriate and reasonable as well as consistent with the current 
acquisition practices of most major, technologically advanced programs.
    I also believe that it is in our country's best interest to reduce 
the large perturbations in the new ship construction account caused by 
the funding of capital ships under current funding policy and that the 
Navy, industry and Congress should explore the full range of 
mitigations available as well as other resources and resourcing 
methods.
    Question. What is your assessment of the long-term impact of such 
alternative financing methods on the availability of funds for 
shipbuilding?
    Answer. Alternative financing methods have the potential to reduce 
uncertainty and enhance the efficiency of our shipbuilders, lowering to 
some extent the per-unit cost of new ships and thereby freeing 
resources that could be apportioned for the construction of additional 
ships. Alternative financing methods are, however, neither a panacea 
nor a replacement for appropriate funding levels overall. What is 
needed is a shipbuilding plan to which we are committed and for which 
resources consistently support. All too often, the best-laid plans are 
undone by affordability challenges and increased costs.
    The ultimate requirement for shipbuilding, however, will be shaped 
by the potential for emerging technologies, the amount of forward 
basing, and innovative manning concepts such as Sea Swap. Additional 
critical variables are operational availability and force posture, 
survivability and war plan timelines.

                     ATTACK SUBMARINE FORCE LEVELS

    Question. The most recent official statement of requirements for 
attack submarine force levels was included in a study by the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff in fiscal year 1999. That study indicated that the 
minimum requirement for attack submarines is 55 and that in the future 
the Navy would need to have between 68 and 72 submarines. Substantial 
portions of these boats were deemed in the study to be necessary to 
meet various intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
requirements. Despite this, there have been indications that the Navy 
is considering significantly reducing the force structure of attack 
submarines to fewer than 40 boats.
    What are the considerations that might lead the Navy to conclude 
that a number of attack submarines substantially smaller than 55 would 
be sufficient to meet the requirements of the combatant commanders and 
other intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance needs?
    Answer. In considering whether the minimum attack submarine force-
level requirement of 55 should be reduced, it is important for studies 
and analyses to evaluate the range of options and potential performance 
versus the risk associated with those options and the trade off between 
competing platform investments. We have a responsibility to balance all 
of our warfighting investments to deliver the full range of naval 
capabilities. Over the past 4 years, we have made tough decisions to 
reduce the total number of surface combatants and tactical aircraft 
based on this kind of analysis. Submarines are, and will continue to 
be, part of the calculus in determining how best to deliver the 
capabilities the Nation requires of its Navy. The major considerations 
in establishing submarine force levels begins with establishing the 
capabilities required to, first, meet wartime requirements and, second, 
fulfill additional requirements, such as intelligence, surveillance and 
reconnaissance.
    Although no definitive submarine force structure has been 
determined, the 2001 QDR set 55 submarines as the baseline.
    I believe that a thorough analysis of the required number of 
submarines should, at a minimum, consider the potential duration of 
future conflicts and subsequent threat draw down rates; the value of 
precursor actions and distributed sensors; possible changes in threat 
numbers and capabilities; changes in the environment or theater of 
operations; changes in strategy and tactics; inherent differences in 
capabilities of platforms; forward basing and optional crew rotation 
versus supportable infrastructure; political climate; and the 
vulnerability of forward basing to weather, threats and other 
variables. It is also a question of affordability of these units, which 
must be considered in any evaluation. An improved availability of the 
submarines we currently have will be important for our future force 
structure as well.

                       NAVY MARINE CORPS INTRANET

    Question. What is your assessment of the status of the Navy Marine 
Corps Intranet program and the ability of that program to meet the 
Navy's information technology needs?
    Answer. The Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) is essential to 
increasing our organizational efficiency, controlling overall 
information technology costs and maintaining the high level of 
information assurance and security we need for the 360,000 users we 
currently have transitioned.
    Implementation of NMCI has revealed just how vulnerable our 
networks were, the fragility of our system architecture, and the extent 
of unnecessary legacy systems Navy owned.
    If confirmed, I will remain committed to NMCI and to bringing the 
entire department onto a single, secure, enterprise-wide intranet. NMCI 
is meeting our information technology needs, particularly in the realm 
of information assurance and security, and in the near term we will 
continue the rapid ``cutover'' of NMCI seats to the NMCI network.

                    MILITARY TO CIVILIAN CONVERSIONS

    Question. The Services have been engaged in a multiyear effort to 
eliminate thousands of military billets and replace them with civilian 
or contractor personnel. The Navy has been unique in targeting health 
profession billets for military-to-civilian conversions.
    If confirmed, how would you use military-to-civilian conversions to 
shape the future force of the Navy?
    Answer. The Navy is conducting a careful and measured review of 
military billets to determine what billets require the unique skills of 
a uniformed sailor and which ones could best be performed as 
effectively, and at lower cost, by a civilian or by private industry.
    In conducting this review, we are using several tools, including 
``zero-based reviews'' of individual officer communities and enlisted 
ratings; functional reviews of service delivery for various 
infrastructure requirements; and a review of the model for providing 
total force health care requirements. We will phase in the results of 
these analyses to ensure that sailors continue to have viable and 
rewarding career paths and that we continue to support the fleet with 
an appropriate mix of civilian and uniformed professionals.
    If confirmed, I will continue to support these efforts.
    Question. If confirmed, what metrics would you establish to measure 
the effectiveness of this transformational tool, and how would you 
determine if and when DOD civilians and private contractors could 
perform work in a more efficient or cost effective manner?
    Answer. Effectiveness of the Navy's military-to-civilian conversion 
efforts will be measured by the degree to which they meet the following 
criteria: maintaining--or improving--fleet readiness; overall cost 
savings; and the continued growth and development of our sailors.
    The identification of those billets most appropriate for conversion 
will stem principally from our ``zero-based reviews'' of individual 
officer communities and enlisted ratings, functional reviews of service 
delivery for various infrastructure requirements, and a review of the 
model for providing total force health care requirements.
    Question. How would you measure the impact of such conversions on 
readiness?
    Answer. Warfighting capability and readiness will be assessed using 
those metrics and methods of assessment already in place, which are 
applied across the fleet by the operational commander.
    Question. If confirmed, how would you assess the quality and 
availability of civilian physicians, dentists and nurses, and their 
willingness to serve in the Federal civilian workforce?
    Answer. The Navy's Surgeon General provides oversight for the 
Navy's medical services, including civilians, and I would, if 
confirmed, charge the Surgeon General with assessing both the quality 
of care provided by civilian physicians, dentists and nurses serving 
Navy Service members as well as their willingness to serve in the 
Federal civilian workforce. It is my understanding that the Quadrennial 
Defense Review is addressing the delivery of military medical care and 
those results will play a significant role in determining the final 
structure and delivery mechanisms for military and Navy medicine.

               PREVENTION AND RESPONSE TO SEXUAL ASSAULTS

    Question. On February 25, 2004, the Senate Armed Services Committee 
Subcommittee on Personnel conducted a hearing on policies and programs 
of the Department of Defense for preventing and responding to incidents 
of sexual assault in the Armed Forces at which you testified and 
endorsed a ``zero tolerance'' standard. In late April 2004, the DOD 
Task Force on Care for Victims of Sexual Assault issued its report and 
recommendations, noting ``If the Department of Defense is to provide a 
responsive system to address sexual assault, it must be a top-down 
program with emphasis placed at the highest levels within the 
Department down to the lowest levels of command leadership. It must 
develop performance metrics and establish an evaluative framework for 
regular review and quality improvement.''
    In response to the report and recommendations of the DOD Task Force 
report, what actions has the Navy taken to prevent and respond to 
sexual assaults?
    Answer. As the then Vice Chief of Naval Operations, I testified 
before the hearing in February 2004. As I stated then, and re-emphasize 
now, sexual assault is not tolerated in our Navy. Prevention is our 
first priority, but, when incidents occur, we have a sound process in 
place to provide specialized assistance to the victim quickly, conduct 
a full and fair investigation, and hold offenders accountable. We must 
rigidly adhere to and improve this process.
    The senior leadership of the Navy has personally communicated to 
each commanding officer our expectations regarding Sexual Assault 
Victim Intervention (SAVI) responsibilities and reporting compliance. 
Annual training on sexual assault awareness and prevention is required. 
Training is also included throughout the Navy's student curricula, 
including RTC Great Lakes, the Naval Academy, NAS Pensacola, 
prospective Commanding Officers and Executive Officers courses, Surface 
Warfare Officer classes, and at the Senior Enlisted Academy. 
Additionally, we are starting to conduct an internal monthly review of 
sexual assault data to identify trends and propose corrective action 
where required.
    If confirmed, I will continue to personally support these efforts 
and look for ways to improve our training and prevention programs, our 
reporting and data collection processes and our response methodologies 
in order to address this issue. I will adequately resource these 
programs.
    Question. What additional resources and organizational changes, if 
any, has the Navy devoted to its Sexual Assault Victim Intervention 
(SAVI) program?
    Answer. We are continually evaluating resource requirements and, 
accordingly, have allocated additional funding for fiscal year 2005 to 
further enhance program services and to offset increasing costs. In 
addition, the Navy is working to improve its reporting and data 
collection processes.
    Question. If confirmed, what actions do you plan to take to ensure 
that senior leaders of the Navy have day-to-day visibility into the 
incidence of sexual assaults and the effectiveness of policies aimed at 
ensuring zero tolerance?
    Answer. In general, I believe we have effective policies in place 
in the areas of awareness, prevention education, and victim advocacy. 
To improve our ability to execute those policies, we have focused--and 
will continue to focus--commanding officer attention on the issue, we 
have committed the additional funding noted above, and we are working 
to develop better performance metrics in our data collection and trend 
analysis.
    If confirmed I will personally and stridently support these efforts 
and will communicate early and often the need for all leaders in the 
Navy--at all levels of the chain of command--to remain vigilant to the 
conditions and behavior that precipitate sexual assault and to the 
special needs of victims.

                            QUALITY OF LIFE

    Question. In October 2002, the Center for Naval Analyses conducted 
a study to measure the retention benefits of several of the Navy's 
Quality of Life programs, and to compare these benefits with the costs 
of providing the programs. The study's results indicated that most 
Quality of Life programs have a positive impact on satisfaction with 
the Navy. Morale, Welfare, and Recreation programs, family housing and 
child development centers all had a positive impact on retention of 
enlisted personnel.
    What is your view of the importance of quality of life programs in 
the Navy, and the impact of such programs on recruitment, retention and 
readiness?
    Answer. Quality of life programs are crucial to maintaining a 
healthy working environment for Navy's Service members, their families, 
and our civilian professionals. They are particularly important in 
offsetting the rigors of a rotationally deploying force that operates 
overseas regularly. Quality of Life programs increase our 
attractiveness to potential recruits and subsequently ease recruiting 
challenges, enhance retention and increase our operational readiness.
    I believe that quality of life programs provide a significant 
return on investment and that these are some of the most valued 
benefits of naval service. We provide--as we should--the gold standard 
of medical care, family support (particularly during deployments), 
Fleet and Family Support Centers, recreational facilities and services, 
childcare and personal development and education programs to help 
Sailors achieve their own goals. The result is a fleet of professional, 
motivated men and women ready in all respects to fight on their 
nation's behalf.
    Question. What are your recommendations on how best to ensure the 
financial sustainability of such programs in the future?
    Answer. I believe mechanisms currently in place adequately ensure 
the financial sustainability of these important programs. I will pay 
attention to these programs, if confirmed.

                       DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES

    Question. As Vice Chief of Naval Operations, you observed the 
working relationship between the General Counsel of the Navy and the 
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, as well as the working relationship 
of these individuals and their staffs with the Chairman's legal 
advisor, the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, and the 
legal advisors of the other Services.
    What are your views about the responsibility of the Judge Advocate 
General of the Navy to provide independent legal advice to the Chief of 
Naval Operations, particularly in the area of military justice and 
operational law?
    Answer. I believe it is critical that the CNO receive independent 
legal advice from his senior uniformed judge advocates. Pursuant to 10 
USC Sec. 5148(d), the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Navy performs 
duties relating to any and all DoN legal matters assigned to him by 
SECNAV. Pursuant to U.S. Navy Regulations, 1990, Article 0331, the Navy 
JAG commands the Office of the Judge Advocate General and is the Chief 
of the Judge Advocate General's Corps.
    The JAG provides and supervises the provision of all legal advice 
and related services throughout the Department of the Navy, except for 
the advice and services provided by the General Counsel. In accordance 
with the Manual for Courts-Martial, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) is 
the principal legal advisor of a command in the Navy.
    The JAG is, in essence, the SJA to the CNO and is tasked to advise 
and assist the CNO in formatting and implementing policies and 
initiatives pertaining to the provision of legal service within the 
Navy. Additionally, the JAG effects liaison with the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps, other DOD components, other governmental agencies and 
agencies outside the Government on legal service matters affecting the 
Navy.
    It is critical that the CNO receive independent legal advice from 
the JAG as he/she is a significant component of the Department's legal 
service infrastructure and performs functions that are essential to the 
proper operation of the Department as a whole. No officer or employee 
of the DOD may interfere with the ability of the JAG to give the CNO 
independent legal advice. I am comfortable with the existing working 
relationships and interactions.
    Question. What are your views about the responsibility of staff 
judge advocates throughout the Navy to provide independent legal advice 
to military commanders in the fleet and throughout the naval 
establishment?
    Answer. Uniformed staff judge advocates are essential to the proper 
functioning of both operational and shore based units of the Navy and 
Marine Corps. In the critical area of military justice, commanders and 
commanding officers are required by statute (10 U.S.C. Sec. 806) to 
communicate with their staff judge advocates with the purpose of 
receiving instruction and guidance in this field. In addition, officers 
rely on their staff judge advocates for advice on all types of legal 
matters, extending beyond their statutory responsibilities.
    A staff judge advocate has a major responsibility to promote the 
interests of a command by providing relevant, timely, and independent 
advice to its military commander, whether at shore or in the fleet. 10 
U.S.C. Sec. 5148(2)(2) reinforces the critical need for independent 
advice from a staff judge advocate, by prohibiting all interference 
with a judge advocate's ability to give independent legal advice to 
commanders, as applied to any employee of DOD. Navy and Marine Corps 
commanders depend extensively on their staff judge advocates to provide 
independent advice, which combines legal acumen and understanding of 
military requirements and operations.

                       BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

    Question. The Navy will play an important role in defending the 
Nation against the threat of long-range ballistic missile attack and in 
defending allies, friends and deployed forces against theater ballistic 
missile threats.
    Do you view ballistic missile defense as a core Navy mission?
    Answer. Yes, missile defense is a core Navy mission. If confirmed, 
I will ensure that the Navy continues to work with the Missile Defense 
Agency (MDA) to develop and field this important capability aboard 
naval vessels. I also believe that the Navy's ability to provide 
ballistic missile defense will be increasingly important to joint 
warfighting and, based on successes to date, that the MDA's investment 
in naval missile defense systems is delivering important operational 
joint and national capabilities. In short, I believe there is great 
value in this capability for our Nation, and will be more so in the 
future.
    Question. What plans does the Navy have for testing the Aegis 
Ballistic Missile Defense System?
    Answer. The Missile Defense Agency is currently charged with 
testing of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System (ABMD) for the 
Defense Department. Under this construct, the Navy will continue 
testing of the Aegis-SM-3 missile defense capability under the current 
agreement with MDA, providing full-time commitment of an Aegis equipped 
Cruiser to the Testing and Evaluation (T&E) role.
    Additionally, the Navy plans to modify other Aegis equipped ships 
to conduct MDA missions when required, has entered into an 
international partnership to increase the capability of the SM-3 
missile and has invested in science and technology to develop defenses 
against more advanced ballistic missiles.
    Question. Are you satisfied with the current rate of production for 
the SM-3?
    Answer. I believe that the current rate of production is the 
minimum prudent rate and that overall operational risk could be reduced 
and testing accelerated if additional resources were available. It is 
MDA, however, that funds and procures missile defense systems and they 
must balance their risks and requirements within their constraints.

                     SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

    Question. The defense science and technology program is recovering 
after years of declining budgets. However, the budget request for 
defense S&T still falls short of the Secretary of Defense's goal of 
dedicating 3 percent of the total defense budget to science and 
technology. In particular, the Navy science and technology program, 
especially the investment in long-term, innovative work which has been 
so successful in confronting emerging threats, has declined 
significantly over the last 3 years.
    If confirmed, how do you plan to address the shortfalls in the Navy 
science and technology program to meet the Secretary's goal?
    Answer. Three percent of the budget remains our goal as we balance 
competing investment priorities from year to year. The fiscal year 2006 
Navy S&T budget is $1.8 billion and maintains a broad base of science 
and technology to provide new capabilities to the warfighter and 
technological innovation in support of the National Military Strategy. 
Though short of the goal, I believe this sum provides a sufficient 
level of investment in this very important program for this year.
    Question. What is your view of the role and value of science and 
technology programs in meeting the Navy's transformation roadmap goals?
    Answer. The Navy's ongoing efforts to integrate advanced technology 
with new operational concepts and organizational constructs result in a 
real transformation of military capability through our Future Naval 
Capabilities program. In that vein, the maturing technology we're 
seeing today and beginning to incorporate into platforms, weapons, 
sensors, and process improvements are the result of long-term 
investments in Science and Technology and an important element of the 
Navy's transformation.

                         TECHNOLOGY CHALLENGES

    Question. In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, the Chief of Naval Operations discussed challenges related 
to the national security environment. He noted that the Department of 
Defense must establish an ``unblinking eye'' above and throughout the 
battlespace. He maintained that speed and agility are the attributes 
that will define operational success.
    What do you see as the most challenging technological needs or 
capability gaps facing the Navy in achieving speed, agility, and the 
referenced ``unblinking eye''?
    Answer. The ongoing global war on terror has highlighted the 
technological challenges of sustaining maritime domain awareness across 
a variety of theaters with an ``unblinking eye''. Technologically, this 
means pursuing the ``needle in the haystack'' to ensure security and 
continued domination in the maritime environment, as well as responding 
rapidly when detection occurs.
    Speed and agility are critical to our operational success and are 
achieved through a combination of investments in modern platforms and 
through the increased operational availability of our existing forces. 
The Fleet Response Plan has achieved significant improvements on the 
Navy's ability to respond to the Nation's most pressing needs, and 
greatly increased our force posture achieved with our current force 
structure.
    Investments in ACS, CG(X), DD(X), FORCEnet, Integrated Propulsion 
Systems, Littoral Combat Ship, JSF, MMA, SSGN, SSN-774, stealth, and 
unmanned systems will also ensure mission agility in response to a 
broad range of threats. These investments will help our Navy adjust its 
warfighting capabilities in order to support small-scale contingencies, 
such as peacekeeping and stability operations in addition to 
traditional warfighting requirements. Diversification of capabilities 
will assist in mitigating risk against irregular, catastrophic, and 
disruptive challenges we face today and for the foreseeable future. We 
must also pay attention to technological investments for additional 
high-leverage forces, e.g., SOF, EOD, SeaBees, medical, and maritime 
security forces.
    Question. If confirmed, how will you work with the Navy's research 
enterprise to ensure adequate investments in areas that will provide 
the technical breakthroughs of the future?
    Answer. The Navy must continue to pursue a comparative advantage 
versus competitive advantage against our opposing forces. Rather than 
engage in a platform vs. platform, force-on-force conflict, we must 
exploit our technological advantages to develop sensors and systems to 
enhance our warfighting capability within the constraints of our 
current force structure. If confirmed, I will continue the current 
commitment to a strong science and technology program and will work 
with the Navy's research enterprise to explore development of a variety 
of weapons systems and propulsion systems as well as a range of sensors 
and surveillance capabilities to leverage our Country's and our Navy's 
technological superiority as an asymmetric advantage. Also, I believe 
we should explore, support, and sustain the developments produced by 
small, innovative companies.

                     NAVAL RESERVE FORCE STRUCTURE

    Question. As a result of the Navy's ``zero based review,'' 
significant changes in the size and structure of the Naval Reserve are 
taking place.
    What role and mission do you expect the Naval Reserve to perform 
now and in the future?
    Answer. The zero-based review of the Naval Reserve structure 
between the Chief of Naval Reserve and the Commander of Fleet Forces 
Command will allow us to re-baseline the Reserve Force with one 
overarching objective in mind: a Reserve Force fully integrated with 
the Active Force.
    The roles and missions of the Reserve Force will continue to 
respond to the changing threat landscape. This includes Reserve Force 
contribution to the global war on terror, including increased emphasis 
on civil affairs.
    Question. How would you access the progress being made in 
transforming the Naval Reserve into a fully integrated and capable 
force?
    Answer. We have made great strides in Active Reserve Integration 
(ARI). We continue to pursue the creation of fleet response units 
(FRUs) which go hand-in-glove with the Fleet Response Plan to provide 
the Nation more operational availability of our combined, naval forces.
    An illustration of our progress is our multiple efforts to have 
Reserve Sailors report to ships, not to buildings. Reserve centers are 
being replaced by operational organizations that help facilitate the 
vital contribution of the naval force across a broad spectrum of 
required capabilities.
    Question. What is your view of the optimal size of the Naval 
Reserve in the future?
    Answer. The optimal size of the Naval Reserve is really a function 
of capacity management to determine what capabilities and skill sets we 
want to own in the Active Force. We must ensure that the right 
capabilities reside in the proper component; and that each component 
can work in ways that are fully complementary. While we are driving 
down the number of Reserve personnel, their capability and skills 
remain vital to the success of the Navy's strategic vision for building 
the Total Navy Force.

                           NAVY END STRENGTH

    Question. The Navy's proposed budget for fiscal year 2006 includes 
reductions of 13,200 personnel in the Active-Duty ranks and 10,300 in 
the Naval Reserve. Admiral Clark has indicated that one of his goals is 
to reduce the Navy's Active-Duty Force to 350,000 sailors from the 
current authorized level of 373,800.
    Do you agree with these reductions?
    Answer. Yes, I agree with the reductions as a goal and will conduct 
my own review, if confirmed. Some of these proposed reductions are 
predicated on technology insertion, which suggests an overall phased 
approach as the technology is fielded. Organizational alignment, 
including initiatives like Optimal Manning, and billet reviews will 
also yield legitimate opportunities for reducing our total workforce 
and should be implemented if appropriate.
    Question. What is the justification for these reductions in Active-
Duty and Naval Reserve Forces?
    Answer. The Navy's overall strategy is still evolving and 
considerable effort is being devoted to ensuring that the changes we 
make are the right ones. The combat power of our forces is not directly 
tied to the number of sailors, but rather their skills and the 
capabilities of the equipment they operate.
    Additionally, there are still remnants of Cold War practices that 
are personnel-intensive and can be replaced by new organizations--such 
as Navy Installations Command--to potentially reduce our personnel 
requirements and continue to seek out and gather efficiencies ashore. 
There remains work to do in this area. Finally, by focusing on the 
military skills of our sailors, we are finding that some functions can 
best be filled by the Reserve component, converted to government 
civilian or outsourced to great benefits: increased efficiency, higher 
quality of life, contractual service targets and lower cost.

                        CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information.
    Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before 
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views, 
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as the Chief of Naval Operations?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

             Questions Submitted by Senator James M. Inhofe

                              CHINA/TAIWAN

    1. Senator Inhofe. Admiral Mullen, with regard to our military, I 
am very concerned with the actions of China during the past decade or 
so. In the 1990s China was caught stealing U.S. nuclear secrets. The W-
88 warhead was the crown jewel of our nuclear program that allowed up 
to 10 nuclear missiles to be attached to the same warhead. In 1995, we 
discovered that China had stolen this technology. China gained the 
capability of accurately reaching the continental U.S. with nuclear 
missiles and the ability to target between 13 and 18 U.S. cities. China 
transferred prohibited weapons technology to North Korea, Iran, Iraq, 
and other countries. China continues to threaten to absorb Taiwan and 
they continue to intimidate our treaty allies in South Korea and Japan. 
Recently China placed into law the proclamation that force would be 
used to prevent Taiwan from becoming independent. China has continued 
to expand and solidify her influence. She has long had ambitions to 
increase her military presence over the surrounding region. Her 
``string of pearls'' strategy included a listening post in Pakistan, 
billions of dollars of military aid to Burma, military training and 
equipment into Thailand and Bangladesh, etc. On my last trip to Africa 
I saw Chinese influence everywhere I looked. A recent Pentagon report 
quoted in the Washington Times, outlines, ``China . . . is not looking 
only to build a blue-water navy to control sea lanes, but also to 
develop undersea mines and missile capabilities to deter the potential 
disruption of its energy supplies from potential threats, including the 
U.S. Navy, especially in the case of a conflict with Taiwan.'' The 
weapons China is investing in include long-range cruise missiles, 
submarines, long-range target acquisition systems, specifically 
cutting-edge satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles. I could go on and 
on. My question to you is this, how do you view China as you prepare to 
lead the United States Navy?
    Admiral Mullen. [Deleted.]

    2. Senator Inhofe. Admiral Mullen, what do we need to concern 
ourselves with and what do we need to do about the emergence of China 
as a very strong regional and world player?
    Admiral Mullen. [Deleted.]

                            CHINA IN AFRICA

    3. Senator Inhofe. Admiral Mullen, I have traveled several times to 
Africa as part of a congressional delegation. I was shocked to see the 
amount of Chinese influence there. In Benin I saw a conference center 
being constructed, and in Congo I saw a large sports stadium, both 
donated by the Chinese. China has been expanding its influence 
throughout Africa with projects like this. One saying I heard was, 
``The U.S. tells you what you need, but China gives you what you 
want.'' I think the fact that these countries have large oil and 
mineral deposits paints the real picture. The Gulf of Guinea, bordered 
by nations with these natural resources is a particular focus for 
Chinese influence. In your previous role as Commander, U.S. Naval 
Forces Europe, I believe you had responsibility for this geographical 
area. What challenges do you foresee as we address U.S. national 
security concerns, given the influence of China, with its extensive 
need for oil, in this part of the world?
    Admiral Mullen. [Deleted.]
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins

                          P-3C ORION AIRCRAFT

    4. Senator Collins. Admiral Mullen, five P-3C Orions from Squadron 
8 at the Naval Air Station in Brunswick, Maine, recently participated 
in the tsunami relief efforts. I remain very proud of their 
participation. These invaluable aircraft and dedicated squadrons have 
also proven invaluable during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation 
Iraqi Freedom. Given that the P-3 continues to demonstrate its 
effectiveness across mission areas for the Navy from drug interdiction 
to search and rescue to antisubmarine and maritime surveillance, P-3s 
are clearly valuable and necessary sea and land surveillance platforms. 
Would you agree that the P-3 aircraft and its capabilities are critical 
operational concepts for current and future missions?
    Admiral Mullen. The Navy has relied on the tremendous capabilities 
of the P-3 since the aircraft's Fleet introduction in 1962. Today, P-3s 
are making vital contributions in support of Operations Enduring 
Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The introduction of the Anti-Surface (ASuW) 
Improvement Program (AIP) version of the P-3 in the 1990s has allowed 
the Navy to leverage the P-3's tremendous maritime surveillance 
capabilities in new roles, including overland and littoral 
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) missions.
    As Commander, Naval Forces Europe, I am very aware of the utility 
of these aircraft, not only for ISR missions in the theater, but also 
for the benefit of having them available as yet another tool for 
theater engagement with fledgling democracies in Africa and the Black 
Sea areas. Also, in my role as a NATO Commander, P-3 aircraft proved 
themselves invaluable in support of various NATO operations throughout 
the theater, including Kosovo. Indeed, P-3 aircraft in Kosovo have 
supported U.S. participation in NATO operations by providing 
surveillance related to force protection, route security, and civil 
unrest. Further, just as P-3s have been detached to Africa and the 
Black Sea region as a tool for bilateral engagement, so may there be 
future opportunities to engage with developing partners throughout the 
Balkans.
    While the P-3 will be in the fleet for many years, the aircraft are 
nearing the end of their originally projected service life. The 
criticality of the P-3's continuing contributions is reflected in the 
President's fiscal year 2006 budget request that includes an investment 
of over a billion dollars in P-3 sustainment and modernization 
programs. These programs are needed to sustain the P-3 until it can be 
replaced by the P-8A Multimission Maritime Aircraft over the period 
from 2013 to 2019. Moreover, the P-3s long-term importance is 
highlighted by inclusion of P-3 programs totaling over $38 million in 
the Chief of Naval Operations' fiscal year 2006 Unfunded Priority List.

                           AIR RECONNAISSANCE

    5. Senator Collins. Admiral Mullen, as the threats of the future 
evolve and change, do you believe that it is crucial that there be a 
permanent naval air reconnaissance presence at all ``four corners'' of 
our Nation?
    Admiral Mullen. Awareness of activities in the maritime domain is a 
critical component to ensuring the security of our homeland and naval 
air reconnaissance provides an important contribution to that effort. 
To improve our understanding of maritime activities, Navy and Coast 
Guard have been working in partnership to develop a concept called 
Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA). While we currently have some level of 
MDA through our operational forces and legacy systems, MDA's full 
potential will be realized by improving our ability to collect, fuse; 
analyze, and disseminate actionable information and intelligence to 
operational commanders. Accomplishing this involves collaboration among 
U.S. Joint Forces, U.S. Government Agencies, international coalition 
partners and forces; commercial entities, and especially the 
intelligence community.
    Comprehensive MDA requires input from a wide variety of sensors and 
sources to support a defense in depth. These sensors and sources, some 
existing and others yet to be developed, will form the basis for 
detection, identification and tracking as required. The components will 
include active and passive sensors, along with cooperative and space 
based capabilities. The Navy's contribution to MDA includes 
intelligence and information collection by widely dispersed, networked 
naval forces and the analysis, integration, and dissemination of that 
data via intelligence activities such as the National Maritime 
Intelligence Center (NMIC), which hosts the Office of Naval 
Intelligence (ONI).
    The maintenance of a permanent Naval air reconnaissance presence at 
all ``four corners'' of the Nation, like all military base 
requirements, was reviewed during the Department of Defense (DOD) Base 
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. The DOD's complete analysis was 
made available to the BRAC Commission on 13 May 2005. DOD has 
recommended consolidating east coast P-3 assets at a single site (NAS 
Jacksonville, FL) in order to optimize Naval Aviation infrastructure 
resources. As part of the realignment, NAS Brunswick is recommended for 
major realignment into a Naval Air Facility, with it's P-3s and C-130 
squadrons relocating to NAS Jacksonville. The realignment will save the 
Navy significant resources each year, resulting in greater investment 
in the warfighting needs of the future.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of ADM Michael G. Mullen, USN, 
follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                     March 2, 2005.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    The following named officer for appointment as Chief of Naval 
Operations, United States Navy and appointment to the grade indicated 
while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under 
title 10, U.S.C., sections 601 and 5033:

                             To be Admiral

    ADM Michael G. Mullen, 9509.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The biographical sketch of ADM Michael G. Mullen, USN, 
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the 
nomination was referred, follows:]
     Transcript of Naval Service for ADM Michael Glenn Mullen, USN

04 Oct. 1946..............................  Born in Los Angeles,
                                             California
05 June 1968..............................  Ensign
05 June 1969..............................  Lieutenant (junior grade)
01 July 1971..............................  Lieutenant
01 Oct. 1977..............................  Lieutenant Commander
01 June 1983..............................  Commander
01 Sep. 1989..............................  Captain
01 Apr. 1996..............................  Rear Admiral (lower half)
05 Mar. 1998..............................  Designated Rear Admiral
                                             while serving in billets
                                             commensurate with that
                                             grade
01 Oct. 1998..............................  Rear Admiral
21 Sep. 2000..............................  Designated Vice Admiral
                                             while serving in billets
                                             commensurate with that
                                             grade
01 Nov. 2000..............................  Vice Admiral
28 Aug. 2003..............................  Admiral, Service continuous
                                             to date


Assignments and duties:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     From         To
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet Training Center, San Diego, CA (DUINS)....   June 1968   Aug. 1968
Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare School, San Diego,    Aug. 1968   Sep. 1968
 CA (DUINS).....................................
U.S.S. Collett (DD 730) (ASW Officer)...........   Sep. 1968   June 1970
Naval Destroyer School, Newport, RI (DUINS).....   June 1970   Feb. 1971
Nuclear Weapons Training Group, Atlantic,          Feb. 1971   Feb. 1971
 Norfolk, VA (DUINS)............................
U.S.S. Blandy (DD 943) (Weapons/Operations         Feb. 1971   Nov. 1972
 Officer).......................................
Fleet Training Center, Norfolk, VA (DUINS)......   Nov. 1972   Jan. 1973
Staff, Commander Service Force, U.S. Atlantic      Jan. 1973   Jan. 1973
 Fleet (DUINS)..................................
CO, U.S.S. Noxubee (AOG 56).....................   Jan. 1973   July 1975
U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD (Company         July 1975    May 1978
 Officer/Executive Assistant to Commandant).....
Ship Material Readiness Group, Idaho Falls, ID      May 1978   Oct. 1978
 (DUINS)........................................
U.S.S. Fox (CG 33) (Engineering Officer)........   Oct. 1978   Apr. 1981
Surface Warfare Officers School Command,           Apr. 1981   July 1981
 Newport, RI (DUINS)............................
XO, U.S.S. Sterett (CG 31)......................   July 1981   Jan. 1983
Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA (DUINS).   Jan. 1983   Mar. 1985
Surface Warfare Officers School Command,           Apr. 1985    May 1985
 Newport, RI (DUINS)............................
CO, U.S.S. Goldsborough (DDG 20)................   June 1985   Oct. 1987
Naval War College, Newport, RI (DUINS)..........   Oct. 1987   Dec. 1987
Surface Warfare Officers School Command,           Dec. 1987   Sep. 1989
 Newport, RI (Director Surface Warfare Division
 Officer Course)................................
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington,    Sep. 1989   Aug. 1991
 DC (Military Staff Assistant to Director,
 Operational Test and Evaluation)...............
Harvard University Advanced Management Program..   Aug. 1991   Nov. 1991
Surface Warfare Officers School Command,           Nov. 1991   Nov. 1991
 Newport, RI (DUINS)............................
Tactical Training Group Atlantic (DUINS)........   Nov. 1991   Dec. 1991
COMNAVSURFLANT (DUINS)..........................   Dec. 1991   Jan. 1992
AEGIS Training Center Dahlgren, VA (DUINS)......   Feb. 1992   Apr. 1992
CO, U.S.S. Yorktown (CG 48).....................   Apr. 1992   Jan. 1994
Bureau of Naval Personnel (Director, Surface       Feb. 1994   Aug. 1995
 Officer Distribution Division) (PERS-41).......
Office of CNO (Director, Surface Warfare Plans/    Aug. 1995    May 1996
 Programs/Requirements Division, N863)..........
Office of CNO (Deputy Director, Surface Warfare     May 1996   July 1996
 Division, N86B)................................
Tactical Training Group Atlantic (DUINS)........   July 1996   Aug. 1996
Commander, Cruiser Destroyer Group TWO..........   Aug. 1996    May 1998
Office of CNO (Director, Surface Warfare            May 1998   Oct. 2000
 Division) (N86)................................
Commander, SECOND Fleet/Commander, Striking        Oct. 2000   Aug. 2001
 Fleet Atlantic.................................
Office of CNO (Deputy Chief of Naval Operations    Aug. 2001   Aug. 2003
 for Resources, Requirements, and Assessments)
 (N8)...........................................
Vice Chief of Naval Operations..................   Aug. 2003   Oct. 2004
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe/Commander,    Oct. 2004     To Date
 Joint Forces, Naples...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Medals and awards:
    Distinguished Service Medal with one Gold Star
    Defense Superior Service Medal
    Legion of Merit with three Gold Stars
    Meritorious Service Medal
    Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal
    Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal
    Navy ``E'' Ribbon with Wreath
    Navy Expeditionary Medal
    National Defense Service Medal with two Bronze Stars
    Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
    Vietnam Service Medal
    Humanitarian Service Medal
    Sea Service Deployment Ribbon
    Navy and Marine Corps Overseas Service Ribbon
    Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation
    Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Unit Citation

Special qualifications:
    BS (Naval Science) U.S. Naval Academy, 1968
    MS (Operations Research) Naval Postgraduate School, 1985
    Language Qualifications: Italian (Knowledge)

Personal data:
    Wife: Deborah Morgan of Sherman Oaks, California
    Children: John Stewart Mullen (Son), Born: 30 April 1979; and 
Michael Edward Mullen (Son), Born: 29 December 1980.

Summary of joint duty assignments:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Assignment                          Dates            Rank
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary of Defense,     Sep. 1989-Aug. 1991.....    CAPT
 Washington, DC (Military Staff
 Assistant for U.S. Navy Programs to
 the Director, Operational Test and
 Evaluation).
Commander, SECOND Fleet/Commander,      Oct. 2000-Aug. 2001.....    VADM
 Striking FleetAtlantic.
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe/   Oct. 2004-To Date.......     ADM
 Commander, Joint Forces, Naples.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 ______
                                 
    [The Committee on Armed Services requires certain senior 
military officers nominated by the President to positions 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a 
form that details the biographical, financial, and other 
information of the nominee. The form executed by ADM Michael G. 
Mullen, USN, in connection with his nomination follows:]

                          UNITED STATES SENATE
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              Room SR-228
                       Washington, DC 20510-6050
                             (202) 224-3871
                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
      BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES

    Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If 
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the 
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation 
of your answer applies.
                    Part A--Biographical Information
    Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in 
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for 
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in 
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.

    1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
    Michael G. Mullen.

    2. Position to which nominated:
    Chief of Naval Operations.

    3. Date of nomination:
    2 March 2005.

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

    5. Date and place of birth:
    October 4, 1946; Hollywood, California.

    6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
    Married to Deborah Morgan Mullen.

    7. Names and ages of children:
    John Stewart Mullen, 25; and Michael Edward Mullen, 24.

    8. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, 
honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, 
or local governments, other than those listed above.
    None.

    9. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an 
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, 
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other 
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
    None.

    10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in 
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and 
other organizations.
    None.

    11. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, and any other special recognition's for 
outstanding service or achievements other than those listed on the 
service record extract provided to the committee by the executive 
branch.
    None.

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

    13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly 
constituted committee of Congress, to give your personal views, even if 
those views differ from the administration in power?
    Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-E of the 
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set 
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to 
Parts B-E are contained in the committee's executive files.]
                                ------                                

                           Signature and Date
    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete.
                                                 Michael G. Mullen.
    This 2nd day of March 2005.

    [The nomination of ADM Michael G. Mullen, USN, was reported 
to the Senate by Chairman Warner on April 28, 2005, with the 
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination 
was confirmed by the Senate on April 28, 2005.]


 NOMINATIONS OF KENNETH J. KRIEG TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR 
ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS; AND LT. GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, 
 USAF, TO THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF 
                         NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 2005

                                       U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m. in 
room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John 
Warner (chairman) presiding.
    Committee members present: Senators Warner, Inhofe, 
Roberts, Collins, Talent, Chambliss, Levin, and E. Benjamin 
Nelson.
    Other Senators present: Senator Sununu.
    Committee staff members present: Judith A. Ansley, staff 
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
    Majority staff members present: Charles W. Alsup, 
professional staff member; William C. Greenwalt, professional 
staff member; Gregory T. Kiley, professional staff member; 
David M. Morriss, counsel; Scott W. Stucky, general counsel; 
and Richard F. Walsh, counsel.
    Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, 
Democratic staff director; Gabriella Eisen, research assistant; 
Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member; Creighton 
Greene, professional staff member; and Peter K. Levine, 
minority counsel.
    Staff assistants present: Alison E. Brill and Catherine E. 
Sendak.
    Committee members assistants present: Cord Sterling, 
assistant to Senator Warner; Christopher J. Paul, assistant to 
Senator McCain; Mackenzie M. Eaglen, assistant to Senator 
Collins; Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; 
Russell J. Thomasson, assistant to Senator Cornyn; Bob Taylor, 
assistant to Senator Thune; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to 
Senator Lieberman; William K. Sutey, assistant to Senator Bill 
Nelson; and Eric Pierce, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN

    Chairman Warner. Good morning, everyone, the committee 
meets this morning for two very important nominations made by 
the President of the United States, Kenneth Krieg, who has been 
nominated for the position of Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L) and Lt. Gen. 
Michael Hayden, United States Air Force, nominated for 
appointment to the grade of General, and to be the Principal 
Deputy Director of National Intelligence (DNI).
    Now, we're going to depart from the normal routine to 
recognize the distinguished chairman of the Senate Intelligence 
Committee for the purposes of an introduction. Mr. Chairman.

 STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF 
                             KANSAS

    Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
your courtesy, and it is my privilege and honor to join Senator 
Collins to introduce to the committee and to all present, and 
to endorse, Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden to receive his fourth star. 
As a matter of fact, I think he does a five star effort in 
regards to the Intelligence Community, and so to you, Sir, I 
thank you and to Senator Levin, and I'm looking forward to the 
comments by Senator Collins as well.
    Last week at the Intelligence Committee when we had the 
hearing on the General's nomination to be the first Principal 
Deputy Director of National Intelligence, I said that General 
Hayden is an excellent choice. I've crossed that out--I put 
outstanding--and he is a distinguished public servant who has 
really dedicated over 35 years of outstanding service to our 
country. I must say that in my years on the Intelligence 
Committee and Armed Services Committee, when I've had the 
privilege of being briefed by General Hayden, I never met a 
better briefer who is more credible and to the point, and to do 
that with the House and Senate, and earn the respect of 
everybody in the room, regardless of their opinion on an issue, 
I think, takes great skill.
    He's held a number of intelligence positions in the 
Department of Defense (DOD) and served on the staff of the 
National Security Council. I believe his most recent experience 
as the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) best 
prepares him for the challenges he will face as the Principal 
Deputy of DNI. With Ambassador Negroponte obviously having a 
great deal of credibility in the international community, and 
being a consumer and user of intelligence, we have as his 
Deputy somebody who knows the Intelligence Community forwards 
and backwards, and it will be a great team.
    As Director of NSA since before the initiation of the 
global war on terror and operations in regards to Iraq and 
Enduring Freedom, the General understands the challenges of 
providing immediate intelligence support to the warfighter, 
while also ensuring that timely and accurate information, also 
of primary importance, reaches the principal consumers of 
intelligence, i.e., the policymakers, no less than the 
President of the United States.
    Just yesterday, I spoke with the senior commander, a three-
star marine who just came back from Iraq, and we were talking 
about General Hayden, and General, your ears shouldn't have 
burned, because this marine said that your personal efforts to 
ensure that our marines and soldiers on the ground receive the 
intelligence they need for the ongoing experience was a true 
credit. He says, ``He's the man who presses the button and 
makes things happen.'' As such, I don't think you can get a 
finer nominee to be the Deputy.
    It is this kind of experienced leadership that will be so 
critical in ensuring the success of the Director of National 
Intelligence. I look forward to working with General Hayden in 
his new position, I urge my colleagues to approve his fourth 
star quickly. He is most deserving, and I thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, for allowing me to speak.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. My understanding is 
you now go to the Senate floor to present the nomination of Mr. 
Negroponte.
    Senator Roberts. That is correct, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Collins, my understanding is you 
wish to join the Senator from Kansas. Do you wish to speak at 
this juncture? Or at the time we bring up the General?
    Senator Collins. I will wait.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. Our colleague, 
Senator Sununu, may we have the benefit of your wisdom here 
this morning? We welcome you, dear friend.

 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. SUNUNU, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE 
                        OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

    Senator Sununu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a 
pleasure to be here, and a pleasure to introduce a good friend, 
Ken Krieg, to be Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics. I will be happy to share an 
introduction, and I appreciate your setting the bar very high 
in describing anything I have to say as wise.
    Ken has already distinguished himself as an outstanding 
public servant, but equally important in his current role, he's 
already shown himself to be a very capable assistant to the 
Secretary of Defense in a number of critical areas, most 
recently handling program analysis and evaluation. He's also 
brought to his work in the public sector, experience in the 
private sector. I think this is the kind of experience in 
today's Department of Defense that's really invaluable--being 
able to bring a perspective of budgets and strategy, resource 
allocation in the kind of work that he's been doing for the 
Secretary of Defense, looking at where we make investments, how 
do we allocate resources--and as this committee knows far 
better than I, resources have to be deployed as efficiently and 
effectively as possible, given all of the challenges that are 
being faced by our men and women in the armed services.
    Prior to serving, since July 2001, in the Defense 
Department, Ken had worked for 11 years at International Paper. 
He was the vice president and general manager of a very large 
office, Consumer Paper Products Division, and had to deal with 
all the challenges faced within a large corporation that are 
analogous, not identical, but analogous to the challenges we 
see in today's Department of Defense. Whether it's 
communications and employee motivation, information technology, 
the budgeting and analysis I spoke about earlier, or allocating 
resources to meet a clear set of strategies. Those are the 
things that Ken has wrestled with in the private sector, and 
the kind of experience and background that he's able to bring 
to his current post in the Department of Defense.
    But even prior to his recent work, he previously served 
within the White House, the National Security Council, and the 
Department of Defense in previous administrations. So he is 
able to draw on both the good and the bad--successes and 
failures that he's seen in previous administrations working in 
these national security positions--to the work that he is doing 
today. I think he has already served with great distinction in 
his current position, and as Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, he'll be able to bring 
a very broad range of experiences--and, I think, a reputation 
for concise, clear, evenhanded analysis--to a critical role. I 
know that he will do a great job, and it's a pleasure to 
introduce him, to be with him here today, and to strongly 
recommend his nomination.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. We thank you very much, Senator. That is a 
strong endorsement, and it becomes a part of our record, and I 
see the presence of the family of Mr. Krieg in the room today. 
I think it an appropriate time now for you to introduce them 
before I begin to opine a little bit here.
    Mr. Krieg. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman.
    I am very pleased to be joined today by my family.
    Chairman Warner. I cannot see Meredith. Meredith, do you 
want a better chair? It seems to me you're blocked by your 
father's broad shoulders, and if everybody moved one seat to 
the right, you could get a better view.
    Mr. Krieg. See, I hope you're more successful than me with 
her, because I tried that line, and she said, ``No, I want to 
sit where I'm sitting,'' so let's see if you're more successful 
than I was.
    Chairman Warner. I'll knock the gavel.
    Mr. Krieg. The chairman has ordered everyone move one seat 
to the right. [Laughter.]
    Senator Levin. The ultimate test of the power of the 
chairman. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Krieg. I have with me my daughter, Meredith, who is 10; 
my son Allen, who is 12; my wife, Anne, who is patient; and my 
in-laws, Anne Hurt and Al Hurt, from Roanoke, Virginia, so we 
have your State covered as well.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. Well, I welcome you 
here this morning, and the position to which Mr. Krieg has been 
nominated is one of the most important in the Department of 
Defense.
    It was established by Congress to implement a 
recommendation of the 1986 Packard Commission to place a senior 
official in charge of managing and overseeing the Department of 
Defense acquisition process.
    If I might interject a personal note, I was privileged to 
serve in the Department under David Packard, and I never in my 
entire lifetime met a more knowledgeable or imposing individual 
in the field to which you aspire to lead in this new position. 
We ought to call it ``The Packard Seat'' or something, maybe 
we'll think about that, like they do at universities, you hold 
a chair. We should think about that.
    This is not an easy job. Every sailor, soldier, airman, and 
marine depends upon the Under Secretary to ensure that their 
equipment is the best it can be, and every American taxpayer 
depends upon the Under Secretary to ensure that this equipment 
is purchased in the most cost-efficient manner. We are 
troubled, many of us, however, that over 20 years after the 
creation of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics in the Goldwater-Nichols reforms, 
many of the same acquisition problems identified by David 
Packard still emerge today. This is an issue of great concern 
to the committee, and we hope that you will do your best to see 
that the situation conforms, and is administered consistent 
with the guidelines laid down by the Packard Commission Report.
    So we welcome you and your wife, your family. It's very 
important that the family come, because there's a record made 
of this proceeding, and in the years to come it will fade a 
little bit. I still have the one when I appeared before the 
Senate, so long ago that it is hard to read the print now, but 
I assure you, your children will value and treasure that 
record, and the fact that you were here, and your names appear 
in that record as family members.
    The role of the family is so important, with regard to 
those individuals who serve in our Government, but most 
particularly in the Department of Defense, because you have to 
give up a great deal of time with your spouse, or as the case 
may be, with your father, while he performs his very important 
functions for our Nation.
    You currently serve at the Department of Defense as special 
assistant to the Secretary of Defense and Director for Program 
Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E), joining the Department in July 
2001 to serve as Executive Secretary of the Senior Executive 
Council, which is responsible for initiatives to improve the 
management and organization of the Department. Prior to joining 
the Department, you gained the private sector experience, which 
was detailed by our distinguished colleague, and I shall not 
repeat that.
    Mr. Krieg, you bring a wealth of experience to the job, and 
you have my support. At this point in time, I'd like first to 
go to Senator Levin before I go into the standard questions.

                STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN

    Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me join you in welcoming Ken Krieg and his family to 
the committee. Mr. Krieg, we thank you in advance for your 
continuing service to our Nation, and I join the chairman in 
thanking your family whose support is so critical to your 
success. There are going to be many times, kids, when your dad 
is not going to be able to do all of things that he wants to do 
with you, and it is our fault. Don't blame him. The chairman 
and I are the ones to blame. You come and complain to us when 
that happens. You particularly should complain to the chairman. 
[Laughter.]
    But we thank you all, seriously, for being here, for 
supporting your husband, and your dad, and your son-in-law.
    Ken Krieg has served in the Department of Defense for the 
last 4 years, most recently as the Director for Program 
Analysis and Evaluation, the office that is responsible for 
providing and focusing on independent advice to the Secretary 
on Defense acquisitions, programs, and resource allocation 
issues.
    As Secretary of PA&E, Mr. Krieg has shown the independence, 
the judgment, and the willingness to stand up for what is 
right. That should serve him very well in his new position. Mr. 
Krieg, there are some difficulties which have surfaced in the 
organization whose leadership you're going to assume. Far too 
many of our major weapons acquisitions have been plagued by 
cost increases, late deliveries to the warfighter, and 
performance shortfalls. On top of that, the Department has now 
acknowledged that its acquisition strategy for several major 
programs, including the Air Force tanker lease program, the Air 
Force C-130J program, and the Army Future Combat System 
program, were flawed.
    At a recent hearing of one of our subcommittees, the acting 
Secretary of the Air Force acknowledged that his Department 
went too far in downsizing its acquisition organization. It had 
removed critical balances from the acquisition process while 
doing that. These problems are not unique to the Air Force. The 
time is long come for a top-to-bottom review of the 
Department's acquisition organization, its acquisition 
workforce, and its acquisition processes. I think you are well-
trained by your experience, and well-positioned by your 
character, which you have shown to be one of integrity and 
independence to take on that responsibility. So I look forward 
to working with you. I know all the members of the committee 
will be working closely as you attack all these challenges. 
Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Levin.
    The committee has asked for Mr. Krieg to answer a series of 
advance policy questions, and he has responded to those 
questions, and without objection, those questions will be made 
a part of this record.
    I also have a series of questions on behalf of the 
committee, and indeed the entire Senate, which we ask each 
nominee who appears before our committee, so if you will 
respond.
    Have you adhered to the applicable laws and regulations 
governing conflicts of interest?
    Mr. Krieg. Yes, Senator.
    Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties, or undertaken 
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the 
confirmation process?
    Mr. Krieg. No, I have not.
    Chairman Warner. Will you ensure that your staff complies 
with deadlines established for requested communications, 
including questions for the record in congressional hearings?
    Mr. Krieg. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Will you fully cooperate in providing 
witnesses and briefers in response to congressional requests?
    Mr. Krieg. Yes, I will.
    Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from any 
possible reprisal from you or anyone else within your 
supervision for their testimony or briefings?
    Mr. Krieg. Yes, they will.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed to appear and 
testify upon request before any duly constituted committee of 
the Senate?
    Mr. Krieg. Yes.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree to give your personal views 
when asked before the committee to do so, even if those views 
differ from the administration in power and your immediate 
supervisor?
    Mr. Krieg. I will always offer you my best professional 
judgment.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents, 
including copies of electronic forms of communications in a 
timely manner when requested by duly constituted committee of 
Congress, or to consult with the committee regarding the basis 
for any good faith delay or denial in providing such documents?
    Mr. Krieg. Yes, sir, I'll do my best.
    Chairman Warner. Now, if you have some opening remarks, the 
committee would very much like to hear them.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH J. KRIEG, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
           FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS

    Mr. Krieg. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
thank all of the members of the committee for being here today. 
I especially want to thank Senator Sununu for his kind 
introduction, and I want to thank you all very much for your 
kind welcome to my family. Family is very important to me, and 
it means a lot for you to offer that warm welcome to them.
    Chairman Warner. I wonder if you might also acknowledge 
that, based on some modest experience that I had, all those 
decisions made in the Department after 8 o'clock are usually 
reversed the following morning, which would enable you to get 
home at a proper time. Can you take cognizance of that 
admonition?
    Mr. Krieg. I will, sir.
    Chairman Warner. We understand
    Mr. Krieg. I will report to you on a regular basis when I'm 
later than that. How's that? Or at least my wife will.
    I'm both honored and humbled by the confidence expressed by 
the President and the Secretary of Defense in their nomination, 
and recommendations of me, respectively.
    I look forward to your questions today, and if confirmed, 
look forward to working with this committee in the months and 
years ahead on the wide range of challenging issues that we 
have before us.
    The late Don Atwood, former Deputy Secretary of Defense and 
one of my mentors advised me as I worked for him to, ``Go out 
and learn in a real economy while you're still young enough for 
them to take a chance on you. You can always come back later,'' 
he said. His advice led me to International Paper, and a decade 
of experience in a tough, consolidating, low-margin, high 
capital, global industry. I hope he would be proud today.
    As you noted, Mr. Chairman, the Under Secretary serves both 
the people of this Nation, who invest their hard-earned 
resources in the Department of Defense, and the men and women 
of our armed services, both today and in the future, who invest 
their lives in our freedom. That is, indeed, a humbling charge.
    I've had the good fortune to watch the position of the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics from a number of vantage points over the years. On 
the staff of the Packard Commission, I witnessed the debates, 
and know quite well this committee's key leadership in that 
position's creation. In Don Atwood's office, I saw the 
challenging inception of the role. As the Executive Secretary 
of the Senior Executive Council, I worked closely with Mr. 
Aldridge and the Service Secretaries on business process 
changes, many of which are just now coming to fruition. Most 
recently, as Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation, I 
served as an advisor to the Under Secretary, and a member of 
the Defense Acquisition Board, Defense Logistics Board, and in 
other similar settings.
    No one is ever fully prepared for these roles, but I am 
committed: to a leadership role in guiding change management; 
to objectivity and integrity in our decisions; to fact-based 
management, good governance and a trusting relationship with 
Congress; to aligning authority with responsibility and 
assigning accountability for success, and to building business 
processes that have both strong oversight and agile 
performance.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you again, for the opportunity to 
appear before you today, I hope that you'll find my experience 
and my commitment will prepare me for this role. If confirmed, 
I look forward to working with Congress, and especially with 
this committee, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you 
might have.
    Chairman Warner. We thank you very much. We will proceed to 
our usual 6-minute round of questions.
    Mr. Krieg, regrettably, this committee has witnessed in the 
past several years, some extraordinary problems in the 
acquisition field: the length of time that it requires a 
weapons system to be fully researched, tested and then put into 
production and delivery; the ever-increasing costs; the 
problems associated with the industrial infrastructure; and 
what level must be kept in place in order to get adequate 
competition, and the best possible product.
    Now, those are problems that, through the years, have 
always been there, but each Secretary of Defense seems to 
experience his own unique problems. Many of us on this 
committee go back and think about the past as a guide to avoid 
problems in the future, the situation at the Department of the 
Air Force, a very proud organization, is--I don't know, in my 
some 30 plus years involved in this business, I've never seen 
anything that would equal that--as to how one individual was 
able to circumvent the whole process. You have got to represent 
to this committee, in order to get confirmation, that you will 
endeavor to do everything you can to work with the Secretary of 
Defense, and hopefully, the newly-nominated Deputy Secretary, 
to work to eliminate the problems that were experienced by the 
Department of the Air Force, so that that Department can, once 
again, regain its rightful place alongside its sister 
Departments of the Army and the Navy.
    Likewise, the battlefield acquisition requirements for the 
Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, including the up-armoring, the 
inadequacy of body armor. Now this all isn't directly in your 
domain, but you have with your responsibilities a lot of 
authority. This committee has gone through endless hours of 
testimony regarding the sequencing of contracts with the 
industrial base to get the needed body armor and the up-
armoring of vehicles.
    Lastly, the improvised explosive devices (IED) that the 
insurgents have successfully used. The systems are very 
rudimentary in design, but extraordinarily difficult, 
technologically, to defeat. We continue to get in this 
committee messages from industry, ``Well, we've got a product 
that nobody will hear us out. We think we can solve the 
problem.'' There's an IED task force, and this committee gets a 
regular briefing from that task force.
    Now, I'm not trying to criticize the task force, but the 
challenges before you are enormous, and I hope that you can 
represent that you will do everything you can to bring the 
wisdom that you've shown in the past to bear on these current 
problems, and help the Department resolve them.
    Mr. Krieg. Sir, you have my absolute commitment to do that, 
and to recognize that handling these kinds of changes, and 
meeting these kinds of challenges, require both leadership and 
the commitment of a team of people. So, if confirmed, I look 
forward to working with this committee, to understand your 
views, and to incorporate you clearly in what we need to do. I 
look forward to trying to build a team of people within the 
Department of Defense, with the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary 
and others, to handle the wide range of challenges we have in 
front of us.
    Chairman Warner. The Secretary has often said, and I think 
he's correct in his observation, having previously served as 
Secretary of Defense, that today's threat environment lacks the 
clarity that it had years ago. In the Cold War, we knew 
precisely what was facing us. We knew what was required to 
deter an outbreak, and fortunately it was deterred.
    Today, terrorism often has no situs, no state sponsorship. 
It's just a few individuals using innovative ideas with the 
crudest forms of weaponry. The proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction is such a challenge today. I think you have to put 
your bureaucracy in place, but incentivize them to use their 
own initiatives and their own ideas and think out of the box. 
My recollection of the earlier PA&E folks, and you and I 
discussed this in my office yesterday, they were constantly 
giving a fit to the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy, and the 
Service Secretaries because they were always thinking about 
ideas that we never, in our chains of command and daily 
briefings and so forth, just either didn't have the time to 
address, or never thought of.
    But today's problems just can't be solved by the standard 
bureaucracy going up and down and checking off boxes and things 
of that nature. Even though an individual may get in a little 
hot water from time to time, I'd rather that you supervise them 
and encourage them and they'll survive, if they've been 
prepared and honest in their thinking and thought processes. A 
little thinking out of the box there, Mr. Secretary?
    Mr. Krieg. Yes, sir. If you think about the world in which 
we live----
    Chairman Warner. I think about it every day.
    Mr. Krieg.--the rule sets of the competition are changing 
dramatically. We need the agility to deal with changing 
circumstances, the ability to anticipate the next set of 
challenges. We often find ourselves in a period of change, 
chasing the last challenge, and not anticipating the next.
    Then lastly, we must be willing to innovate. In a period of 
innovation, one has to be willing to make mistakes in 
innovation, but make mistakes with a very clear understanding 
of why you're innovating, and innovating in the right places. 
So all of those will be challenges for us, and to look ahead, 
because the fundamental rule sets of the competition in the 
world in which we're participating are changing in front of us.
    Chairman Warner. I thank you, sir.
    Senator Levin.
    Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At a committee 
hearing last fall, a senior Air Force acquisition official, 
General Martin, testified that in the 1990s, not only did we go 
through a very serious restructuring of our forces and 
drawdown, but we also went through a major acquisition reform 
that took away much of the oversight and took many of the 
checks and balances out. He added that the pendulum may have 
gone too far.
    We've been told as a result of some organizational changes 
in the 1990s that the Air Force has almost completely lost its 
system engineering capability, and the other military services 
may have similar problems.
    Moreover, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
reported earlier this year that roughly a quarter of the 
contracts that they reviewed were subject to inadequate 
oversight after award. When you're confirmed, will you work 
with us to re-examine the acquisition organization and the 
acquisition processes of the Department of Defense to ensure 
that we have the structures and the processes that we need to 
deliver high-quality systems to the warfighter in a timely and 
a cost-effective basis?
    Mr. Krieg. Sir, you have my commitment that I'll be glad to 
work with the committee.
    Senator Levin. Thank you. Last week the current Under 
Secretary, Mike Wynne, testified before our Readiness and 
Management Support Subcommittee about the reductions in the 
defense acquisition workforce. This is what he told us, ``The 
numbers are startling. The defense acquisition workforce has 
been downsized by roughly half since 1990, while the contract 
dollars have roughly doubled during the same period.'' He went 
on, ``We need to continue to renew and restore the defense 
acquisition workforce. We need to ensure we have the right 
people in the jobs to perform the functions required to support 
our warfighters, and now more than ever,'' he said, ``I believe 
we need to increase the size of the acquisition workforce to 
handle the growing workload, especially as retirements increase 
in the coming years.'' I'm wondering whether you share Under 
Secretary Wynne's concerns about the acquisition workforce.
    Mr. Krieg. First of all, Senator, I share the concern in 
general about the Department of Defense workforce. As one looks 
at the average age of the population that we have in our 
workforce--and thinking through how one makes the change of 
generations--this is really one of the biggest challenges we 
have as managers.
    With regard to specifics of the acquisition workforce, they 
need to have special knowledges and special capabilities, so it 
makes the challenge all the more difficult. You have my 
commitment that this will be one area that I will spend a lot 
of time on. I personally believe that people drive processes. 
Success is about people, and getting the people right is 
absolutely critical as we go forward.
    Senator Levin. Do you have a concern, also, about the 
downsizing of the acquisition workforce?
    Mr. Krieg. I have not spent a lot of time up to now, 
thinking about that. It is clearly one of the issues we have to 
look at. Pendulums tend to swing, and they often swing in 
directions that may go a little farther than we should, but I 
look forward to, if confirmed, working with the committee to 
understand that issue, and work on it.
    Senator Levin. Thank you. A recent series of hearings by 
the Airland Subcommittee highlighted continuing problems that 
result from so-called ``commercial item strategies,'' which 
have been pursued by the Department of Defense over the last 
decade. Now, under this approach, the Department has attempted 
to acquire major weapons systems under streamlined procedures 
intended for the purchase of commercial items. In the case of 
the proposed Air Force tanker lease, the result was a 
heightened risk of fraud and abuse, which would have 
significantly increased cost to the taxpayer. The committee 
disagreed with that lease proposal. You were very helpful, and 
very independent along the way relative to that lease, and your 
work is noted. The Department has recently agreed to 
restructure two other major defense acquisition programs, the 
Air Force's C-130J aircraft program, and the Army's Future 
Combat Systems program to avoid similar risk. We struggle long 
and hard to increase the use of commercial products. It was a 
reform on which this committee took the lead in pressing, and 
it has been misused. My question is will you work with us to 
ensure that the commercial items strategies are used to 
purchase true commercial items, and not to avoid requirements 
which are designed to protect the taxpayers in the purchase of 
major weapons systems?
    Mr. Krieg. Yes, sir, I would be glad to.
    Senator Levin. According to the GAO, the General Services 
Administration (GSA) has seen alone, just in its own purchases, 
a 10-fold increase in interagency contract sales since 1992, 
which pushed its total sales up to $32 billion in fiscal year 
2004. Now, what happens is that all too often when one agency 
uses a contract which is entered into by another agency to 
obtain services or products, it appears that neither agency 
takes responsibility for making sure that the rules are 
followed and good management sense is applied. As a result, the 
Department of Defense Inspector General, the GSA Inspector 
General, and others have identified a long series of problems 
with these so-called ``interagency'' contracts, including lack 
of acquisition planning, inadequate competition, excessive use 
of time and materials, improper use of expired funds, 
inappropriate expenditures, and a failure to monitor contractor 
performance.
    In just one recent case, Department of Defense officials in 
Iraq obtained the services of contract interrogators by sending 
money to a Department of Interior contracting center in 
Arizona, which then placed an order with the company, through a 
contract which has been awarded through the General Services 
Administration. Both the Army General Counsel and the 
Department of Interior Inspector General have determined that 
the interrogators' services were totally outside of the scope 
of the GSA contract, which was supposed to be limited to 
purchases of information technology. So, you have a GSA 
contract whose purpose is the purchase of information 
technology, which is used by the Department of Defense to hire 
civilian interrogators for detainees. Now the result is what we 
have seen, I'm afraid, the lack of accountability and lack of 
oversight. I'm afraid that we have also, in relying so heavily 
on other agencies to do much of the contracting for the 
Department of Defense, failed to build the capabilities that 
need to be built inside of the Department of Defense 
acquisition system.
    My question: will you work with us to avoid the improper 
use of interagency contracts and to ensure that appropriate 
mechanisms are in place to protect the interest of the 
Department and the taxpayer in those cases where it is 
necessary or appropriate to use such contracts?
    Mr. Krieg. Yes, Senator. Certainly, if confirmed, I would 
be glad to work with this committee on these issues.
    Senator Levin. Thank you, my time is up, thank you very 
much.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Inhofe.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I won't be able to be here for the second panel, but I want 
to assure General Hayden that the comments, that were very 
general comments that were made by Senator Roberts reflect my 
feelings, and I look forward to working with you, General.
    First of all, Mr. Krieg, I appreciate your giving me the 
time that you did in my office. We've had a chance to go over a 
lot of the concerns I had. I think the chairman brought up 
something in his line of questioning that I'm very much 
concerned about, and that is the acquisition timeline, the 
length of time it takes for a new weapons system. I told you a 
story about when Dick Cunningham and I used to sit next to each 
other on the House Armed Services Committee. We watched 
technology change so quickly, Mr. Chairman, that by the time 
you had a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit established in 
the cockpit it was already obsolete. Well, we changed that, we 
were able to change that, but it's not quite as easy with whole 
weapons systems.
    You responded to Senator Warner that you were committed to 
doing that, so do you have any specific thoughts now about how 
you're going to do that?
    Mr. Krieg. Yes sir. I think first of all, you hit on one of 
the biggest challenges--if it takes 25 years to develop a 
weapons system in an era in which information processing 
capability is cycling every 18 months, obviously we will be 
challenged to get the right systems at the right time. So, I 
think one of the key areas is to make sure that we get--the 
words have been used multiple ways: the statement of demand; or 
the requirement; or what it is we want to be able to do--a 
clear understanding of both what the demand statement is, what 
the requirement is, how long it will take, and how much it will 
cost. There is always a trade off among those three things. I 
think that one of the key areas is to work on what it is we're 
going to build, not just how we build it. Obviously, working on 
streamlining processes, while maintaining oversight, is going 
to be one of the key areas and challenges we build into the 
acquisition process. But, if confirmed, I look forward to 
working with the committee on those issues.
    Senator Inhofe. I know it's a difficult thing, but I agree 
that it needs to be looked at, and Senator Levin covered the 
Michael Wynne statement. I would like to leave one quote from 
him that Senator Levin did not use, and that is, ``I believe 
we're at the point where any further reductions beyond the 
levels of this workforce consistent with the President's 2006 
budget request will adversely affect our ability to 
successfully execute a growing workload.'' I agree with that. 
Believe me, as a conservative, I'm the last one in the world to 
oppose any reduction of anything in the government, but in this 
case--back during the 1990s during the Clinton administration 
when they talked about reductions--I became convinced, and I 
became somewhat outspoken at that time, that we were going to 
have to pay for this in one way or another whether it's using 
lead systems integrators, or whether it's using other methods 
that are going to end up being more expensive. I just wanted to 
tell you that I agree with the question and with the concern.
    I personally feel, as I told you in my office, when you 
look at the problems we have, the only solution is going to be 
increased spending on our military in general. As I mentioned 
to you, even the Secretary did say that during his first 
confirmation hearing, 4\1/2\ years ago. So, that's a concern, 
that's our problem up here, not your problem.
    But, I would like to have you address one last thing here, 
and that is, in the State of Oklahoma, small businesses are 
complaining that they're being cut out of contracting because 
of bundling of contracts to larger vendors. DOD complains the 
cuts in acquisition personnel are forcing these measures, and 
frankly, I think that's true, but there is a concern about 
small businesses being able to participate. I would like to 
have your commitment to try and help us in resolving this, but 
not at the expense of the overall bottom line, and what we're 
able to acquire.
    Do you have any ideas on how we could do this? I've talked 
to other members at this table up here who say that in their 
States they're receiving the same complaints, and I believe 
there should be a system set up as there was before, to assist 
some of the smaller businesses to participate.
    Mr. Krieg. Senator, I don't come with a pre-conceived set 
of ideas about what to do. I do recognize that across our 
industrial base, whether it is the large contractors or the 
small innovators who have trouble figuring out how to work with 
us, that as the rule sets of our competition change, and what 
we want to do changes, we have to figure out how to work in 
different ways with our industrial base. I think that is, along 
with the workforce, one of the greater challenges I would face 
if confirmed.
    Senator Inhofe. As I've mentioned to you before, and we've 
mentioned to a lot of people, the one thing that nobody at this 
table likes is surprises. I was very much distressed when, 
while we were actually in our authorization meeting a few years 
ago, to have the Crusader system cancelled, and no one even 
knew that it was going to happen. I would like to have a 
commitment from you that if you see something coming up where 
there is a change of need or a change of technology that 
requires an abrupt change in what we have been planning and we 
have been authorizing, that you would be very forthright and 
come to us so that we aren't suffering from some of the same 
surprises as we have in the past.
    Mr. Krieg. Senator, I'll do my best, if confirmed, I know 
that one of the things that people like least is surprise, and 
so I will do my best, if confirmed, to communicate with you all 
as changes are made.
    Senator Inhofe. That's fair enough. I look forward to 
working with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Krieg. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe.
    We now have Senator Ben Nelson.
    Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Krieg, 
obviously you're facing a daunting challenge. You've heard how 
difficult it is, and obviously, you've moved forward and said 
you want to take on that challenge. You mentioned agility. I 
suspect that you want to combine agility and accountability to 
avoid obsolescence, as well as to do things in a managed, 
orderly fashion.
    Having dealt with a bureaucracy in the past when I was 
governor, I concluded that the bureaucracy is full of what you 
call ``we be's''--we be here when you come; we be here when you 
go--and I hope that as you work through a reduced workforce, 
you will bring people on board who will not have that attitude, 
because it's that attitude that delays unnecessarily, obstructs 
unnecessarily, and very often doesn't facilitate the process to 
move forward, and that helps create obsolescence.
    It also creates a situation where people are risk averse. 
You're in a position where you don't dare be risk averse. On 
the other hand, you can't take too many risks. As you said, 
what you want to do is know what the risk is that you're going 
to take and quantify it.
    I'm concerned about all the discussion about a reduced 
workforce within your agency, and I suspect it will be one of 
the first things that you do, as you've indicated, to evaluate 
whether you have enough people, and whether they're in the 
right positions. That's going to be a very critical thing. 
Numbers, as opposed to quantity and quality challenges.
    Also, I understand that it may be an opportunity for you, 
because over half of your workforce there is nearing an age of 
retirement, not that we're happy to see people leave, 
necessarily, but it does create an opportunity as you're 
looking to the future to be able to bring on board other people 
without unnecessarily disrupting the agency. I emphasize 
``unnecessarily.'' Obviously you're going to have to 
necessarily do some things that will be a bit disruptive or you 
will not be the manager that we would like to have you be, and 
the one you want to be.
    In addition to the other responsibilities, you're going to 
be chairing the Nuclear Weapons Council, and so my question 
really is, have you thought very much about the development of 
new nuclear weapons, such as the robust nuclear earth 
penetrator? Well, the study is underway, and I know you can't 
say a lot of things until confirmed, but have you taken a look 
at that, or do you have any thoughts?
    Mr. Krieg. Senator, that's one where I have not taken a lot 
of time to think about it in the job of PA&E. We've looked at 
the overall state of health of the strategic forces and are 
trying to think through what the next era looks like, but in 
regard to that specific program, or specific idea, I haven't 
spent any time at all, sir.
    Senator Ben Nelson. I suspect that that will be one of the 
things that you'll have to do as the study progresses and as 
technology increases. Ultimately, it appears that something 
will come across your desk where you'll have to work on it.
    I know General Hayden is going to be dealing with some 
questions about Intelligence Command (INTCOM), but I'm not 
going to be able to do that. I suspect that we'll have a chance 
to talk about that at a later date.
    Another concern that many of us have had, dealing with the 
missile defense system, is the challenge between operational 
testing and realistic, developmental testing. Do you have any 
thoughts you'd like to share on that as you look forward to 
your new position? I know that you've dealt with it in some of 
the advanced questions, I just wondered if you had any other 
thoughts.
    Mr. Krieg. I think the real challenge in a program, in all 
programs, is to get realistic testing in a timely fashion to 
make sure that the system works as anticipated. I've not spent 
a lot of time in the details of that particular testing 
program, but I do believe that the operational testing 
community is working very closely with the developmental 
testing community to try to figure out how to get both needs 
satisfied as that system develops. Clearly, I believe that 
systems need to have solid operational testing so that we can 
have an understanding of their capacity and that we know what 
they can do.
    Senator Ben Nelson. My colleagues have heard me say it 
before, so I'm reluctant to say it again, but I've raised the 
question, if we got a scarecrow, and part of this is to make 
sure that, not as an offensive system, but as a defensive 
system, that it will ward off people who might otherwise try to 
do us in from afar, that has to work. So, please make sure that 
if this is a scarecrow, that it scares crows.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and good luck, and we 
appreciate very much your service and your family's support. 
It's necessary.
    Mr. Krieg. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Governor Nelson, we always learn from you.
    Senator Ben Nelson. You're very kind. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. We got two good little stories to work on 
here.
    We'll now have our distinguished colleague, Ms. Collins.
    Senator Collins.
    Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is hard to 
follow someone who has introduced us to scarecrows, ``we 
be's,'' and other esoteric military concepts.
    Mr. Krieg, first of all, let me congratulate you on your 
nomination. This is an extraordinarily important position, and 
we very much appreciate your willingness to step up to the 
plate and serve your country in this manner.
    I want to explore with you today the role of competition in 
the industrial base. A healthy, competitive industrial base is 
critical to supplying our men and women in uniform with the 
very best products, weapons systems, and services, and 
Secretary Rumsfeld said recently in an exchange with me, 
``There's no doubt that competition is healthy and creates an 
environment that produces the best product at the best price, 
and it's a good thing.''
    But, what we've seen in recent years is a shrinking of the 
industrial base on which the Pentagon relies. That's very 
troubling to me. In some cases it's come about as a result of 
mergers and acquisitions. In other cases it's a result of 
unsustainably low rates of production.
    This has become an issue in ship-building, where the Navy 
has proposed a radical change in its acquisition strategy for 
the DD(X) destroyer program. Instead of pursuing a strategy 
that would have ensured two shipyards participating, the Navy 
is proposing a ``winner-take-all,'' one shipyard strategy. 
Yesterday, the current occupant of the position that you are 
going to assume, Under Secretary Wynne, issued a memorandum 
that essentially told the Navy, ``Not so fast. There are a lot 
of questions that need to be answered,'' and he refused to give 
a green light to the Navy going forward with the one shipyard 
strategy for the DD(X) program.
    Have you looked at this issue, and do you agree with Under 
Secretary Wynne that we need additional information, or the 
Pentagon needs additional information before a decision can be 
made on whether this strategy is the right one?
    Mr. Krieg. Senator, I have not looked at this specific 
issue, but recognize the concerns you've laid out, the valid 
concerns you've laid out, and simply state that, if confirmed, 
I obviously, will have to look at this issue. I share your 
concerns about the overall industrial base. We're highly 
dependent upon their success and performance for our success, 
and it's an interesting relationship between supplier and 
consumer. So, if confirmed, I will obviously look into this 
specific issue, because it's right in front of us. On the 
broader set of issues you laid out, I think it's one of the 
greater challenges we have in front of us.
    Senator Collins. I think it is also. If we become dependent 
on just one supplier, inevitably it's going to drive up cost, 
reduce innovation, and jeopardize the ability of the Department 
of Defense to secure the best products, services, and weapons 
systems at the lowest possible price. So, I urge you to take a 
very close look at that, not only where I, obviously, have a 
very great interest, the DD(X) program, but generally speaking, 
because from the analysis that I have done, we're seeing a 
shrinking of the defense industrial base in a way that should 
be very troubling to us. I would note that in 2001, the 
Pentagon and the Justice Department blocked an acquisition by 
General Dynamics of Newport News, because General Dynamics 
already owned the other submarine construction entity, and at 
that time, the Department said that they explicitly looked at 
the impact on competition, the impact on the warfighter, and 
the conclusion was that we really had to maintain competition.
    I think that is a critical principle, even though the 
decision was adverse to my constituents, I believe it was the 
right decision to maintain a competitive base for the 
construction of nuclear submarines. That's why it's been 
particularly strange to see the Navy do a complete flip-flop in 
this area, and embrace a totally different philosophy when it 
comes to this next generation destroyer. But, it is an 
important issue, and I urge you to look at it, and to look at 
the broader issue of how can we ensure a healthy, competitive 
industrial base. Once the skilled workforce is gone, it is gone 
forever. When Bath Iron Works and Ingalls Shipyard came before 
the Seapower Subcommittee last week, they talked about the 
expense and number of years involved in training mechanics, 
engineers, and designers. This isn't something that you take 
someone right off the street and expect them to perform well, 
so I do ask you to take a close look at those issues, and I can 
assure you, you will be hearing from me frequently on them. I 
look forward to working with you.
    Mr. Krieg. Thank you, Senator.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. I will just reflect on 
Senator Collins' basic theme, and I hope you will come up with 
some innovative programs of your own, about how you're going to 
reach out to this industrial base, and engage them, and listen 
to them. They are, of course, a necessity under our system of 
economics, driven by the bottom line and profit, but it is so 
important that that be done. Look at the research and 
development (R&D) which today, I'm told, is not much of a 
profit center, and see if you can move that more towards being 
a profit center, such that the industrial base will begin to 
risk some of its own assets with the understanding that Uncle 
Sam will put some of its assets at risk.
    Thank you, Senator Chambliss, for your patience.
    Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Krieg, welcome to the committee this morning, and I 
want to thank you for coming by yesterday and letting us have a 
chance to visit once again, particularly with regard to the C-
130J, as well as the F/A-22 program, which are critically 
important programs for the Air Force. I am pleased the DOD is 
recognizing, relative to the decision to terminate the C-130J 
program back in December, that you didn't have all the facts, 
specifically the facts related to termination costs, and more 
importantly, the facts regarding the current performance of 
that aircraft. I'm glad DOD is looking to come back with an 
amended budget, although, even though it's been promised, I'm 
still waiting to see that budget. I understand that's not your 
job to do that, but we look forward to getting that from the 
right folks.
    Relative to the F/A-22 program, I appreciated your comments 
in my office yesterday regarding the superb job the program 
manager has done over the last few years in turning that 
program around. As we discussed last summer, the program 
executive officer (PEO) for the F/A-22, General Lewis, 
committed to this committee that he would deliver 11 of those 
aircraft between August 2004 and January 2005, when in fact the 
contractor actually delivered 13 aircraft during that time 
frame.
    General Lewis also committed to deliver 12 aircraft between 
February 2005 and July 2005, and the contractor is currently on 
track to deliver 13 of those aircraft during that time frame. 
Every production metric available indicates that this program 
is on the right track. Am I correct in the statements regarding 
that, Mr. Krieg?
    Mr. Krieg. As best I understand them, Senator, the program 
has come a tremendous way from where it was 18 months ago.
    Senator Chambliss. Now just last week, Defense Acquisition 
Board Chairman Mike Wynne approved the F/A-22 for a full rate 
production, based on system design, readiness for full rate 
production, and successful disposition and progress on 
addressing suitability deficiencies identified during Initial 
Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) testing. Let me 
interject, relative to IOT&E testing that Mr. Wynne commented 
in his decision memorandum that the F/A-22 performed 
significantly better than the F-15C in comparison tests, and 
exceeded the relevant criteria for this phase of testing.
    Again, yesterday, Mr. Krieg, you commented that you 
supported Mr. Wynne's decision relative to full rate 
production, and I want to make sure that's correct for the 
record.
    Mr. Krieg. Yes, Senator, we had a very good discussion in 
the Defense Acquisition Board on that.
    Senator Chambliss. You concur with the decision of that 
Board?
    Mr. Krieg. I was comfortable, given the facts presented, 
with what Secretary Wynne came up with.
    Senator Chambliss. Now, Mr. Krieg, even with the superb 
progress this program has made, the excellent performance 
during IOT&E and the recent full rate production decision by 
Mr. Wynne, this committee may consider, once again, for the 
third year in a row, reductions in funding for this program 
based upon, of all things, the schedule. Now, Mr. Krieg, the 25 
aircraft that are funded with fiscal year 2006 funds would 
deliver in 2008, and based on the fact that the contractor is 
currently producing approximately 25 aircraft per year, how 
likely is it, in your opinion, that the contractor will be able 
to produce 25 aircraft 3 years from now, in 2008.
    Mr. Krieg. Sir, Senator, I don't have any specific 
knowledge of the contractor's capability to produce or the 
specific schedule, I have not looked at the program in that 
great a detail.
    Senator Chambliss. But you know and understand that----
    Mr. Krieg. If we have 25 today, they should be able to make 
25 in the next 3 years.
    Senator Chambliss. Thank you.
    Mr. Krieg, do you agree that reducing the number of 
aircraft funded in fiscal year 2006 will do nothing to help the 
schedule or help the program, but will only ensure that the 
warfighters at Langley Air Force Base receive one less aircraft 
in 2008?
    Mr. Krieg. I'm not sure I can add anything to your 
question, except to say that I hear your question, and as your 
question is framed, that would be the answer.
    Senator Chambliss. Reducing the funding for the program, 
really does nothing to help the program, is that a fair 
statement?
    Mr. Krieg. The amount of funding the Nation provides to any 
of these given programs, given choices that people make, 
individual programs either gain or suffer, based upon those 
decisions.
    Senator Chambliss. Based upon funding for those programs.
    Mr. Krieg. Right, yes sir.
    Senator Chambliss. Now, Mr. Krieg, do you agree that 
reducing aircraft at this point in this program, or for that 
matter any other program, will only serve to inject 
instability, and would increase the per plane cost of the 
airplanes that we ultimately might buy?
    Mr. Krieg. I understand your question, I guess I'd have to 
look at the specifics of the layout to determine how much it 
would effect cost, given the nature of the program. I'll be 
glad to take all of these, for the record, to understand them, 
Senator. You're probably more in tune to the details of this 
one than I am, so if you'd like me to go back and look at them 
in particular, I'd be glad to do that. I don't, off the top of 
my head, have a specific answer to most of these questions. But 
we'd be glad to look into it for you.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    The Department reduced funding for the F/A-22 program in the 
President's fiscal year 2006 budget (PB06), in order to address other 
essential priorities. This decision, like any difficult compromise 
undertaken in response to budgetary pressures, will have adverse 
consequences. Due to economies of scale, reducing program funding 
creates production inefficiencies and affects the ability to get better 
pricing from suppliers, resulting in upward cost pressure. However, the 
Department has established the F/A-22 program as a ``buy-to-budget'' 
program. This creates incentives for the Air Force to work with the 
contractor to improve efficiencies, with a goal of producing the 
maximum number of aircraft possible within the budget.
    PB06 reduced the planned F/A-22 buy from 26 to 25 aircraft in 
fiscal year 2006. This includes one replacement test aircraft to be 
produced with Research, Development, Test & Evaluation funds. The 
change has a small impact on procurement efficiency and progress on the 
learning curve. The ultimate impact, as you pointed out, is that the 
Air Force likely will receive at least one fewer aircraft within the 
Department's overall buy-to-budget plan. The reduction in quantity will 
not eliminate delays in deliveries, because the quantity planned in 
fiscal year 2006 (25) is an increase from the 24 aircraft being 
procured in fiscal year 2005. Still, the contractor is making progress 
in reducing those delays. Lockheed Martin and its suppliers developed 
production facilities and processes to support production of 32 
aircraft per year, so I am confident that they will be capable of 
building the 25 aircraft planned, provided that sufficient funding is 
available within the Department's buy-to-budget plan.
    The changes made to the F/A-22 procurement plan in PB06 were 
structured to minimize the impact on procurement efficiency. However, 
as you noted, changes in procurement efficiency and progress on the 
learning curve will tend to increase unit flyaway cost. This is the 
case for most weapon systems, unless the design or manufacturing 
facility is insensitive to quantity (for example, if the production 
line is mature, if the facility produces two or more items with a large 
number of common components, or if the facility produces software or 
other items without using a traditional production line).

    Senator Chambliss. Mr. Krieg, you are here for review of 
whether or not you should be in charge of the acquisition of 
all weapons systems for the Department of Defense. Is it a fair 
statement that irrespective of what the weapons system is, if 
we reduce the buy, or stretch out the buy on any weapons 
systems, that the per copy cost of that weapons system is going 
to increase?
    Mr. Krieg. In general, the cost per unit at any given point 
is related to the efficiency of the capital employed in 
delivering it. So, as your general statement, the answer would 
be yes, but in the specifics of how much, and how much the 
capacity can deal with the change, would be where I'd have to 
look at the specifics of the question. In general, you get your 
maximum efficiency and maximum productivity when you fully 
employ the capital to produce what the capital is laid out to 
manufacture. So, the answer to your general question would be 
yes.
    Senator Chambliss. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Chambliss, if you wish to take 
additional time, that's a very important sequence of questions, 
and certainly it's been the record of the Department that when 
programs have been stretched or curtailed, the unit costs have 
gone up. I don't know of any instance when they've ever gone 
down.
    Senator Chambliss. I mean, that's a fundamental question 
that somebody who is going to be heading up the department of 
acquisition for the Pentagon, I would hope would understand. I 
think you answered it that that is true from a general 
standpoint. I understand you can't talk about the specifics of 
this program, or whether it's ships or tanks, but if we start--
if we continue--to curtail programs, we continue to move money 
around in programs, it's a given fact, Mr. Krieg, that the per 
copy cost is going to continue to rise, and you're going to be 
faced with a very critical decision. You and I talked a little 
bit about this yesterday, and I want to use the tactical 
aircraft issue as the classic example because this is my 11th 
year, and we've seen this train wreck coming between how many 
tactical aircraft we want to buy and how many tactical aircraft 
we can afford. Now, we are fast approaching that crossroads, we 
may even be there, and you're the guy that's going to be 
sitting in that position of really making that fundamental 
decision about what direction we're going in. You're going to 
have the same problem with ships. I don't think we're buying 
enough ships today, I think we're depleting our Navy of some 
assets that I think, one of these days, we're going to regret.
    Now, on the other side of the coin, we're trying to take 
the money that we have and utilize it in the best way, and 
you're the guy that, in effect, is going to be signing the 
checks on which direction we go in, so I think this is a 
fundamental aspect of your job that we need to think seriously 
about, because you're going to be the guy making that decision.
    I think you answered my question very adequately, but Mr. 
Chairman, we all know that we've been arguing over this for a 
number of years, and we've been trying to legislatively make 
decisions within the budget numbers, and trying to make sure 
that we provide our men and women with all of the assets they 
need, but I think the next 2 or 3 years are going to be the 
real critical point that we reach relative to acquisition of 
weapons systems, and we have to make a decision whether we're 
going to increase the top line to give them more money, and 
whether we're going to stay within that top line, and make your 
job even tougher. It is a fundamental thing that I think 
anybody stepping into the acquisition position is just going to 
have to deal with immediately, so I think he answered my 
question, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator.
    In consultation with Senator Levin, the Chair makes the 
following observation, and then the following decision. Seeing 
your young daughter back there, she sent a signal to me that 
this hearing on your nomination should come to an end. It was a 
very perceptible and loud yawn, and therefore, we'll ask that 
you provide answers to the record to a series of questions that 
we might otherwise have asked in a second round.
    We'll let your daughter know, also, that we're very much 
indebted to her for that signal. [Laughter.]
    But before we close, Mr. Krieg, I think the committee 
should acknowledge the work that's been done by the current 
occupant of this position. Although he's been appointed, as 
opposed to confirmed, Mike Wynne has withstood a lot of tough 
storms, and we wish him well in the course of his next 
challenges in life.
    So at this point, if there's no further discussion of the 
membership, we'll excuse you, and we'll invite the 
distinguished General to take his seat.
    Senator Levin. I would like to join you, Mr. Chairman, in 
thanking Mr. Wynne also for his service. If somebody could pass 
that along.
    Mr. Krieg. I will be glad to do that. [Recess.]
    Chairman Warner. The committee will now resume its panel II 
with the distinguished Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden. We welcome 
you before the committee as the President's nominee to 
appointment to the grade of general, and the first Principal 
Deputy Director of National Intelligence. We welcome you and 
your lovely wife, and we would ask now if you would introduce 
your family.
    General Hayden. Thank you, Senator. I'm joined here today 
by my wife, Jeanine, a counselor by training, but she has spent 
most of her energies supporting me and being a partner in my 
work for the past 37 years. Most recently at NSA she's taken on 
personal responsibility of supporting agency families, 
particularly with the additional stresses after the 2001 
attacks. We have our daughter, Margaret, here too, who is an 
officer in the Air Force Reserve, and I can't avoid commenting, 
Senator, a resident of Herndon, Virginia. Her two brothers, our 
sons, could not be with us here today.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you. At this time we would now like 
very much to receive the comments of our distinguished 
colleague, the Senator from Maine.
    Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate having the opportunity to join the distinguished 
Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Roberts, in 
introducing Lt. General Michael Hayden to the committee.
    I worked very closely with General Hayden last year in the 
writing of the Intelligence Reform Bill, and I became so 
impressed with him during that time. I remain very grateful for 
his contributions to that effort, and the advice and insight 
that he candidly shared with me.
    I recommended General Hayden to the White House for this 
appointment, because I know him to be one of the Nation's 
foremost experts on intelligence matters. His 36 years in the 
United States Air Force, and most recently, his leadership as 
Director of the National Security Agency have prepared him very 
well for this position. In fact, I believe the President could 
not have made a finer appointment.
    During his outstanding career in the military, General 
Hayden has been deeply involved in intelligence issues, both as 
a consumer and as a producer of intelligence, and from a 
variety of perspectives. As the Chief of Intelligence for the 
51st Tactical Fighter Wing in South Korea, and subsequently as 
Deputy Chief of Staff for the United Nations Command, and U.S. 
Forces Korea, he was a consumer of intelligence for warfighting 
purposes.
    As the Director for Defense Policy and Arms Control at the 
National Security Council, he was a consumer of intelligence to 
support policymakers. As the air attache of the U.S. Embassy in 
Bulgaria, he was a consumer of intelligence for diplomatic 
activities. It's very unusual to have an individual who has 
seen the need for intelligence from so many different 
perspectives.
    Finally, he has been a producer of intelligence, both at 
the tactical level, as Commander of the Air Intelligence 
Agency, and most recently at the national level as Director of 
NSA. As a result of this wide range of experience, he 
understands the needs of intelligence consumers, and also the 
challenges and opportunities for collecting, analyzing, and 
disseminating intelligence to meet those needs. He has been a 
truly outstanding leader of the NSA during a time of 
unprecedented change in both the communications technology 
available to our adversaries, and the nature of the threat to 
our national security, he has demonstrated strong and decisive 
leadership skills, he developed a bold vision for transforming 
the NSA to enable it to perform effectively even though the 
volume, velocity, and variety of communications have increased 
exponentially.
    General Hayden recognized that the NSA could no longer just 
gather mountains of data and then sort through them later, but 
rather needed to hunt for the right data, amid the torrents of 
available information in order to satisfy its intelligence 
consumers quickly and efficiently. He then set out with 
determination and remarkable leadership to turn that vision 
into reality. By directing the NSA, General Hayden has been at 
the forefront of our Nation's war on terrorism as our 
Intelligence Community has mobilized to protect and defend our 
homeland. Indeed, his work in transforming the NSA to confront 
21st century threats, made clear to him the need for our 
Nation's Intelligence Community to operate as, to use the 
President's term, ``a single, unified enterprise.''
    I believe the General's unique experience as both a 
consumer and producer of intelligence, his leadership skills, 
and his vision for integrating the Intelligence Community, will 
serve him and our Nation well as the first Principal Deputy 
Director of National Intelligence.
    Mr. Chairman, I do want to recognize General Hayden's wife 
for all that she has done. I don't know whether the committee 
is aware that she formed a family action board, after the 
September 11 attacks on our Nation, to support the families of 
NSA's employees as their loved ones worked day and night to 
protect all of us. I think her actions complement the General's 
dedication in serving our country. This is truly a remarkable 
family--dedicated patriots--and I think we're very fortunate, 
and could not do better than to have General Hayden in this 
very important position.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you General Hayden.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Collins.
    In the unlikely event that I ever appear before the Senate 
for confirmation, I would like very much for you to introduce 
me. [Laughter.]
    General, our distinguished colleague, Mr. Chambliss, is 
about to say a few words here which I'm happy to receive.
    Senator Chambliss. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
apologize for having to go to another matter for which I'm 
late. I had the chance, as did you and Senator Levin, to cross-
examine General Hayden last week before the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, but I just couldn't have him here without echoing 
the sentiments of Senator Collins.
    General Hayden is one of those unusual professionals within 
our military who has stood just head and shoulders above many 
other folks relative to the positions to which he's been 
assigned. All of our men and women in uniform do a terrific 
job, but I'll have to say that General Hayden, and having had a 
chance to work very closely with him over the last several 
years, particularly following September 11, he's one of the 
folks who stepped up and said, ``Listen, we've got problems in 
my agency,'' and I never had to call him to ask him what he was 
doing relative to correcting the deficiencies. He would come to 
us as members of the House Intelligence Committee to say, 
``This is what we're doing,'' and that's a special individual 
that does that.
    The President's made an excellent choice in General Mike 
Hayden to be the Deputy Director for the DNI, and I just 
applaud it and look forward to continuing to work with him. 
We're going to miss him at NSA, but we'll have an even closer 
working relationship at the DNI. General Hayden, thank you, and 
thank your family, too, for the sacrifices they all make 
relative to making America a better place, and a safer place, 
in which to live. Thank you.
    General Hayden. Thank you, Senator, that's very kind. Thank 
you.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
    Senator Levin.
    Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General Hayden, let me first congratulate and thank you for 
your past service, for your future service, for your family's 
service and support of you, making your success possible, and 
most importantly, for your willingness to serve in a very 
important new capacity. I would like also to express through 
you, our deep appreciation for the service and the sacrifices 
of the men and women of the National Security Agency. Their 
support of our combat forces, and for the senior leadership 
which they also support, and their recent activities are 
critical and essential. You've led this with some real 
astuteness and some real initiative, and I greatly appreciate 
that.
    Your service as Director of the National Security Agency 
for the past 6 years has been notable. You've led the agency at 
a time of major transformation in the way that the NSA has had 
to think about how it does its job, how NSA supports its 
traditional customers while responding to the needs of an ever-
growing list of new customers. The experience as Director of 
the NSA at that time of major transition will equip you well to 
help lead the Intelligence Community, as we implement the 
intelligence reforms that we adopted last year.
    Congress worked long and hard on that legislation last 
fall. Now it's the turn of the administration and the executive 
branch to turn that legislative guidance into a practice that 
functions well and smoothly. So, we thank you for your 
willingness to undertake that effort. You are a wonderful 
choice for this position, and I look forward to working with 
you.
    General Hayden. Thank you, Senator, thank you very much.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Levin. I will 
ask that my statement be incorporated in the record, as if 
delivered in full.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
               Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
    We will now move to our second nominee, Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, 
USAF. We welcome you before the committee as the President's nominee 
for appointment to the grade of General, and the first Principal Deputy 
Director of National Intelligence. We welcome you and your wife of 37 
years, Jeanine, and your daughter, Margaret.
    General Hayden currently serves as the Director of the National 
Security Agency at Fort Meade, Maryland, where he has served since 
March 1999. I believe he is the longest serving director in the history 
of the National Security Agency. The mission of the National Security 
Agency has changed dramatically in the past decade, as information and 
communications technology have proliferated. We are fortunate to have 
had the continuity of General Hayden's leadership during this period of 
rapid change.
    General Hayden has a distinguished 36 year record of service, 
having bridged the gap between intelligence officer and operator. He 
has served as an attache abroad, on the National Security Council, as 
the J-2 of U.S. European Command, as the Commander of the Air 
Intelligence Agency, and as the Deputy Chief of Staff of the U.N. 
Command and U.S. Forces in Korea, before serving as the head of one of 
the most complex elements of our Intelligence Community.
    The position for which general Hayden has been nominated represents 
an important milestone in the efforts of the President and Congress to 
improve the organization and performance of the Intelligence Community. 
We simply must have the best possible intelligence available to our 
national leaders in order for them to protect our homeland, and to make 
decisions on the diplomatic and military actions that may be required 
to protect our national security interests. Similarly, we must ensure 
that our Armed Forces have the best possible intelligence available to 
them to ensure the success of their missions, in defense of our Nation.
    In this time of great demand on our Armed Forces as they are 
conducting the all-out global war on terrorism, we must not allow 
intelligence support to our warfighters to diminish. We all recall that 
tragic chapter of history, in 1991, when General Norman Schwarzkopf 
came before this committee and told us that national intelligence 
support was simply not adequate during the first Persian Gulf War 
(Operation Desert Storm).
    General Hayden, we seek from you your assurance that, working with 
Ambassador Negroponte, intelligence support to the warfighter will 
remain one of your top priorities.

    Chairman Warner. I would want to mention one chapter in the 
history of this committee which is indelibly emblazoned in my 
mind.
    In this time of great demand of our Armed Forces, while 
they are conducting an all-out global war on terrorism, we must 
not allow intelligence support to our warfighters to diminish. 
We all recall the tragic chapter of history in 1991 when 
General Norman Schwarzkopf came before this committee and 
advised us that the national intelligence support was simply 
not adequate during the first Persian Gulf War. You probably 
remember that. Intelligence is, without a doubt, the greatest 
force multiplier available, and I'm certain you're aware of 
that. As you go into these, as we say in the old Navy, 
``uncharted waters,'' we wish you well. I noted from Senator 
Collins' introduction, and then went back and re-read your 
distinguished biography--and I'll put this in the record--
``General Hayden entered active duty in 1969 after earning a 
Bachelor's Degree in History in 1967, and a Master's Degree in 
Modern American History in 1969, both from Duquesne 
University.'' Sir, you are about to make history. You were 
prepared for it at an early time. Thank you.
    At this time, I would like to propound the questions that 
we ask of all nominees on behalf of not only the committee, but 
the entire Senate, and indeed Congress as a whole.
    You answered the advance policy questions, and without 
objection they'll be placed in the record.
    As to the specific questions, have you adhered to the 
applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of 
interest?
    General Hayden. Yes, Sir.
    Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties, or undertaken 
any actions, which would appear to presume the outcome of the 
confirmation process?
    General Hayden. No, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Will you ensure that your staff complies 
with deadlines established for requested communications, 
including questions for the record in congressional hearings?
    General Hayden. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses 
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
    General Hayden. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from 
reprisals for their testimony or briefings?
    General Hayden. Absolutely.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and 
testify upon request by any duly constituted committee of the 
Senate?
    General Hayden. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree to give your personal views 
when asked before the committee of the United States Senate?
    General Hayden. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Even if those views differ from your 
immediate supervisors or the administration in which you are 
privileged to serve?
    General Hayden. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents, 
including copies of electronic forms of communications in a 
timely manner when requested by a duly constituted committee of 
Congress, or to consult with the committee regarding the basis 
for any good faith delay or denial in providing such documents?
    General Hayden. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you.
    At this point in time the committee would like to receive 
such opening remarks as you might have.

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, USAF, TO THE GRADE OF 
    GENERAL AND TO BE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 
                          INTELLIGENCE

    General Hayden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'll try to be 
very brief.
    First of all, it's a privilege to be here today, to be 
nominated by the President. I would like to just share an 
anecdote I shared with the Senate Intelligence Committee to 
give you some sense of the appreciation I have for this job.
    The day after the President announced Ambassador Negroponte 
and me for these positions, I received an email from a friend 
of mine, a boyhood friend, with whom I was inseparable until 
about the 6th grade when he moved away. I lived on the lower 
north side of Pittsburgh in this section called ``The Ward,'' 
kind of tucked between some hills in the flood plain of the 
Allegheny River where the two ballparks are now. My friend 
wrote to me in the email: ``The Ward, the street parties, the 
picnics, Clark candy bars, and Teaberry gum thrown out the 5th 
floor windows of factories in our neighborhood to kids cheering 
on the streets and the damp train trestle on the way to and 
from school are the things that you are made of. You'll never 
get too far from them. It's those things that you will be 
protecting.''
    So, Senators, with all due respect----
    Chairman Warner. That is a very moving bit of prose.
    General Hayden. It really was, and I don't think the 
committee can put any more pressure on me than Jimmie Heffley 
already has, frankly.
    Sir, Ambassador Negroponte last week in his testimony made 
quite clear the importance of American intelligence. You 
already know full well the challenges being faced by us as a 
community, so we're at a pretty interesting place--never more 
challenged, and never more important to the safety of the 
Republic. We're surrounded by what seems to be a variety of 
dilemmas. We want more cohesion, a better sense of direction 
throughout the community. In fact, the Commission on the 
Intelligence Capabilities of the United States regarding 
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD Commission) claimed that we 
were a community in name only, but at the same time, we don't 
want so much centralization that it leads to group think or 
herd mentality when it comes to analysis.
    All of us want us to aggressively be more effective in 
connecting the dots, even when there may not be many dots and 
some of them may be hidden in the noise, but I don't think 
anyone wants us to base our analysis on past context alone, or 
mere inertia, or isolated data points. We all know the enemy 
may be inside the gates, and job one is to defend our homeland. 
We're also required to defend the privacy rights of our 
citizens.
    We want to strengthen our community. The law gives the DNI 
real power, certainly more power than we ever gave the Director 
of Central Intelligence (DCI), but we are here to preserve the 
chain of command as well, something I know that is of 
particular interest to this committee. I could go on, but you 
get the picture. This is going to be very hard work.
    When I testified last summer before the House Intelligence 
Committee, I said our community, the Intelligence Community, 
had been governed by the principle of consensus for almost a 
half a century, and that wasn't bad. Consensus gets you a lot 
of things, like buy-in and balancing competing needs, priority, 
and stability. As an airman, I know the value of stability. 
It's an absolute virtue in a lot of aircraft. When I talk about 
this to larger audiences, I usually ask them what they think 
the opposite of stability is. The immediate answer is 
``instability,'' and I correct them and say, ``That is not 
true.'' In the design of an aircraft, the opposite of stability 
is maneuverability, and that is a virtue, too.
    The legislation you approved last December made it clear to 
me that you want the Intelligence Community to have more 
maneuverability. It's hard to make sharp turns by consensus; 
consensus is rarely bold, and it's frequently wrong.
    So, last summer when the President announced that he 
supported the DNI, and last fall when you enacted legislation, 
it was clear to me that we were dampening the principle of 
consensus as a way to govern our community, far more in favor 
of clear lines of authority and responsibility. I told the 
House of Representatives Committee last August that if we went 
down this path, we needed to take care of a couple of things. 
One was, if we were going to dismantle the DCI and the informal 
authority he had, because he also headed up the Central 
Intelligence Agency (CIA), we would have to aggressively codify 
the authorities we wanted the DNI to have.
    Second, I said the DNI would need robust authorities over 
those big three agencies around town, where a lot of American 
firepower when it comes to intelligence, really resides--
National Security Agency (NSA)/National Geospatial-Intelligence 
Agency (NGA), National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), and the 
Deputy Director of Operations (DDO) at the CIA.
    Third, Mr. Chairman, and I know this part is particularly 
close to the heart of this committee, this new structure would 
have to accommodate the needs of America's combat forces, needs 
that, frankly, every day seem to redefine themselves in terms 
of standards for relevance and timeliness.
    Mr. Chairman, DOD is the largest consumer of intelligence 
in the U.S. Government. In fact, I think it's the largest 
consumer of intelligence in the world. As a military officer 
I'm fully aware that in a doctrinal sense, we have opted for 
precision over the principle of mass. Put another way, we've 
decided we can create the effects we used to create by mass, by 
now relying on precision. We will defeat our enemies not 
because we can mass overwhelming fires on them, but because we 
can apply very discrete fires in very discrete ways. But 
precision weapons are never more precise than the intelligence 
that enables them. We need intelligence that is worthy of the 
precise weaponry that we have, and are creating.
    This shouldn't be surprising. I personally believe that the 
way a nation makes war is as indicative of its culture as the 
way it writes poetry or creates music. We are an information-
based society. America's military is an information-based 
combat force, hence the absolute criticality of precise, 
timely, and relevant intelligence for our combat forces.
    I believe that the legislation signed by the President does 
nothing to hamper this, and in fact, actually gives us the 
opportunity to improve the overall performance of U.S. 
intelligence for all consumers, including the Department of 
Defense.
    I've learned in my 6 years at NSA just how talented a work 
force we have. The work force at NSA is a microcosm of the 
larger Intelligence Community. I've often said the real power 
of the NSA goes down the elevators each night. It's hard for me 
to talk about NSA operational successes in an open forum like 
this, but let me just say that one operational commander 
visited me very recently, and he began his conversation with me 
with the admonition, ``Mike, don't change a thing.''
    Last month, I received a note from the Commander of the 1st 
Marine Expeditionary Force, whom I know you've just talked to, 
thanking NSA for the kind of support we've provided his 
marines, and I received a similar note from the Chief of Staff 
of the Army. That's the kind of support that Ambassador 
Negroponte and I have to ensure continues to occur across the 
entire American Intelligence Community.
    We have to exercise the power that you and the President 
have given us without creating a new layer of bureaucracy. We 
have to be authoritative. We have to be right, and the DNI must 
ensure that we have the kind of information dominance that 
protects America, its people, its values, and its friends.
    I know this committee will stay very involved and very 
interested in our work. I look forward to working with this 
committee in the weeks, months, and years ahead, and Mr. 
Chairman, I now look forward to your questions.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, General, I must say, I was very 
impressed with your opening statement. It was very carefully 
prepared, extremely well-delivered, and those who listened and 
followed it have to have a heartfelt understanding of how 
sincere you are about taking on this new post.
    General Hayden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. At this time, our distinguished colleague, 
the chairman of the Government Affairs Committee is going to go 
to the floor in the context of the pending nomination of 
Ambassador Negroponte so, Senator Levin with your concurrence, 
I will yield my time of questions to her.
    Senator Collins. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for 
accommodating my schedule.
    General Hayden, the new intelligence law gives the Director 
of National Intelligence substantial authority to set policies 
governing the Intelligence Community's personnel, and the 
purpose of giving the DNI that authority was for the new 
Director to institute policies that would foster an 
organizational culture of jointness across the Intelligence 
Community. Ideally, we want individuals to look at themselves 
as working for the Intelligence Community, not for the various 
entities within that Community. The Intelligence Reform Act 
cites the personnel provisions of the Goldwater-Nichols 
Reorganization Act of 1986 as a model that successfully 
fostered that jointness across the Defense Department.
    Could you please give us your thoughts as to how the DNI 
should use the legislation's personnel authority in order to 
create a culture of jointness across the Intelligence 
Community?
    General Hayden. Yes, Senator, and I know a lot of folks 
have talked about a Goldwater-Nichols-like Act for 
intelligence, but frankly, there's a lot of Goldwater-Nichols 
that would be very hard to transfer. The Intelligence Community 
is not organized the way DOD is, but title IV of Goldwater-
Nichols, which is the personnel title, is the one I think is 
wholly transferable, from its experience with DOD, to the 
Intelligence Community. I can tell you, as a military officer, 
one of the most powerful sanctions of legislation I've seen in 
my military career was that one sentence in Goldwater-Nichols 
that says, ``The promotion rates of officers on the joint staff 
shall be equal to or greater than the promotion rates of 
officers on the military headquarter staffs.'' Took 3 to 5 
years, but it made all the difference.
    I've thought about this, and what I would advise the 
Ambassador, if we are confirmed, is to set personnel policies--
and not to overreach here. He doesn't have to reach way down 
into every aspect of how personnel are governed within the 
Intelligence Community, but to wisely select those factors that 
he needs to take control of to set the standards for, to 
develop an ethos of cooperation. To develop within the 
Intelligence Community an ethos of collaboration. I would 
strongly urge to Ambassador Negroponte that that's where he set 
his sights, on those tools, those personnel levers, whatever 
they might be, but if they configure to an ethos of 
collaboration, those are the ones he should claim immediately, 
and set the standard for.
    Senator Collins. Thank you. Another important authority 
granted by the new law confers the Director of National 
Intelligence control over the Intelligence Community's budget 
for the National Intelligence program. This authority includes 
determining the intelligence budget up front, presenting the 
recommendations to the President, executing the intelligence 
funding as appropriated by Congress, and transferring funds in 
order to meet emerging threats. The legislation also makes very 
clear that the DNI, in executing the budget authority, has a 
direct relationship with intelligence agencies, including the 
NSA, the NGA, and the NRO, in determining the budget. Some of 
us have been somewhat concerned by a memo that the Secretary of 
Defense put out that could be interpreted as requiring the DNI 
to go through the Under Secretary for Intelligence, rather than 
having a direct relationship, as the law envisions, with those 
three agencies. They are housed in the Pentagon, provide 
important intelligence to our troops, but also are national in 
their approach and serve all of the Intelligence Community. 
Would you tell me how you interpret that relationship, and do 
you believe, as the law intends, that the DNI should have a 
direct relationship with the heads of those intelligence 
agencies.
    General Hayden. Yes, ma'am. I'm familiar with the memo you 
refer to, and I should point out that almost all the prose in 
that memo was actually very supportive of the objectives of the 
legislation and the DNI.
    Senator Collins. Almost.
    General Hayden. But the one sentence has drawn a lot of 
attention.
    As Ambassador Negroponte said in his testimony in front of 
the Intelligence Committee, he cannot conceive of his 
performing his job without direct communication with those very 
large agencies that are housed inside the Department of 
Defense. They comprise about 80 to 85 percent of what I call 
his ``combat power,'' and the legislation is very clear that 
his guidance, in terms of fiscal guidance, to those 
organizations, goes to them directly, and that those agencies' 
response to that fiscal guidance comes back to him directly, 
and so I'm convinced that he fully intends to follow that 
outline as the law lays out.
    I should add, too, that you have made the DNI's fiscal 
authorities more robust than the DCI's were. The DCI used to 
prepare and present the budget. You put that very powerful verb 
``determine'' in there as well, and you suggest, and I think 
this is very important, you've given the DNI a lot more 
authority in the back end of the fiscal process, in terms of 
the allocation of funds, kind of financial officer sorts of 
functions.
    But even in the previous world when we had a DCI, and his 
budgetary authorities were limited, that minor communication 
between the DCI and the agencies was also direct, so, in that 
sense, you've given the DNI more authority. Your direct 
communications chain is simply a continuation of the world as 
we had it when we had a DCI.
    Senator Collins. Thank you, General, I wish you well in 
your new position, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator, and also for the work 
of your committee, together with our distinguished colleague, 
who shepherded this statute through. Now as you look at this 
individual, you say to yourself, ``Good luck.''
    Senator Collins. You noticed I avoided that phrase, and 
wished him well, instead.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
    Senator Levin.
    Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me join you in 
thanking Senator Collins for the leadership that she and 
Senator Lieberman so forcefully put forward. This legislation 
could not have happened without their leadership. I think it's 
on the right track. It's going to work out well. There are a 
lot of questions that have to be answered, but I think the 
spirit of the legislation was right. It was done with great 
care and detail. So General, I think you're given a mandate 
here which you can really run with and make significant 
improvements in the intelligence operations.
    One of the issues which has troubled me is the intelligence 
that was received before Iraq and just how flawed it was. 
Without re-hashing all of that, I guess one of the questions 
that I would want to ask you actually supplements the question 
which the chair asked. He asked whether you'd give us your 
unvarnished, professional opinion on matters. Your answer was 
`yes.' It's also important that you give your unvarnished 
independent, objective analyses to the policymakers, the 
executive branch. So my question is, are you willing to speak 
truth to power?
    General Hayden. Of course, Senator, and in that regard, 
I've kind of got a two sentence rule book. Number one is, I 
would obviously always speak the truth, and number two, those 
people who need to know, will know what my version of the truth 
is.
    Senator Levin. Some of the people who need to know the 
information that you have available to you are in the 
legislative branch. Frankly, many of us have been frustrated by 
the lack of responsiveness on the part of parts of the 
Intelligence Community and other Federal agencies to Congress 
in the request for documents, and the declassification of 
documents. The chairman asked you the question whether you 
would provide documents in a timely manner to Congress. Your 
answer was that you would do so. All too often in the past, 
that has not been the case. We've had problems getting 
documents on subjects ranging from intelligence assessments on 
Iraq to detainee abuse. In one instance, the Armed Services 
Committee waited for more than a year to get questions for the 
record answered from the former DCI. In other instances, the 
CIA promised to provide declassified or classified documents, 
and then failed to do so for a year. This is just totally 
unacceptable. It's a very frustrating process to extract 
documents from agencies who are not cooperative. You probably 
could have guessed that it's the case, but let me assure that 
it's a very frustrating process. It is time-consuming. It leads 
to holds on nominations. It leads to embarrassing questions at 
hearings. It is not healthy. I was pleased to get an answer 
from the current DCI, Porter Goss, to a letter that I wrote 
him, and a question that I asked him at a confirmation hearing 
when he said he would look into these delays. Here's what he 
wrote to me on April 6, when he was delivering some materials 
which we had been waiting for, for a long, long time. He said, 
``There is no excuse for such delays. I have conveyed to my 
staff that this is not how the Agency will treat requests.'' So 
he is making a significant statement when he writes that. I 
hope you would adopt that philosophy with the folks that you 
will be supervising--that there are no excuses for delays to 
requests from Congress. As part of our oversight process, it is 
essential we receive documents. I would hope you would adopt 
the same philosophy which was set forth in that letter to me 
from Porter Goss.
    General Hayden. I know from time to time there may be 
limits placed on me as part of the executive branch, but let me 
assure you, I will do my utmost to cooperate with the 
committee. I take that obligation seriously, and frankly, 
Senator, I think my track record at NSA bears me out on that.
    Senator Levin. Yours was not one of the agencies I was 
referring to when I made reference to the agencies which have 
frustrated the legitimate oversight questions from members and 
from the committee itself. We thank you for that commitment.
    One of the documents that we've been waiting for, and this 
is a document that the Chairman and I have requested of the 
Department of Defense in this case, is a document that you may 
be familiar with. There was a memorandum dated March 14, 2003, 
which was prepared by the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 
John Yoo, titled ``Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful 
Combatants Held Outside of the United States.'' This is a memo 
which Admiral Church referred to in his report on interrogation 
techniques and operations. I'm wondering whether you are 
familiar with that memo?
    General Hayden. Senator, as I've discussed informally with 
your staff, I have no recollection of the document and 
certainly have not seen them, and frankly, as the Director of 
NSA, I wouldn't expect to see a document of that type because 
it dealt with activities that are outside the scope of NSA 
authority.
    Senator Levin. I am not surprised by that fact either. We 
would ask you on your confirmation to take a look at the 
records of the new agency, and the agencies that they control, 
see if that document is in the possession of those agencies, 
and if so, tell us whether you will provide this committee with 
that document.
    General Hayden. Yes, sir, Senator, and I know that 
Ambassador Negroponte has promised to look into this matter as 
well, if confirmed, and I of course will strongly support him 
in that effort.
    Senator Levin. Thank you. The Bolton nomination has raised 
a question about protecting U.S. identities--these are U.S. 
people, who are either participants in a conversation, 
communication, which is intercepted and included in a signal 
intelligence (SIGINT) product, where the identity of that 
person is blocked, or sometimes as said, is minimized, and is 
referred to generally as ``A U.S. person.'' There are also many 
cases where that person is not a participant in the 
conversation, but is referred to in a conversation, and the 
identity of that person is also protected as well.
    At the Intelligence Committee hearing with you last week, 
you said that there's a formal written and documented process 
for U.S. Government officials to request the identity of a U.S. 
person referred to in a SIGINT process, is that correct?
    General Hayden. Yes, sir, that's correct.
    Senator Levin. Now, I take it there are a large number of 
requests which come in for the identity of a U.S. person who 
has been minimized. Can you tell us whether the majority of 
those requests, indeed the vast majority of those requests, are 
made in the case where the person identified is not the 
participant in the conversation, but rather is someone who is 
referred to in the conversation?
    General Hayden. Thank you very much for that question, 
Senator. First of all, to frame the issue for me as Director of 
NSA, the issue here is the protection of American privacy, and 
everything then evolves out of that fundamental principle--how 
do we protect U.S. privacy? In the course of accomplishing our 
mission, it's almost inevitable that we would learn information 
about Americans, to or from, in terms of communications. The 
same rules apply, though, in protecting privacy, whether it's 
to, from, or about an American. You're correct. In the vast 
majority of the cases, the information is about an American 
being referred to in communications between individuals that I 
think the committee would be most enthusiastic that we were 
conducting our operations against.
    Senator Levin. That's a very helpful clarification. My time 
is up, but can I just end this line of questioning? Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think the press has already 
indicated that there were apparently 10 requests from Mr. 
Bolton.
    General Hayden. Yes, sir, I've seen that number.
    Senator Levin. Do you know whether or not the majority of 
his requests were for persons referred to in the conversation, 
or for a participant in the conversation?
    General Hayden. Yes, sir, I would like to respond to that 
for the record in a classified way, it's a classified matter.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    [Deleted.]

    Senator Levin. That's fine. The other questions that 
relate, not just to him, but to anybody. The person who makes 
this written application for the information states 
specifically what that purpose is that they want that 
information for, is that correct?
    General Hayden. Yes, sir, Senator, but in all cases, the 
purpose comes down to the fundamental principle, I need to know 
the identity of that individual to understand or appreciate the 
intelligence value of the report.
    Senator Levin. Is that printed there as a purpose, or does 
that have to be filled in by the applicant?
    General Hayden. Senator, I'm not exactly sure what the form 
looks like, but I can tell you that's the only criteria on 
which we would release the U.S. person's information.
    Senator Levin. All right. But you don't know how that 
purpose is stated in these thousands of applications.
    General Hayden. I'd have to check, sir.
    Senator Levin. Or in Mr. Bolton's applications.
    General Hayden. Correct, sir.
    Senator Levin. Okay, and then, once the information is 
obtained, you do not know the use to which that information is 
put, I gather, is that correct?
    General Hayden. No. We would report the information to an 
authorized consumer in every dimension, in terms of both 
security clearance and need to know, just like we would report 
any other information.
    Senator Levin. But then, you don't know what that person 
does with that information?
    General Hayden. No. The presumption, obviously, is that the 
individual uses that then to appreciate the original report.
    Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Let's sit back and relax for a minute. I 
want to indulge in something which will give me a lot of 
personal pleasure.
    You majored in History. I majored in Physics and 
Mathematics, and I came up short on history, so I've tried the 
balance of my life to study a lot of history. I read, really 
two categories of books, books on art to relax in the late 
hours of the night before I try to catch a wink of sleep, and 
books on history to constantly learn, because I think history 
is a rear view mirror of life.
    So, I'm currently reading a fascinating book by Ford 
Donovan of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). I had a very 
short but, nevertheless, auspicious and privileged tour of 
service at the end of World War II, in the Navy, and I grew up 
with that generation. I had the occasion once to meet Donovan, 
and what an impressive man he was. I got to know David Bruce 
very well, who was one of his basic partners and lieutenants in 
this. Anyway, this book details the following of how OSS was 
set up. I'm going to present this so you can just sit back and 
listen.
    It was Roosevelt; it was his idea to set this up. The 
appointment of Colonel Donovan, he was just a Colonel then, as 
Director of the forerunner of the Office of OSS, was formally 
announced by Executive order on July 11, 1941. His duties were 
defined in Roosevelt's own words, ``To collect and analyze all 
information and data which may bear upon national security, to 
collate such information and data and make the same available 
to the President and to such departments and officials of the 
government as the President may determine, and to carry out, 
when requested by the President, such supplementary activities 
as may facilitate the securing of information important for 
national security, not now available to the government.'' Not 
unlike your charge, wouldn't you say?
    Now, wait for what happened. The directive was purposely 
obscure in its wording, and I think those of us who 
participated, and my dear friend and colleague here, Senator 
Levin and I worked with our colleagues on the other side, 
sometimes not all with full harmony. We finally cranked out 
that statute, but, I repeat, ``the directive was purposely 
obscure in its wording due to the secret and potentially 
offensive nature of the agency's functions, and the other 
intelligence organizations, jealous of their prerogatives, took 
advantage of the vague phraseology to set loose a flock of 
rumors that Donovan, one, was to be the Heinrich Himmler of an 
American Gestapo--this is 1941 in this great country of ours--
the Goebbels of a controlled press, a super spy over Hoover's 
G-Men and the Army and Navy, the head of a grand strategy board 
that would dictate even to the General's staff. The 
bureaucratic war was on. It was a war all too familiar to 
Washington, the dog-eat-dog struggle among government 
departments to preserve their own area of power.'' I'll 
autograph it for you.
    General Hayden. Thank you, Senator, and I thank you for the 
words of encouragement. [Laughter.]
    Chairman Warner. I hope that you will not encounter the 
same problems. It really goes on in greater detail, which you 
wouldn't believe, about what Hoover did to assure that this 
department would not have any power. It's a fascinating 
chapter.
    You made reference to Goldwater-Nichols, and Senator Levin 
and I were very privileged in our years here on the committee 
to work with those two fine gentlemen, and a staff member named 
Jim Locher. I have a recollection of the phrase that you put in 
there, and it drew on the vast experience of those two men and 
their service to the country in uniform. I just hope that in 
the future when we re-visit, and the Senator and I have thought 
about it, trying to re-visit Goldwater-Nichols, that we can 
draw on the same quantum of wisdom, and perhaps yours, to even 
make that concept, or those concepts, plural, even stronger.
    Senator Levin asked some very pointed questions, as he 
always does, and it prompted my first question. I would have to 
say, again, from a personal basis, one of the most difficult 
episodes of the history of this committee in the 27 years we've 
been here, were the revelations of the Abu Ghraib prison 
problem, and how that affected the professional military of the 
United States of America, and most particularly the 
intelligence sections to which you've dedicated so much of your 
career.
    The statute, I don't think, is specific, but I would 
presume that the office of the DNI would have some role in 
establishing a level of parallelism, or checks and balances of 
the several agencies which have the specific statutory 
responsibility for interrogating prisoners, and that you 
would--in a supervisory way--overlook what they're doing. Now, 
whether they'll all be identical, I'm not about to predict, but 
I would like the record to reflect that Ambassador Negroponte 
and yourself will become active in that area, in the hope that 
we do not see another chapter, ever, in our history as we 
witnessed in that prison abuse problem.
    General Hayden. Senator, what I will say now is going to be 
obviously preliminary, because the Ambassador and I are still 
getting organized and so on, and obviously, it is prior to 
confirmation. A thought I've had and informally shared with the 
Ambassador is, right now as the Director of NSA, I am--in 
addition to running that Agency--the National SIGINT manager, 
which doesn't suggest that I control where Rivet Joints or EP-
3s are going to fly in the Pacific Command's area of 
responsibility (AOR) or anything like that, but that I am 
broadly responsible for the legal or technical realities under 
which any of those missions are conducted.
    It occurs to me that that's a principle that we might be 
able to transfer to other intelligence disciplines, Human 
Intelligence (HUMINT) and imagery. In terms of HUMINT, the 
interrogation of prisoners would then fall under that broad 
rubric, so I think the Ambassador would certainly understand 
your concern, and want to work to set the broad standards 
within which different elements of the community would operate. 
There's a balance here. I don't think you want him to be 
working a lever that controls the actions of an E-3 in a combat 
situation, but he can create the structure within which that E-
3 understands the standards to which he will be held. I think 
that would be a legitimate responsibility of the DNI.
    Chairman Warner. But the interrogation process of prisoners 
is an essential part of intelligence gathering, and many of us, 
and many Americans, have learned more about that process than 
ever before as a consequence of this tragic situation. In order 
not to ever let that happen again, and I'm not even suggesting 
that you be the supervisory authority of the incarceration of 
these individuals down to how they're handled, the techniques 
to be employed by the several agencies and departments of the 
government, should have, I think, a review authority. I would 
hope that your new department would have a certain amount of 
that review authority. There may be others, the Department of 
Justice (DOJ), individual cabinet officers, I'm not suggesting 
you're going to take the whole thing over, but I think the 
American public would like to know that your new department 
would have a role in examining the practices to ensure that 
this type of situation would never happen again.
    General Hayden. Yes sir, I think the Ambassador is on 
record as saying that, while, clearly, the broad legal review 
would come from the DOJ, that it would be his responsibility to 
ensure that those standards are implemented throughout the 
community, but that if anyone does cross the line, appropriate 
action would be taken.
    Chairman Warner. The other tragic chapter that we have had 
here, and this committee was very much involved, is the 
intelligence failures associated with the weapons of mass 
destruction. We are not here today to begin to go back over how 
that happened, but I am sure that you and Ambassador Negroponte 
will exercise the supervisory authority that you have to 
carefully provide that everything possible be done so that will 
never re-occur.
    I have found in my years of experience that the 
intelligence officers are a very dedicated group of people, 
whether they're in uniform or civilian. I have a high regard 
for the Agency. It's not that the Agency is in my State, but I 
have known, personally, so many individuals who have served in 
the CIA through the years, their families, and they take the 
risks, those civilians, often commensurate with the men and 
women in uniform.
    Consequently, as a career military officer, you clearly 
understand what is required to achieve the professional skills 
and leadership competence necessary to accomplish the missions 
and advance professionally within the respective military 
services. The Intelligence Reform Act gives the DNI significant 
authority in the assignment, the transfer, extension, and 
training of military personnel. How will you ensure the 
military personnel are managed in such a way that enables them 
to contribute to the national intelligence effort, and to 
maintain the ability to advance professionally within their 
respective services? Now that, in some ways, is parallel to 
your observation about the language in Goldwater-Nichols.
    General Hayden. When you look at the broad community, my 
sense is the area, the field, in which the DNI is going to have 
to go first, and through major plowing, is with regard to the 
civilian workforce, because a lot of the things, Senator, that 
you and I take for granted for our G.I. workforce--that initial 
training, that professional military education, that leadership 
training--already happens. That said, there are some things, I 
think, the DNI needs to focus on for the military workforce. 
Here's an area of absolutely total coincidence of interest 
between the DNI and the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Intelligence, and Secretary Cambone has actually talked about 
this quite forcefully.
    We need to ensure, number one, that that military force is 
well-trained. I think we do pretty well at that. I'm not as 
convinced that broad military personnel policies responding to 
the needs of the Department as a whole pay enough attention to 
the personnel policies of the intelligence folks within that 
broad system, specifically, tour lengths. How long do you let a 
kid work a particular problem in NSA, a particular work 
station, because only over time do you build up that kind of 
expertise? There's an area, I think, we might want to work on 
with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
    One final issue I would add, and I know Steve is very 
forceful about this--how do we reward folks? How does the 
Department of Defense, how does the military structure reward, 
for example, excellence in language? Secretary Chu is taking 
that one on now. Secretary Wolfowitz, before he left, signed a 
directive that I think is quite bold in terms of setting up a 
structure where language is afforded the kind of respect it 
should have within the Department, in terms of investment and 
reward for effort. Those are some areas, I think we could strap 
on quite quickly.
    Chairman Warner. I listen with great interest with respect 
to your observations about Secretary Cambone. I have gotten to 
know him quite well in the context of the working relationships 
that the two of us have professionally, and I have a high 
personal regard for him. By coincidence, Senator Levin and I 
met earlier this morning with Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary 
Cambone on matters directly related to some of the functions 
that you are going to be taking up. Let's just go right to this 
question--Rumsfeld and Cambone have initiated efforts to 
improve the intelligence capabilities of the Department of 
Defense, and, particularly with regard to support for combatant 
commanders, they're working on a charter now. Drafts of that 
charter were provided, and I think there's some staff over here 
that are beginning to form up for you and Ambassador 
Negroponte, and I think they have a copy of it. Ambassador 
Negroponte, when I spoke with him, said he knew that that draft 
charter was there, but he had not had the opportunity to go 
over it. Maybe you have or haven't. It's to be done, and I 
think it's important to the re-modeling of the defense 
intelligence initiative within the Department of Defense to be 
worked out in conjunction with yourself and Ambassador 
Negroponte and such others that may have a voice. I think 
they've expressed to us a willingness to take into 
consideration your views, because you've already indicated the 
Department of Defense is probably the largest user, if you 
quantify this thing. It is essential that the Department of 
Defense work in harmony with the DNI. We can't write that into 
law. We can't go into all those details, and that's why I think 
there's a certain--I'll use the word in this book--vagueness 
associated with the statute, and from that has to come the 
dynamics of the personalities who are directly involved. I 
happen to have a great deal of respect for Secretary Rumsfeld. 
We sort of grew up in the same manner in our political systems. 
When I was Secretary of the Navy, he was in the White House, so 
that's 30 some-odd years ago. So we've known each other these 
years, and I detect in him a strong willingness to really try 
and make this system work. So, I wish him well.
    Do you have any concerns that you'd like to share with the 
committee now, or would you just like to await your further 
evaluation for that?
    General Hayden. Well, Senator, I'll share a few thoughts. 
You mentioned the remodeling of defense intelligence that 
Secretary Cambone has underway. I just jotted down three or 
four ideas that came to mind immediately inside that: the 
intelligence campaign plans that he's commissioned to be 
written to support our major war plans; the creation of joint 
operation intelligence centers, which is a recognition that 
intelligence is an inherently operational function; the move in 
unified campaign planning to give General Cartwright and U.S. 
Strategic Command, a quite powerful role when it comes to 
global intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance. Frankly, 
Senator, as far as I'm concerned, all of those are pure virtue, 
and those fit hand-in-glove, I think, with what the legislation 
intends for the DNI, and with what Ambassador Negroponte 
intends to do as Director of National Intelligence. I think I 
can share with you he has confided to me that he intends to 
build a cooperative relationship with the Secretary.
    There is one question that Senator Collins posed earlier 
with regard to how the DNI communicates with the big agencies 
that are, and should remain, within the Department of Defense. 
I think the law does the right thing. It doesn't attempt to 
write the Magna Carta describing the existential dimensions of 
this relationship. It enumerates the powers of the DNI. It says 
the DNI should do this, and they should do this--I think that's 
quite clear, and I think if we follow that game plan, you 
should have every expectation that this should work out very 
well.
    Chairman Warner. Well, those are encouraging observations. 
I'll yield to you, Senator, and then I might come back for a 
close-up question.
    Senator Levin. General, I asked you before about a specific 
document, and you indicated you weren't familiar with it and 
that you would see if it's in the possession of any of the 
agencies that you'll be supervising, or your own agency. We 
appreciate that.
    There's a second memo that is of similar importance that's 
related to detainee interrogation that has been of great 
interest to the committee and Congress. One of the ways in 
which this affects this committee's oversight responsibility is 
that the techniques that were set forth in this second memo may 
have been used, probably were used, at Abu Ghraib, which is a 
facility which the Department of Defense operates. So we don't 
know if it was Defense Department people or not, but 
nonetheless, the second memo which I want you look into for us 
is clearly relevant to our oversight responsibility of defense 
facilities. This is the memo which was signed by Assistant 
Attorney General Jay Bybee, at the Office of Legal Counsel, 
which evaluated the legality of specific interrogation 
techniques. It was produced around August 2002. I wonder if you 
would give us the same assurance that you will, if you're not 
already familiar with that memo, that you would look to see 
whether or not it is in the possession of the new agency, or 
the agencies which it supervises, and if so, whether you will 
either provide that document to this committee, or if not, you 
would promptly tell us why not.
    General Hayden. Yes, Senator, I understand, and I am very 
much aware of the committee's interest. I am not familiar with 
the document, but I know that Ambassador Negroponte has 
promised to look into it, and I, again, will aggressively 
support him in that.
    Senator Levin. All right, and if it's not going to be 
provided to this committee, that we be promptly informed of 
that fact, and why it would not be?
    General Hayden. Yes, sir.
    Senator Levin. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Levin.
    I think we have fully covered in an exhaustive way the 
important issues relating to your new functions. The record for 
this hearing will remain open throughout this week. As such, 
Senators can provide additional questions for your response. I 
think we've had an excellent hearing, General, and I wish the 
best good fortune to you and your family. I don't think the 
family will see much of you for awhile, but I guess you've been 
through that before. Thank you very much, sir.
    General Hayden. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. The hearing is concluded.
    [Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the committee adjourned.]

    [Prepared questions submitted to Kenneth J. Krieg by 
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied 
follow:]

                        Questions and Responses

                            DEFENSE REFORMS

    Question. Almost 20 years have passed since the enactment of the 
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and 
legislation establishing the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition.
    Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
    Answer. Yes, the reforms resulting from the implementation of the 
Goldwater-Nichols Act have become entrenched in our daily business and 
will continue to be cornerstones. The effectiveness of joint operations 
has been clearly demonstrated in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and 
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), and I strongly support continued and 
increased efforts to improve the jointness of our military forces.
    Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense 
reforms have been implemented?
    Answer. I believe that the implementation of Goldwater-Nichols 
(over the past 19 years) has been successful and consistent with 
congressional intent.
    Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of 
these defense reforms?
    Answer. From an acquisition perspective, the changes resulting from 
implementation of the Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986--particularly the 
placement of the acquisition function under the control of civilian 
leadership within the military departments--have been important factors 
in enabling the acquisition community to more efficiently and 
effectively deliver the capabilities that the joint warfighters need to 
meet the challenges of the 21st century.
    Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms, 
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of 
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian 
control over the military; improving military advice; placing clear 
responsibility on the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of 
their missions; ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is 
commensurate with their responsibility; increasing attention to the 
formulation of strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more 
efficient use of defense resources; enhancing the effectiveness of 
military operations; and improving the management and administration of 
the Department of Defense.
    Do you agree with these goals?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you believe that legislative proposals to amend 
Goldwater-Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you think it 
might be appropriate to address in these proposals?
    Answer. It is important to continue to look at how well our current 
processes and structures meet the demands of our dynamic environment. 
There are several initiatives and studies addressing these kinds of 
issues; however the results are not yet final. If confirmed, I look 
forward to working with the Committee on these issues.

                                 DUTIES

    Question. Section 133 of Title 10, United States Code, describes 
the duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics (USD(ATL)).
    If you are confirmed, what duties do you expect that Secretary 
Rumsfeld will prescribe for you?
    Answer. If confirmed, as Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, I will perform the statutory 
functions of establishing policies on all acquisition matters including 
supervising the military department's acquisition systems and 
processes. I will serve as the Defense Acquisition Executive with 
associated responsibilities of supervising the performance of the 
Department of Defense Acquisition System; serve as the Defense 
Logistics Executive; serve as the Department of Defense Procurement 
Executive; serve as the National Armaments Director and Secretary of 
Defense representative to the semi-annual NATO Five Power conference 
and Conference of National Armaments Directors; and chair the Nuclear 
Weapons Council. I will oversee developmental testing and evaluation 
and the Joint Test and Evaluation Program with the DOT&E, and manage 
the Foreign Comparative Test Program. I will serve as the Principal 
Staff Assistant for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the 
Defense Contract Management Agency, the Defense Logistics Agency, the 
Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and the Missile Defense Agency. 
Additionally, I will develop international memoranda of agreement and 
memoranda of understanding relating to acquisition matters; and 
supervise the Defense Science Board.
    Question. Do you recommend any changes to the provisions of section 
133 of title 10, United States Code, with respect to the duties of the 
USD(ATL)?
    Answer. No.
    Question. If confirmed, what duties and responsibilities would you 
plan to assign to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition 
and Technology and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics 
and Materiel Readiness?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would assign the Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition and Technology (DUSD(A&T)) as my principal 
advisor on acquisition and technology matters and as the principal 
acquisition official within senior management of the DOD. He/she would 
advise and assist me across the full range of my responsibilities in 
providing staff advice and assistance to the Secretary and Deputy 
Secretary of Defense. In this capacity, the DUSD(A&T) would monitor and 
review the DOD Acquisition System and oversee the development, 
implementation, and management of the Defense Procurement program.
    If confirmed, I would assign the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
for Logistics and Materiel Readiness (DUSD (L&MR)) as my principal 
advisor on logistics and materiel readiness matters, and as the 
principal logistics official within the senior management of the DOD. 
He/she would advise and assist me across the full range of my 
responsibilities in providing staff advice and assistance to the 
Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense. In this capacity, the DUSD 
(L&MR) would monitor and review all logistics, maintenance, materiel 
readiness, strategic mobility, and sustainment support programs.

                     MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS

    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will 
confront the USD(ATL)?
    Answer. There are many challenges facing the Department that fall 
under the purview of the USD(AT&L). Perhaps the most important of these 
is to provide the warfighter the capabilities necessary to achieve 
victory in the global war on terrorism. Additionally, I consider the 
following some of the more pressing challenges I would face, if 
confirmed:

         Ensuring the acquisition process is transparent, 
        objective, timely, and accountable.
         Developing successful, integrated supply chains to 
        meet the warfighters needs.
         Building the strategic human capital of the defense 
        acquisition workforce.
         Setting a vision and supporting program for the 
        research and development priorities to meet the needs of the 
        coming generation.
         Working to establish joint requirements that balance 
        among performance, schedule, and cost.
         Successfully managing the infrastructure transitions 
        of BRAC and Global Basing.
         Working through the industrial base challenges of our 
        day.

    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for 
addressing these challenges?
    Answer. In several of these areas good work is already underway; 
building on those efforts to ensure successful implementation will be 
key. The Quadrennial Defense Review report will include recommendations 
to improve the Department's management, organization, and 
decisionmaking.
    In other areas, if confirmed, I will have to develop a leadership 
agenda, which will require consultation within the Department, with 
Congress, and with Industry.

                    MAJOR WEAPON SYSTEM ACQUISITION

    Question. Describe the approach taken by the Department to reducing 
cycle time for major acquisition programs. Do you believe the 
Department's approach has been successful?
    Answer. DOD has made considerable progress in implementing policy 
that should reduce cycle time and allow us to field capability rapidly 
and efficiently. These new policies are streamlined and flexible, and 
based on an evolutionary or phased acquisition approach. That approach 
emphasizes maturing technology before committing to major investment 
decisions, but also allows fielding some capability earlier. As a 
result, we are able to reduce program technical risk substantially.
    Question. What specific steps has the Department of Defense taken 
to adopt incremental or phased acquisition approaches, such as spiral 
development?
    Answer. In May 2003 Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz 
issued new policies that identify evolutionary acquisition as the 
preferred strategy for satisfying operational needs, and spiral 
development is the preferred process for executing such strategies. 
Their objective is to put capability into the hands of the warfighter 
as quickly as possible, while pursuing an acquisition strategy that 
will permit growth in capabilities over time.
    Question. How will the requirements process, budget process, and 
testing regime change to accommodate spiral development?
    Answer. The new policies governing the Joint Capabilities 
Integration and Development System (the JCIDS process, formerly known 
as the ``requirements'' process), the Acquisition System, and the Test 
and Evaluation process were tailored to facilitate evolutionary 
acquisition.
    Question. How should the Department ensure that incremental or 
phased acquisition programs have appropriate baselines against which to 
measure performance?
    Answer. The policies provide that each program or increment shall 
have an Acquisition Program Baseline establishing program goals--
thresholds and objectives--for the minimum number of cost, schedule, 
and performance parameters that describe the program over its life 
cycle.
    Question. Over the last several years, the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) has prepared a series of reports for this 
Committee comparing DOD's approach to the acquisition of major systems 
with the approach taken by best performers in the private sector. GAO's 
principal conclusion has been that private sector programs are more 
successful, in large part because they consistently require a high 
level of maturity for new technologies before such technologies are 
incorporated into product development programs. The Department has 
responded to these findings by adopting technological maturity goals in 
its acquisition policies.
    How important is it, in your view, for the Department to mature its 
technologies with research and development funds before these 
technologies are incorporated into product development programs?
    Answer. The continued advancement of technologies is essential to 
maintain the operational superiority of our weapon systems. It is very 
important that the proper match between technology maturity and weapon 
system requirements exists.
    Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that 
the key components and technologies to be incorporated into major 
acquisition programs meet the Department's technological maturity 
goals?
    Answer. The framework for accomplishing this is present in the DOD 
acquisition processes--the challenge lies in the program construct and 
in the decisionmaking that must occur at critical milestone points. The 
DOD Science and Technology community develops technology readiness 
assessments for major programs. The challenge is to ensure that these 
technology readiness assessments are properly considered and that 
immature technologies are not pushed forward with major systems. If 
confirmed, I will work to ensure that these issues are debated and 
understood.

                     WEAPONS SYSTEMS AFFORDABILITY

    Question. The investment budget for weapon systems has grown 
substantially over the past few years to approximately $150 billion per 
year. An increasing share of this investment is being allocated to a 
few very large systems such as the Joint Strike Fighter, Future Combat 
Systems, and Missile Defense Agency.
    Do you believe that the current investment budget for major systems 
is affordable given historic cost growth in major systems, costs of 
current operations, Army modularization, and asset recapitalization?
    Answer. Yes, assuming current topline estimates and continuing 
programmed costs in other areas. The Department has been funding most 
major investment programs at more realistic estimates than in the past. 
This is a practice I intend to continue, if confirmed.
    Question. If confirmed, how do you plan to address this issue and 
guard against the potential impact of weapon systems cost growth?
    Answer. The Department must ensure that only those technologies and 
capabilities that are technologically mature are included in new 
platforms. If confirmed, I also intend to work to ensure that program 
requirements are well understood at program initiation, and stabilized 
as much as possible over the long term to guard against ``requirement 
creep.''

                         LEAD SYSTEM INTEGRATOR

    Question. On the Future Combat Systems program and several other 
major defense acquisition programs, the Department has hired a lead 
system integrator to set requirements, evaluate proposals, and 
determine which systems will be incorporated into future weapon 
systems.
    What are your views on the lead system integrator approach to 
managing the acquisition of major weapon systems?
    Answer. I do not have a specific view today. If confirmed, I will 
develop a view on this question. Certainly complex systems are a 
challenge, but the government must remain responsible for overall 
performance requirements and oversight of program execution.
    Question. What lines do you believe the Department should draw 
between those acquisition responsibilities that are inherently 
governmental and those that may be performed by contractors?
    Answer. The rules regarding the performance of inherently 
governmental functions do not vary. The Government retains 
responsibility for the execution of the program, makes all 
requirements, budgeting and policy decisions, and does source 
selections at the prime level.
    Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that 
lead system integrators do not misuse their access to sensitive and 
proprietary information of the Department of Defense and other defense 
contractors?
    Answer. Again, I do not know the details of this question today, 
but the Department has contract terms, backed up by law and regulation, 
that govern what a prime contractor can do with information gained in 
the performance of a contract. Likewise, the subcontract arrangement 
established between the prime and subcontractor contains provisions 
that protect the subcontractor's information from misuse. If confirmed, 
I will develop a view on this question.
    Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that 
lead system integrators do not unnecessarily limit competition in a 
manner that would disadvantage the government or potential competitors 
in the private sector?
    Answer. This is a concern that arises in many programs as the 
defense industrial base becomes more concentrated. It is not an issue 
particular to contracts using lead system integrators. The Department 
is dealing with the issue by expanding the use of authorities, 
inserting a ``Consent to Subcontract'' clause, consenting to 
subcontracts the prime intends to award, and getting significant 
insight into the subcontractor source selection process.

                        MULTI-YEAR PROCUREMENTS

    Question. Providing a stable funding profile for defense programs 
is absolutely essential to effective program management and 
performance, for both DOD and the defense industry. One already-tested 
means of increasing program funding stability is the use of multi-year 
contracts.
    What are your views on multi-year procurements? Under what 
circumstances do you believe they should be used?
    Answer. In general, I favor multi-year procurements that offer 
substantial savings through improved economies in production processes, 
better use of industrial facilities, and a reduction in the 
administrative burden in the placement and administration of contracts. 
A key factor in the successful use of multi-year procurements is the 
intelligent selection of the programs. The following criteria should be 
used for deciding whether a program should be considered for multi-year 
application: substantial savings when compared to the annual 
contracting methods; validity and stability of the mission need; 
stability of the funding; stability of the configuration; tolerable 
associated technical risks; degree of confidence in estimates of both 
contract costs and anticipated savings; and promotion of national 
security.
    Question. Under what circumstances, if any, should DOD break a 
multi-year procurement contract?
    Answer. Given careful screening of programs prior to awarding the 
multi-year contract, there should be limited circumstances that would 
result in the breaking (i.e., cancellation) of a multi-year contract. 
However, changes in the view of the criteria above can happen in a 
rapidly changing world. Those changes will have to be considered.
    Question. How would you treat proposals to renegotiate multi-year 
procurements?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would treat proposals to renegotiate multi-
year procurements very cautiously to ensure that the changing 
circumstances dictate the need for change.

                                LEASING

    Question. Over the last several years, there has been much debate 
concerning the leasing of capital equipment to be used by the military 
services. Advocates of leasing capital equipment have argued that 
leases can enable the Department to obtain new equipment without 
significant upfront funding. Opponents of such leases have argued that 
this approach shifts today's budget problems to future generations, 
limiting the flexibility of future leaders to address emerging national 
security issues.
    What are your views on leasing of capital equipment, and under what 
circumstances, if any, do you believe such leasing is a viable 
mechanism for providing capabilities to the Department?
    Answer. Leasing of capital equipment could be a potential option 
when the equipment is truly commercially available outside of DOD and 
can meet the requirements established by the Office of Management and 
Budget. If confirmed, I would address any leasing proposals in 
objective fashion.
    Question. What do you believe were the major problems with the 
tanker lease proposal?
    Answer. My views on the tanker lease proposal as Director of PA&E 
are now a matter of public record. The proposal has been critiqued by a 
series of independent reviewers--including the Congressional Budget 
Office, the Congressional Research Service, the National Defense 
University, the Government Accountability Office, and the Department of 
Defense Inspector General.
    Question. What lessons do you believe the Department of Defense 
should learn from the failed effort to lease tanker aircraft?
    Answer. Perhaps the most compelling lesson learned from the tanker 
lease process is that the acquisition of major defense systems is the 
people's process. The undertaking of such a momentous program must be 
fully transparent and consider the concerns of all the relevant 
stakeholders. If confirmed, I would continue to work to ensure that the 
lessons learned are incorporated into the training, education, and 
business processes of the Department.

                          SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

    Question. Problems with computer software have caused significant 
delays and cost overruns in a number of major defense programs. Section 
804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 
required DOD to establish a program to improve software acquisition 
processes.
    What is the status of DOD's efforts to improve software development 
in major weapon systems?
    Answer. I do not have direct experience in this area. However, I 
would be pleased to work with Congress on this issue, if confirmed.
    Question. What additional steps would you take, if confirmed, to 
address delays and cost overruns associated with problems in the 
development of software for major weapon systems?
    Answer. I understand the importance and challenge in this area and, 
if confirmed, would develop a better understanding of the Department's 
current effort and my own view of appropriate next steps.

                        ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

    Question. When a required capability is defined, one method to 
ensure that capability is provided in the most cost-effective manner is 
through the conduct of an analysis of alternatives. This analysis not 
only helps to present alternatives, but also assists in the 
determination of key performance parameters and the threshold and 
objective values of these parameters.
    Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe it is appropriate 
for the Department to proceed with the acquisition of a major system 
without first conducting an analysis of alternatives?
    Answer. The Department's Acquisition Policy requires the completion 
of an analysis of alternatives prior to the initiation of any major 
system acquisition. This is a sound business practice.
    Question. If confirmed, what would be your position on conducting 
analyses of alternatives for the programs for which you would be the 
Milestone Decision Authority?
    Answer. If confirmed, my duties as Under Secretary for Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics and the Defense Acquisition Executive would 
include management of the Department's formal acquisition process. The 
analysis of alternatives is a requirement under that process, and I 
would support it.

                           RAPID ACQUISITION

    Question. Section 811 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 gave the Secretary of Defense 
new authority to waive certain statutes and regulations where necessary 
to acquire equipment that is urgently needed to avoid combat 
fatalities.
    What plans do you have, if confirmed, to use the rapid acquisition 
authority provided by section 811?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would use the authority only if and when it 
becomes necessary to acquire equipment that is urgently needed to avoid 
combat fatalities.
    Question. Do you believe that the Department has the authority and 
flexibility it needs to rapidly acquire products needed to avoid combat 
fatalities? If not, what additional authority or flexibility do you 
believe is needed?
    Answer. I do not have direct experience in this area. However, I 
would be pleased to work with Congress on this issue, if confirmed.
    Question. When the Department acquires equipment under section 811 
or other authority without first undertaking full operational testing 
and evaluation, what steps do you believe the Department should take to 
ensure the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of the equipment?
    Answer. The QDR business practices team will look to determine how 
to ensure that the sound aspects of the current acquisition approach--
operational testing, ensuring the long-term effectiveness and 
sustainability of the equipment, etc.--are incorporated into follow-on 
efforts to better ensure that equipment obtained under the provision of 
rapid acquisition works and is supported.

                          SERVICES CONTRACTING

    Question. Over the past decade, there has been a dramatic increase 
in the volume of services purchased by the Department of Defense. At 
the request of the committee, the GAO has compared DOD's practices for 
the management of services contracts to the practices of best 
performers in the private sector. GAO concluded that leading companies 
have achieved significant savings by insisting upon greater visibility 
and management over their services contracts and by conducting so-
called ``spend'' analyses to find more efficient ways to manage their 
services contractors. Section 801 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2002 required DOD to move in this direction. While 
DOD has initiated efforts to establish a management structure and 
leverage its purchasing power, such efforts remain in various stages of 
implementation.
    What is the status of these efforts and do you believe the 
Department is providing appropriate stewardship over services 
contracts?
    Answer. As Director of PA&E, I have not been involved in these 
efforts. I understand that a number of efforts are underway, but have 
not reviewed them personally. If confirmed, I look forward to working 
on this area.
    Question. Do you believe that the Department should conduct a 
comprehensive analysis of its spending on contract services, as 
recommended by GAO?
    Answer. As Director of PA&E, I have not been involved in these 
efforts. I understand that a number of efforts are underway, but have 
not reviewed them personally. If confirmed, I look forward to working 
on this area.
    Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to improve the 
Department's management of its contracts for services?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would develop an approach to managing this 
set of issues.
    Question. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the 
Department of Defense have long agreed that Federal agencies could 
achieve significant savings and improved performance by moving to 
``performance-based services contracting'' or ``PBSC''. Most recently, 
the Army Environmental Program informed the committee that it has 
achieved average savings of 27 percent over a period of several years 
as a result of moving to fixed-price, performance-based contracts for 
environmental remediation. Section 802 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, as amended, establishes 
performance goals for increasing the use of PBSC in DOD service 
contracts.
    What is the status of the Department's efforts to increase the use 
of PBSC in its services contracts?
    Answer. I do not have direct experience in this area. However, I 
would be pleased to work with Congress on this issue, if confirmed.
    Question. What additional steps do you believe the Department needs 
to take to increase the use of PBSC and meet the goals established in 
section 802?
    Answer. As Director of PA&E, I have not been involved in these 
efforts. I understand that a number of efforts are underway, but have 
not reviewed them personally. If confirmed, I look forward to working 
on this area.

                        INTERAGENCY CONTRACTING

    Question. GAO recently placed interagency contracting--the use by 
one agency of contracts awarded by other agencies--on its list of high-
risk programs and operations. While interagency contracts provide a 
much-needed, simplified method for procuring commonly used goods and 
services, GAO has found that the dramatic growth of interagency 
contracts, the failure to clearly allocate responsibility between 
agencies, and the incentives created by fee-for-services arrangements, 
have combined to expose the Department of Defense and other Federal 
agencies to the risk of significant abuse and mismanagement. The DOD 
Inspector General and the GSA Inspector General have identified a long 
series of problems with interagency contracts, including lack of 
acquisition planning, inadequate competition, excessive use of time and 
materials contracts, improper use of expired funds, inappropriate 
expenditures, and failure to monitor contractor performance. We 
understand that DOD, in conjunction with the General Services 
Administration and the Office of Management and Budget, is taking a 
number of actions to improve training and guidance on the use of this 
contract approach.
    If confirmed, what steps would you take to monitor and evaluate the 
effectiveness of the actions currently underway or planned regarding 
DOD's use of other agencies' contracts?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would continue the efforts underway, such 
as the January 1, 2005 policy on the ``Proper Use of Non-DOD 
Contracts.'' Adequate data must be obtained so that DOD and the 
assisting agencies know which DOD activities are utilizing non-DOD 
contracts to meet their needs and to specifically identify what the 
assisting agencies are acquiring on our behalf. I would also continue 
the coordination between OSD and the assisting agencies (i.e., GSA, 
Interior, Treasury, and NASA) to ensure that: (1) acquisitions are 
compliant with all procurement regulations; (2) assisting agencies are 
properly motivated to provide support to DOD; (3) training is available 
to all members of the acquisition workforce (DOD and Assisting 
Agencies); and (4) accurate acquisition data is captured for future 
analysis.
    Question. Do you believe additional authority or measures are 
needed to hold DOD or other agency personnel accountable for their use 
of interagency contracts?
    Answer. Given what I know today, I believe the authority and 
regulations are sufficient in terms of accountability.
    Question. Do you believe contractors have any responsibility for 
assuring that the work requested by personnel is within the scope of 
their contract?
    Answer. The primary responsibility for ensuring work is within the 
scope of a contract rests with the contracting officer, but contractors 
have some responsibility in the process. If a contractor receives an 
order but has concerns about whether the service or item of supply 
ordered is within scope of the contract, the contractor should bring 
its concerns to the contracting officer. This should prompt the 
contracting officer to confirm the validity of the order.
    Question. Do you believe that DOD's continued heavy reliance on 
outside agencies to do award and manage contracts on its behalf is a 
sign that the Department has failed to adequately staff its own 
acquisition system?
    Answer. I do not have direct experience in this area. However, I 
would be pleased to work with Congress on this issue, if confirmed.

                            ``BUY AMERICA''

    Question. ``Buy America'' issues have been the source of 
considerable controversy in recent years. As a result, there have been 
a number of legislative efforts to place restrictions on the purchase 
of defense products from foreign sources.
    What benefits do you believe the Department obtains from 
international participation in the defense industrial base?
    Answer. International sales, purchases, and licensed production 
promote international defense cooperation and contribute to operational 
interoperability and promote cost savings. These arrangements 
rationalize the defense equipment supplier base to achieve the greatest 
efficiency in equipping our collective forces.
    Question. Under what conditions, if any, would you support the 
imposition of domestic source restrictions for a particular product?
    Answer. In certain instances involving national security and the 
preservation of a key defense technology or production capability, 
domestic source restrictions may be necessary.

                      THE DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE

    Question. What is your view of the current state of the U.S. 
defense industrial base?
    Answer. Overall, U.S. defense systems lead the world, and the U.S. 
industry that develops and builds them continues to be the most 
technologically innovative, capable, and responsive in the world. 
Nevertheless, there are and will always be challenges the Department 
must address. If confirmed, I would work within the Department and with 
Congress to address them.
    Question. Do you support further consolidation of the U.S. defense 
industry?
    Answer. There should be no blanket policy of encouraging or 
discouraging further consolidation or divestiture. Each proposed 
transaction must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in the context of 
the individual market, the changing dynamics of that market, and the 
need to preserve competition.
    Question. What is your position on foreign investment in the U.S. 
defense sector?
    Answer. In general, I favor foreign investment in the United 
States, whether for defense industries or non-defense industries, so 
long as the investment does not pose a threat to national security.
    Question. What steps, if any, do you believe the Department of 
Defense should take to ensure the continued health of the U.S. defense 
industrial base?
    Answer. The Department should continue to take actions and make 
decisions that strengthen that portion of the industrial base that 
supports defense. The Department also should continue to focus its 
acquisition strategies, both for development and production, in a 
manner that encourages true competition that drives innovation, 
specifically drawing non-traditional suppliers into the defense 
enterprise.

             ROLE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (AT&L)

    Question. Concerns have been expressed that over time the purview 
of the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for AT&L has been 
diminished. The Department has established a separate set of 
regulations for the acquisition of space systems. The Missile Defense 
Agency has the primary role for missile defense systems and has 
established its own acquisition approach for these systems. Air Force 
acquisition scandals and the use of Other Transaction Authority on the 
Future Combat Systems program have raised questions as to the 
effectiveness of oversight provided by the USD(AT&L).
    Do you believe that the USD(AT&L) has the authority necessary to 
provide effective oversight over major acquisition programs of the 
military departments and defense agencies?
    Answer. At this point, I believe USD(AT&L) has the necessary 
authority for oversight of major defense acquisition programs.
    Question. Do you believe that the USD(AT&L) should have additional 
authority to reverse acquisition decisions of the military departments, 
where the USD(AT&L) believes it is necessary to do so in the public 
interest?
    Answer. At this point, I believe USD(AT&L) has sufficient 
authority.
    Question. In your view, should the Service Acquisition Executives 
report directly to the USD(AT&L)?
    Answer. The current arrangement facilitates a strong tie between 
the SAEs and their other Service leadership, including those 
developing-capability needs. However, if confirmed, I would review this 
issue as well as the reporting authorities for the technology 
developers and the logistics and sustainment communities.
    Question. What role, if any, should the USD(AT&L) perform in the 
oversight and acquisition of joint programs, the acquisition of space 
systems, and missile defense systems?
    Answer. I am aware of the current arrangement for space systems and 
for missile defense systems. If confirmed, I would review these 
relationships.

      OTHER TRANSACTIONS AND COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCUREMENT STRATEGY

    Question. In recent years, the military departments have attempted 
to acquire several major defense systems--such as the Air Force KC-767 
tankers, the C-130J aircraft, and the Future Combat System--through 
novel techniques and approaches such as Other Transaction Agreements 
(OTAs) and commercial item designations. OTAs and commercial item 
contracts exclude a number of statutory requirements--such as the Truth 
in Negotiations Act and the Cost Accounting Standards--that were 
intended for the protection of the taxpayer in the acquisition of major 
weapon systems.
    What is your view on the use OTAs or commercial item contracts to 
acquire major weapon systems? Under what circumstances, if any, do you 
believe that such acquisitions would be appropriate?
    Answer. Section 845 Prototype OTAs provide a valuable acquisition 
tool under very limited circumstances. It is important to limit use of 
the OTA authority to remain within the parameters of the original 
intent.
    Question. If you believe that it may be appropriate to use OTAs or 
commercial item contracts to acquire major weapon systems, what steps 
should be taken to protect the public interest when using these 
techniques?
    Answer. This is an area I would need to examine in more detail if 
confirmed.
   procurement fraud, integrity, and contractor responsibility issues
    Question. The recent Air Force acquisition scandal has raised 
concerns about the adequacy of mechanisms to uphold procurement 
integrity and prevent contract fraud.
    What is your view of the adequacy of the tools and authorities 
available to DOD to ensure that its contractors are responsible and 
have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics?
    Answer. I believe we have adequate tools and authorities to ensure 
the responsibility and ethical behavior of DOD contractors. We must 
constantly reinforce the conviction that such behavior is critically 
important and must be led from the top.
    Question. Are current ``revolving door'' statutes effective?
    Answer. I believe the revolving door statutes are sufficient.
    Question. What tools, other than law enforcement measures, could be 
used to help prevent procurement fraud and ethical misconduct?
    Answer. Some of the tools available include ensuring that decisions 
are made at lower, more appropriate levels; no employee remains without 
supervision for extended periods of time; no employee makes a large 
proportion of source selection and other decisions; and employees, 
especially senior ones, are evaluated on the ethics they display in 
their dealings with industry, within the Department, and with their 
subordinates.
    Question. Are there sufficient enforcement mechanisms in place to 
ensure compliance with laws and regulations?
    Answer. Mechanisms exist, but culture must also be changed. 
Training, emphasizing ethics in all our dealings and empowering 
employees to speak out in the face of apparent unethical behavior are 
key steps to ensure compliance with laws and regulations.

                         ACQUISITION WORKFORCE

    Question. Over the last decade, DOD has reduced the size of its 
acquisition workforce by almost half, without undertaking any 
systematic planning or analysis to ensure that it would have the 
specific skills and competencies needed to meet DOD's current and 
future needs. Additionally, more than half of DOD's current workforce 
will be eligible for early or regular retirement in the next 5 years. 
While DOD has started the process of planning its long-term workforce 
needs, GAO reports that the Department does not yet have a 
comprehensive strategic workforce plan needed to guide its efforts.
    What are the critical skills, capabilities, and tools that you 
believe DOD's workforce needs for the future? If confirmed, what steps 
would you take to ensure that the workforce would, in fact, possess 
them?
    Answer. The Department must aggressively plan for a motivated and 
agile acquisition workforce whose capability is built on the 
foundations of integrity, effective policy execution, mission focus, 
and business excellence. If confirmed, I would aggressively lead and 
promote department-wide strategies and programs to ensure that we have 
the right acquisition, technology, and logistics workforce skills, 
capabilities and tools to support statutory, policy and warfighter 
requirements.
    Question. Do you agree that the Department needs a comprehensive 
human capital plan, including a gap analysis and specific recruiting, 
retention and training goals, to guide the development of its 
acquisition workforce?
    Answer. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
is leading department-wide efforts to ensure comprehensive human 
capital planning and programs are in place at the department and 
component level. If confirmed as the Under Secretary of Defense, 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, I would support those efforts, 
and in particular, ensure that targeted human capital planning and 
programs for the AT&L workforce across the components are effective and 
aligned with AT&L strategy and guidance.
    Question. Do you believe that DOD's workforce is large enough to 
perform the tasks assigned to it? Do you support congressionally-
mandated cuts to the acquisition workforce, and do you think further 
cuts are necessary?
    Answer. This issue deserves further examination. If confirmed, I 
look forward to working with the committee to understand the demand for 
acquisition personnel and to appropriately size the workforce.
    Question. Has the Department had difficulty in attracting and 
retaining new staff to come into the acquisition workforce? If so, what 
steps do you think are necessary to attract talented new hires?
    Answer. The Department has succeeded in attracting and retaining 
new acquisition workforce staff within the current economic environment 
and hiring constraints. However, there is a continued need for improved 
flexibilities and improved targeting of certain areas (e.g., 
engineering) to meet acquisition workforce recruiting and retention 
needs. The Department's ability to attract and retain staff with the 
right skill sets will be newly tested with the eventual onset of the 
retirement of a significant percentage of the workforce.
    Question. What are your views regarding assertions that the 
acquisition workforce is losing its technical and management expertise 
and is beginning to rely too much on support contractors, FFRDCs, and, 
in some cases, prime contractors for this expertise?
    Answer. The general degradation of technical expertise is not 
limited to the government's workforce. We are seeing problems, 
especially in systems engineering, across the board in government, 
industry, and in the number of students in systems engineering 
curricula. If confirmed, I would work on a range of issues to attract, 
develop, and retain technical expertise in this field.
    Question. What is the appropriate tenure for program managers and 
program executive officers to ensure continuity in major programs?
    Answer. The assignment period for program managers and program 
executive officers must facilitate both continuity and individual 
accountability. Assignments must be of such duration as to allow the 
individual insight into and experience with the program in order to 
make long range decisions that ensure success. If confirmed, I would 
monitor implementation of these tenure requirements to ensure 
continuity in major acquisition programs.

                         LOGISTICS AND SUPPORT
 
   Question. The Department is increasingly relying on civilian 
contractors in combat areas for maintenance and support functions.
    How do you view this trend? Do you believe that the Department has 
drawn a clear and appropriate line between functions that should be 
performed by DOD personnel and functions that may be performed by 
contractors in a combat area?
    Answer. The Department is committed to providing the best possible 
support for our warfighters, and industry continues to provide 
exceptional performance-based support to our weapon systems. However, 
the Department must maintain a clear and appropriate line between 
functions that should be performed by DOD personnel and functions that 
may be performed by contractors in a combat area.
    Question. What is the status of DOD's effort to develop new 
guidance for contractors on the battlefield? Do you believe that this 
guidance, when published, will adequately address the issues raised in 
sections 1205 and 1206 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005?
    Answer. The Department is in the final stages of developing this 
guidance. If confirmed, I would monitor its implementation to ensure it 
adequately addresses the issues raised by Congress.
    Question. Transforming supply chain management will require not 
only process improvements but major investments in technology and 
equipment, ranging from the use of passive Radio Frequency 
Identification (RFID) tags, to improved asset visibility, to procuring 
more trucks, to improve theater distribution.
    What steps do you believe are necessary to improve the management 
of DOD's supply chain?
    Answer. A great deal of good work is underway in this area. 
Effective supply chains begin with a collective understanding of the 
customer--the warfighter, in this case.
    Several steps are necessary for success to continue to improve the 
management of the DOD supply chain such as asset identification and 
tracking, use of RFID technology, condition-based maintenance, 
performance based support from our industry providers, lean maintenance 
in all of the Depots, and integrating the Supply and Distribution folks 
to focus fully on factory-to-fighter.

        ROLE IN THE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC) PROCESS

    Question. If confirmed, you would play a role in the Department's 
preparation of the Secretary's recommended list of base realignments 
and closures, as chairman of the Infrastructure Steering Group to which 
the Joint Cross Service Groups Report, and as a member of the 
Infrastructure Executive Council that also reviews the proposals from 
the military departments.
    If confirmed, what steps would you take to prepare yourself for 
these responsibilities?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would review the deliberative record and 
discuss these actions in great detail with their proponents and with 
the deliberative bodies that reviewed them. As the statutory deadline 
for submission of the Secretary's recommendations is less than 30 days 
away, I expect that my efforts will focus on ensuring the Commission 
has the information it needs to fulfill the responsibilities assigned 
to it by Congress. I would also prepare for the implementation of the 
Commission's recommendations.
    Question. What is your current involvement, if any, in the 
Department's BRAC process?
    Answer. I have not been involved in any part of the development, 
analysis, or approval of recommendations the Secretary may provide to 
the Commission and Congress by the statutory deadline of May 16, 2005.

                         SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

    Question. What, in your view, is the role and value of science and 
technology (S&T) programs in meeting the Department's transformation 
goals and in confronting asymmetric threats?
    Answer. S&T is a cornerstone to both the Department's 
transformation goals and in countering asymmetric threats. The past 
investment of the DOD in science and technology provided the dominant 
capabilities of our conventional forces. Stealth, precision-guided 
munitions, night vision devices, and the global positioning system all 
emerged from DOD laboratories and the S&T program. It is critical to 
continue to develop new capabilities that will enable continued 
dominance of our forces. If confirmed, I believe one of my key 
challenges will be to set a vision and support a program for the 
research and development priorities of the coming generation.
    Question. If confirmed, what direction would you provide regarding 
funding targets and priorities for the Department's long term research 
efforts?
    Answer. A strong S&T program remains central to maintaining our 
dominant operational capability status. Determining the level of 
investment is not a precise science, but a strategic corporate 
decision. I think it is critical to state the level of S&T investment 
needs to be sufficient to allow the Department to continue to develop, 
mature, and affordably field new dominant operational capabilities for 
US and allied forces while maintaining program stability. If confirmed, 
I would place a high priority on achieving adequate funding levels 
aimed at the right priorities.
    Question. The Director of Defense Research and Engineering has been 
designated as the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of the Department of 
Defense.
    In your view, what is the appropriate role of the CTO of the 
Department of Defense?
    Answer. The Department views the roles of CTO and DDR&E as 
synonymous. The DDR&E is the principal staff advisor to the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the 
Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense on research and engineering 
matters.

                         TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION

    Question. The Department's efforts to quickly transition 
technologies to the warfighter have yielded important results in the 
last few years. Challenges remain to institutionalizing the transition 
of new technologies into existing programs of record and major weapons 
systems and platforms. The Department's fiscal year 2006 budget request 
proposes increases across a spectrum of technology transition programs.
    What challenges do you see to technology transition within the 
Department?
    Answer. The Department will need to make wise decisions on research 
and development to ensure we maintain technology superiority over 
potential adversaries. Our acquisition processes must be flexible to 
respond to evolving warfighting requirements and joint solutions that 
do not align easily with Service needs.
    Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to enhance the 
effectiveness of technology transition efforts?
    Answer. Rapid transition of technology from development to 
acquisition does not happen without deliberate effort and adequate 
funding. The research and development process must provide incentives 
to reward rapid delivery of tangible products to the acquisition 
process. If confirmed, I would work to ensure our processes have the 
proper incentives to speed technology transition.

                          TEST AND EVALUATION

    Question. What are your views about the degree of independence 
needed by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation in ensuring 
the success of the Department's acquisition programs?
    Answer. A strong, independent Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation is critical to ensuring the Department's acquisition 
programs are realistically and adequately tested in their intended 
operational environment. If confirmed, I expect to seek the advice of 
the DOT&E on testing and evaluation issues.
    Question. Are you concerned with the level of test and evaluation 
conducted by the contractors who are developing the systems to be 
tested?
    Answer. I do not have direct experience in this area. However, I 
would be pleased to work with Congress on this issue, if confirmed.
    Question. What is the impact of rapid fielding requirements on the 
standard testing process?
    Answer. I do not have direct experience in this area. However, I 
would be pleased to work with Congress on this issue, if confirmed.
    Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2003 included several provisions to improve the management of DOD test 
and evaluation facilities.
    What has been done to implement these provisions?
    Answer. This is not an area in which I have had much personal 
involvement. If confirmed, I expect to be actively engaged in the 
strategic management of the Department's test and evaluation 
facilities.
    Question. Do you believe that the Department should take any 
additional steps to improve the management of its test and evaluation 
facilities?
    Answer. I do not have direct experience in this area. However, I 
would be pleased to work with Congress on this issue, if confirmed.
    Question. As systems grow more sophisticated, networked, and 
software-intensive, DOD's ability to test and evaluate these systems 
becomes more difficult. Some systems-of-systems cannot be tested as a 
whole until they are already bought and fielded.
    Are you concerned with DOD's ability to test such new weapons?
    Answer. The Department's ``Testing in a Joint Environment Roadmap'' 
defines the changes that will position T&E capabilities to fully 
support adequate T&E of new warfighting capabilities. If confirmed, I 
would oversee implementation of this Roadmap, which outlines an 
approach to link geographically distributed test facilities, 
laboratories, and ranges to create more realistic test environments.

                       BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

    Question. The fielding of initial elements of the Ground-Based 
Midcourse Defense system has begun as part of the ballistic missile 
defense test bed and for use in an emergency. In accordance with 
section 234 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2005, the system has not yet been subject to the 
operational test and evaluation process applicable to other major 
weapon systems.
    What role do you believe independent operational test and 
evaluation should play in ensuring that the Ground-Based Midcourse 
Defense system will work in an operationally effective manner?
    Answer. DOD is committed to conducting operationally realistic 
testing of our missile defense program. Our test program has become 
more robust and realistic over time. I expect that this trend will 
continue. I also understand that in November 2004 the Director of OT&E 
(DOT&E) approved the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) Integrated Master 
Test Program and that he will continue to work closely with MDA to 
ensure an increasingly operationally realistic test program.
    Question. What steps do you believe should be taken to ensure that 
ground-based interceptors will work in an operationally effective 
manner?
    Answer. The ground-based interceptors are designed to be 
operationally effective and the testing to date has demonstrated the 
basic hit to kill functionality. The recent test failures indicated a 
need for more component qualification testing and a more robust 
approach to quality control. Steps have been taken by the Director of 
the Missile Defense Agency to address these shortfalls. DOD expects a 
return to a robust flight program will occur this year to demonstrate 
the interceptor's effectiveness with operationally realistic tests 
agreed upon by the DOT&E.
    Question. The Ballistic Missile Defense System is being developed 
and fielded by the Missile Defense Agency using Research, Development, 
Test, and Engineering funds.
    Question. At what point do you believe that elements of the system 
should transition to the military departments and procurement funds?
    Answer. I have not addressed this issue specifically in my current 
positions. However, in general, my sense is that systems should 
transition to the military departments and utilize procurement funds 
when the design is stable, tested and ready for production. Until that 
time, systems should remain in RDT&E where greater flexibility is 
available to make necessary and appropriate changes to the design. If 
confirmed, I would address these issues over time.
    Question. Do you believe that the Department should be developing 
specific plans for this transition now?
    Answer. Each of the individual missile defense program elements is 
in a different stage of its development; consequently, some are much 
more mature than others. I support close collaboration between the 
Missile Defense Agency and the military departments so the Department 
can understand the costs, logistics, and other implications of 
transitioning missile defense capabilities to better prepare for 
transition.

                        NUCLEAR WEAPONS COUNCIL

    Question. If confirmed as Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, you will chair the Nuclear 
Weapons Council (NWC).
    In your view, what are or should be the highest priorities of the 
NWC?
    Answer. The NWC should help develop capabilities appropriate for 
21st century threats; support a range of activities such as studies on 
potential weapon concepts; and revitalize the nuclear weapon R&D and 
production infrastructure.
    Question. What improvements, if any, do you believe should be made 
to the operations of the NWC?
    Answer. I would not suggest any immediate changes to the operations 
of the NWC. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the members of 
the council to identify improvements, if any.

                      CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION

    Question. There are significant problems with the management and 
implementation of the DOD chemical weapons demilitarization program. 
Congress has become increasingly concerned that the Department does not 
appear to be on track to eliminate its chemical weapons in accordance 
with the Chemical Weapons Convention timelines.
    What steps is the Department taking to ensure that the U.S. remains 
in compliance with its treaty obligations for chemical weapons 
destruction?
    Answer. My understanding is that if the Chemical Demilitarization 
Program continues on its current path, the United States will not meet 
the Convention's extended 100 percent destruction deadline of April 29, 
2012. Accordingly, the Department has requested that alternative 
approaches be developed to evaluate whether the deadline can be met 
using a different approach.
    Question. Do you agree that the United States should make every 
effort to meet its treaty commitments, including its obligations under 
the Chemical Weapons Convention?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Can you assure the committee that you will focus your 
personal attention on this matter?
    Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I would ensure appropriate efforts are 
applied to comply with our international treaty obligations in a safe, 
secure, timely, and cost effective manner.

                         SMALL BUSINESS ISSUES

    Question. For the last two decades, the Department of Defense has 
been subject to statutory goals for contracting with small businesses 
and minority small businesses.
    Do you believe that these goals serve a valid and useful purpose in 
the Department of Defense contracting system?
    Answer. Yes, the overall small business goals serve a worthwhile 
purpose by focusing top DOD leadership attention on small business 
matters and serving as a stimulus for continuous improvement to the DOD 
Small Business Program.
    Question. DOD has a number of programs to improve small business 
participation in defense contracts. These include, among others, the 
so-called ``rule of two'' which provides that if two or more small 
businesses are capable of performing a contract, competition will be 
limited to small business, the Section 8(a) program, and the DOD 
mentor-protege program.
    In your judgment, how could the overall DOD small business program 
be improved to ensure that it is providing the right results for the 
Department in meeting its acquisition needs?
    Answer. I do not have a preconceived view. If confirmed, I would 
work to understand would steps should be taken.
    Question. Over the last several years, representatives of the small 
business community have been increasingly critical of the Department of 
Defense for ``bundling'' contracts together into larger contracts, 
which, in their view, tend to preclude small businesses from competing.
    What is your view of contract ``bundling''?
    Answer. I do not have direct experience in this area. However, I 
would be pleased to work with Congress on this issue, if confirmed.
    Question. Do you believe that there is a value to having small 
businesses contract directly with the Federal Government, rather than 
being relegated to the role of subcontractors?
    Answer. I believe there is great value in small businesses 
providing the opportunity to contract directly with the Federal 
Government.
    Question. The Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program 
accounts for approximately $1 billion in defense research grants 
annually.
    In your view, are modifications needed to the Department's SBIR 
program to ensure that the program is meeting Department of Defense 
research goals?
    Answer. I do not have direct experience in this area. However, I 
would be pleased to work with Congress on this issue, if confirmed.
    Question. If confirmed, what emphasis would you place on 
participation by the acquisition community in setting research 
priorities for SBIR?
    Answer. I do not have a preconceived vision and, if confirmed, 
would look into this issue.

                        CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information.
    Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before 
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views, 
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
    Answer. I will always be prepared to offer my best professional 
judgment.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

               Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner

                       JOINT ACQUISITION PROGRAMS

    1. Senator Warner. Mr. Krieg, many of the Department's future 
requirements will require solutions that involve the participation by 
more than one Service. How can so-called ``joint'' programs be better 
managed?
    Mr. Krieg. I do not have a detailed action agenda for this critical 
question today, but, if confirmed, look forward to working with 
Congress and, in particular, this committee on this important subject. 
I would observe, however, that there has been a shift in the 
understanding of ``demand and supply'' in the years since Goldwater-
Nichols as the Department has more fully appreciated the importance and 
implications of joint warfighting. A critical aspect of managing joint 
programs will be to better define ``joint demand'' upfront. 
Understanding and planning for joint warfighting requirements at the 
start of the acquisition process will prove less costly than trying to 
retrofit ``jointness'' into weapons systems that are close to fielding. 
I also believe the Department should evaluate existing and new 
processes for better managing efforts at the seams or traditional 
Service roles, an examination that is under way in the business 
practices section of the Quadrennial Defense Review.

    2. Senator Warner. Mr. Krieg, should the Services conduct more 
joint development, for example, in the area of helicopters and unmanned 
systems?
    Mr. Krieg. The Department already is considering joint efforts in 
these two areas, and I believe the opportunity to increase focused 
joint development exists. The challenge will be to define the joint 
requirements clearly and comprehensively at program inception and to 
manage the development phase of joint programs to ensure that an 
appropriate balance of performance, schedule, and cost is achieved.

     FUNDING AND REQUIREMENTS INSTABILITY IN MAJOR WEAPON SYSTEMS 
                              ACQUISITION

    3. Senator Warner. Mr. Krieg, the Packard Commission found that 
``weapon systems take too long and cost too much to produce'' and 
blamed ``chronic instability'' in funding and overstated requirements. 
Twenty years later, major weapon systems programs are still plagued by 
funding and requirements instability which drives up the costs and 
delays the eventual fielding of new systems. How should the Department 
of Defense (DOD) maintain funding and requirements stability in its 
weapon systems programs?
    Mr. Krieg. Many of the Packard Commission's insights are relevant 
today. I believe that maintaining funding and requirements stability in 
weapon systems programs requires discipline on numerous fronts--in the 
requirements process, in trade-offs between cost and performance, in 
unambiguous lines of authority, in firm internal agreements on 
baselines, etc. Exercising this discipline requires commitment across 
the Federal Government over time. If confirmed, I look forward to 
working with this committee to develop the discipline and processes 
that will help keep the programs on track.

          ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE ACQUISITION SYSTEM

    4. Senator Warner. Mr. Krieg, the recent Air Force acquisition 
scandal has raised concerns about the adequacy of safeguards to ensure 
the integrity of the procurement system. There are those who suggest 
that Congress should strengthen ``revolving door'' and ethics statutes. 
What do you think is needed to restore credibility and trust in the 
acquisition system that has been lost from this scandal?
    Mr. Krieg. As a guiding principle, I believe we owe the taxpayers 
who fund the Department, and the warfighters who rely on our efforts, 
the commitment to and continual reinforcement of the highest ethical 
standards. Ultimately, only leadership and accountability will restore 
and sustain credibility and trust. If confirmed, this will be one of my 
highest priorities.

                       FORCE PROTECTION PROGRAMS

    5. Senator Warner. Mr. Krieg, over the past several years, the 
Department, with the assistance of Congress, has spent billions of 
dollars on force protection programs such as Interceptor Body Armor, 
up-armored high mobility multipurpose vehicles and counter-improvised 
explosive device measures. If confirmed, how do you intend to ensure 
that our armed services continue to receive effective force protection 
equipment in a more timely manner?
    Mr. Krieg. Procuring equipment to meet emerging warfighting 
requirements is challenging on four fronts. First, prompt response to 
emerging threats requires the defense community to anticipate future 
needs and have options in development. Second, the Department must 
shorten the identification cycle: needs (demand) must be translated 
into programs as rapidly as possible. Third, the supply system must be 
agile enough to respond to new demands on short notice. Fourth, 
effective feedback mechanisms are needed to evaluate the usefulness of 
these items when they reach the field and measure whether they are 
meeting the threat as designed. As part of the Quadrennial Defense 
Review, the Department is studying how to enable the acquisition system 
to respond quickly to emerging warfighting requirements. If confirmed, 
I intend to work with the committee to ensure the warfighter will 
receive effective force protection equipment in a timely manner.

             JOINT IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICES TASK FORCE

    6. Senator Warner. Mr. Krieg, the Department established a Joint 
Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) Task Force as a means to quickly 
develop tactics, techniques, and procedures and to field IED-
countermeasures quickly to provide force protection to our soldiers and 
marines. If confirmed, what recommendations will you make to improve 
the functioning of the Joint IED Task Force to make it responsive to 
the warfighters?
    Mr. Krieg. As Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation, I have 
followed only broadly the work of the IED Task Force and provided staff 
support to the effort. I believe this Task Force is an effective forum 
for bringing emerging warfighting requirements to the attention of 
senior leaders, but success in this endeavor is also dependent on the 
Department's ability to better anticipate future threats, identify 
programs to meet them, and manage supplier relationships to ensure 
items can be quickly produced and delivered. If confirmed, I look 
forward to the challenges of making the Department's business processes 
work more effectively to ensure they are responsive to emerging 
warfighting requirements.
                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Senator James M. Inhofe

                          ACQUISITION TIMELINE

    7. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Krieg, I am very concerned about the length 
of time it takes our country to deploy a new weapon system. Too often 
it takes so long for a new system to go from the cradle to the 
operational field that the world will have changed so dramatically and 
the challenge for which it was designed is no longer the threat that it 
was originally. Or the enemy's application of current technology makes 
the system less lethal than it would have been had the system rolled 
off the line sooner. We have seen one or both of these instances in 
systems such as the Comanche, Crusader, and Wolverine programs, and 
these are just some examples from the Army. I know that DOD recognizes 
this problem as well and the Pentagon has identified processes to 
streamline acquisitions. To improve the process, Congress has 
authorized such programs as Fast Track, Spiral Development, and special 
dispensation for the purchase of products with commercial applications. 
How do we get fully operational weapons systems into the hands of the 
warfighter in a quicker and still cost effective manner? What do we 
need to do to make this happen?
    Mr. Krieg. With the support of Congress, the Department has 
initiated a number of programs to speed the identification and delivery 
of material to the warfighter.
    The following existing initiatives are reducing acquisition cycle 
time:

         The Joint Staff expedites the processes by which 
        Urgent Operational Needs are identified and transitioned into a 
        materiel or logistics solution.
         The Army's Rapid Equipping Force (REF) provides much 
        needed force protection equipment to personnel serving in Iraq 
        and Afghanistan.
         The Army's Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI) equips 
        soldiers in CONUS with all the necessary items they will need 
        in the Area of Operations. These items are continually updated 
        as the needs change.
         The Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell (JRAC) addresses the 
        bureaucratic impediments that slow the Department's ability to 
        meet urgent materiel and logistics solutions for the combatant 
        commanders.
         The Department is accelerating fielding S&T 
        developments to the warfighter via the Combating Terrorism 
        Technology Task Force (CTTTF) process that quickly identifies 
        emerging technologies in response to operator needs and 
        provides funding for rapid prototyping, testing, and 
        evaluation.
         The Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTD) 
        program rapidly develops, demonstrates, and fields new 
        technological capabilities and complementary concept of 
        operations to the warfighter in response to Joint Requirements 
        Oversight Council (JROC) validated joint requirements.

    In the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the Department is 
reviewing acquisition procedures to develop an integrated process with 
reduced cycle time. If any additional statutory changes prove necessary 
the Department will request those changes in its QDR report to 
Congress. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress on this 
important issue.

                      ACQUISITION WORKFORCE SIZING

    8. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Krieg, Michael Wynne, the acting Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L), 
said last week in his prepared statement, ``I believe we are at the 
point where any further reductions beyond the levels of this workforce, 
consistent with the President's 2006 budget request, will adversely 
impact our ability to successfully execute a growing workload.'' I 
agree with Mr. Wynne in that we do have quite a workload ahead for our 
acquisitions workforce. With the upcoming weapons systems needed to 
upgrade the capability of an aging and sometimes technologically dated 
air and naval force, especially, there is a lot needed to give our 
young men and women the best tools to protect America's freedom. During 
the Clinton administration, we reduced the size of our acquisitions 
work force. Here we are today bundling program purchases, often because 
we don't have the manpower capability to manage and oversee the 
management of individual purchases, when that would be in our best 
interest. We now have Lead Systems Integrators with contractors being 
hired to manage other contracts, like we have with Boeing overseeing 
the contract for the Army's Future Combat System. Our military, itself, 
cannot even determine if it is getting what it needs when it's 
scheduled, according to contract. We have a contractor do this for our 
military. In light of this, is our acquisitions workforce already 
adversely impacted and preventing us from being successful with a 
growing workload? Has the pendulum already swung too far? What is your 
personal professional opinion?
    Mr. Krieg. I have not worked on this set of issues in my current 
capacity. In general, I am concerned with the eventual generational 
transition that will take place in the Defense workforce and believe 
that the National Security Personnel System offers an opportunity to 
create the right framework for attracting, developing and retaining the 
kind of work force the Department will need. More specifically I 
believe the Department must not only be mindful of the required skills 
and competencies of the workforce, but also ensure the right business 
practices are in place to enable the DOD workforce to perform 
effectively. If confirmed, sizing and managing the acquisition 
workforce would be of my high priorities and I look forward to working 
with this committee to ensure the Department has the right workforce to 
perform its acquisition mission.

                   PRIVATIZATION OF DEPOT FACILITIES

    9. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Krieg, I met recently with Major General 
Terry Gabreski who is the commander of the Tinker Air Logistics Center. 
We discussed a previous visit of mine to the Center, where I saw an 
exceptional partnership between the private and public sector. A 
contractor, Pratt and Whitney, has built a technology center and 
supplies technical expertise, while the military member and Federal 
worker carry out the engine repairs and rebuild. We spoke with the 
contractor, the military, and the union member and all agreed the 
partnership worked out exceptionally well with increased performance 
metrics to show the results. There has been some discussion about 
privatization of depot facilities. This would put the resources to 
repair and overhaul our military equipment, as well as manage our spare 
parts, in the hands of a contractor. Contracting does have a purpose, 
in those areas that are not a part of the military's core competency. 
Repair of our assets and management of our spare parts are clearly 
within the military's core competency. What are your thoughts about 
privatization of depot facilities?
    Mr. Krieg. I do not have a preconceived view on privatization of 
depot facilities, but I agree that the Department must define and 
understand its current and future core competencies. From this 
baseline, the Department should then fund partners who complement and 
supplement its core competencies to ensure success. I am aware that 
there has been some very good progress in developing depot partnerships 
and look forward to learning more about them, if confirmed.

              SMALL BUSINESSES IN THE ACQUISITION PROCESS

    10. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Krieg, small businesses are complaining 
that they are being cut out of contracts because of bundling of 
contracts to larger vendors, etc. DOD complains the cuts in acquisition 
people are forcing these measures. Because there is a concern about 
small businesses being able to participate in the acquisition process, 
depots have small business offices in an effort to help shepherd small 
business through the process. Yet, there doesn't seem to be much 
improvement in this arena. Do you see this is a concern and what can we 
do to enable small business to participate more fully, while still 
getting the newest equipment into the hands of the warfighter in an 
timely manner and safeguarding the American taxpayer?
    Mr. Krieg. I believe that small businesses can be an engine for 
innovation and that the Department should draw on the best that the 
private sector has to offer. In my current capacity, I have not worked 
small business concerns in detail, but, if confirmed, I look forward to 
working with this committee to figure out the best role that small 
businesses can play in meeting the Department's mission.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions

         UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ROADMAP AND EXECUTIVE AGENCY

    11. Senator Sessions. Mr. Krieg, there has been a great deal of 
interest regarding the capabilities and future development of all the 
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) being used or under development by DOD. 
These platforms are saving lives in Iraq and the Services have been 
working hard to get as many UAVs with as much capability to the 
warfighter as soon as possible. While this fact is to be commended, I 
am deeply concerned about the long-term direction of UAV development 
and acquisition. There have been discussions within DOD about the need 
for an Executive Agent (EA) for UAVs. While the Air Force has seized 
onto this opportunity, recent cost overruns related to Global Hawk and 
other well-publicized acquisition troubles deeply concern me and give 
me reason to pause and question how this process might unfold. I was 
recently briefed on the UAV Roadmap by Ms. Diane Wright and Mr. Dyke 
Weatherington. We had an excellent discussion on how DOD is attempting 
to reign in development of multiple service UAV systems that duplicate 
effort, lead to increased costs and the development of numerous UAVs 
which are not compatible with one another. As the head of the DOD UAV 
Planning Task Force, I am interested in how DOD and the Task Force will 
get control of UAV development and procurement now and in the years to 
come?
    Mr. Krieg. As Director of PA&E, I have not worked on this set of 
issues but look forward to working with the committee, if confirmed. It 
is my understanding that there has been no decision on an Executive 
Agent (EA) within the Department of Defense (DOD) for UAVs. Given the 
wide use of UAVs, multiple Service interests in them, and lessons 
learned from current use, it is prudent to consider carefully the need 
and scope of a UAV ``EA'' or ``EA-like'' leadership. The Joint Staff 
has already started to review this. For UAV development and 
procurement, the DOD UAV Planning Task Force will continue to work with 
the Services and Joint Staff, through the Joint Capabilities 
Integration and Development System process, to field suitable, 
effective, and affordable UAV systems and to integrate them into the 
force. The Department will promote commonality and interoperability 
between its UAV systems and is working toward achieving these goals.

    12. Senator Sessions. Mr. Krieg, I would welcome the opportunity to 
speak to you about this important issue and perhaps we can brainstorm 
how the EA concept might work. Perhaps as Ms. Wright suggested there 
might be two EAs: one for strategic and one for tactical and 
operational. What are your thoughts on the creation of two EAs? 
Regardless, I think we have some work to do to assist the Department as 
we have no resources to waste.
    Mr. Krieg. If confirmed, I look forward to a discussion with you on 
this important topic. In the business practices section of the 
Quadrennial Defense Review, the Department will be looking at the 
concept of executive agency for managing efforts at the seams of 
traditional Service roles. Several variations on the concept of 
executive agency are already at work inside the Department. The QDR 
analysis will also examine these various models to recommend best 
practices given the variety of tasks executive agents are assigned to 
accomplish.

                          JOINT COMMON MISSILE

    13. Senator Sessions. Mr. Krieg, I am very concerned about the 
decision to cancel the Joint Common Missile (JCM) program that was 
contained in PBD-753. The JCM is a next generation weapon system being 
developed for our advanced aircraft (F/A-22, Joint Strike Fighter, and 
Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (J-UCAS)) coming on line in the next 
few years. The Services and the DOD have spoken consistently since the 
global war on terror started about how important joint operations are 
and how all new systems must be joint from their inception. The JCM 
meets this requirement! Unfortunately, the rhetoric of the Department 
in regards to being committed to joint weapon systems, like the JCM, 
does not match the decision to cancel the program. Please explain to me 
why this missile was cut in the PBD and why it should not be restored 
in the budget?
    Mr. Krieg. The Department cancelled JCM after a review by members 
of the Senior Level Review Group (Deputy Secretary, Chairman, Vice 
Chairman, Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Secretary and 
Chief of Staff of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, Chief of Naval 
Operations, Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Under Secretaries of 
Defense) of strategic priorities, technical risks, and affordability. 
As demonstrated in OIF and OEF, current joint capabilities against 
vehicles and fixed targets are very good, and several new precision 
munitions to attack moving and fixed ground targets are in development. 
The Hellfire II--a joint Army, Navy, and Marine Corps program--worked 
well in OIF and is still in production. The Air Force is refurbishing 
Mavericks (a joint program) and developing the Small Diameter Bomb 
(SDB) increment II to field the same capabilities as JCM for fixed-wing 
aircraft. Further, the JCM faced technical risks because of the 
difficulty in combining three sensors into a single device, and 
financial risks as its independent estimates of procurement and RDT&E 
costs were higher than the Services' estimates.
                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Senator Saxby Chambliss

                      DEPOTS AND CORE CAPABILITIES

    14. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Krieg, one of my concerns since I've 
been in Congress has been how DOD defines ``core'' relative to the type 
of and amount of work we need to ensure remains in our DOD depots and 
logistics facilities. I've also been extremely concerned as I've seen 
DOD recommend and approve total system support contracts and contractor 
provided logistics operations for entire weapon systems. This was 
initially the way we went with the C-17 program, and part of DOD's now 
defunct tanker lease proposal was to give Boeing a non-competed, 
totally commercial, $5 billion maintenance contract for those 
airplanes. What is your view on DOD's role in maintaining a robust, up-
to-date, maintenance and logistics function within the Department of 
Defense?
    Mr. Krieg. At this time I do not have a detailed answer to your 
question. If confirmed, I will look into this issue in greater detail 
and be ready to discuss it further. I do offer a couple of ingoing 
principles that may shape my views.
    I believe that DOD needs to be precise in what it identifies as 
core competency. DOD must certainly be great at managing its capital 
asset maintenance and logistics supply chain. I have no ingoing reason 
to question the DOD policy that it will maintain depot maintenance core 
capabilities in Government owned and operated facilities. These 
capabilities provide effective and timely response to surge demands and 
sustain institutional expertise.
    My understanding is that the Department has also built some 
successful public-private partnership models and I look forward, if 
confirmed, to understanding how to achieve the best overall balance of 
support to ensure that we provide our warfighters with the best 
supporting infrastructure that we can.

    15. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Krieg, if confirmed in your new 
position, how will you ensure that DOD does not turn over these 
functions to contractors and allow them to maintain the primary 
expertise or decisionmaking authority regarding how and when our 
airplanes and military hardware are maintained?
    Mr. Krieg. It is important that DOD be great at managing its 
capital asset maintenance and logistics supply chain. If confirmed, I 
will work with the Services to ensure that DOD can provide our 
warfighters with the best supporting infrastructure that we can.
                                 ______
                                 
           Questions Submitted by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman

                                 DARPA

    16. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Krieg, a recent New York Times article 
quotes a spokeswoman from Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 
(DARPA) as stating that ``DARPA is rightly devoting more attention to 
`quick reaction' projects that draw on the fruits of earlier science 
and technology to produce useful prototypes as soon as possible.'' 
Although the need to address immediate issues may exist, this cannot 
replace the basic research efforts that support the future military 
technological advancement. Some of America's leading scientists and 
technology companies' CEOs are expressing deep concern that DARPA has 
abandoned its historic mission to ensure that the U.S. will never be 
taken by technology surprise by focusing on incremental and not 
breakthrough research. What steps are you taking to reverse the short-
term focus that DARPA by numerous accounts is now embarked on?
    Mr. Krieg. The scope of my current responsibility as Director, PA&E 
does not include this area. I have not formed an opinion at this time 
but look forward to working with the Committee, if confirmed. However, 
it is my understanding that DARPA's spokeswoman was not quoted 
accurately in the New York Times article. The statement she gave to the 
reporter on that point reads:

          During periods of active conflict, DARPA adds an additional 
        type of activity--quick reaction projects that take the fruits 
        of previous science and technology investment and very quickly 
        move the technology into a prototype, fieldable system and into 
        the hands of deployed forces. There have been many published 
        articles on some of these technologies. Quick reaction projects 
        are done in addition to DARPA's usual activities, not instead 
        of.

    A review of DARPA's strategic plan and the individual programs and 
projects that DARPA has underway, reveals how ambitious their programs 
are and how revolutionary the results of these programs will be if 
successful.

                             BASIC RESEARCH

    17. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Krieg, at a time when military 
excellence is essential, the Department of Defense's S&T funding is 
down 15.9 percent from last year's appropriated amount. Additionally, 
in recent reports, both the Defense Science Board and the President's 
IT advisory committee commented on DARPA's reduction of support for 
university research. What efforts are you taking to restore this 
funding and specifically to address the cuts in the long-term 
university-based research in the physical sciences?
    Mr. Krieg. On the broader question, the Department has increased 
its requests for Science and Technology investment by roughly 33 
percent over the past 4 years. The fiscal year 2006 budget request is 
the same level requested in fiscal year 2005. Given the competing 
demands, the requested amount is what the Department needs to achieve a 
balanced investment overall. In my current role, I have not reviewed 
DARPA's funding, but, if confirmed, I plan to look into this important 
matter.

                         SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY

    18. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Krieg, as you are aware, East Asian 
countries are leveraging market forces through their national trade and 
industrial policies to drive the migration of semiconductor 
manufacturing to that region. If this accelerating shift in this 
manufacturing sector overseas continues, the U.S. potentially could 
lose the ability to reliably obtain high-end semiconductor integrated 
circuits. Semiconductors impact every aspect of a warfighter's mission 
including secure communications, smart weapons and precision targeting, 
and navigation and guidance. Specifically, the photomask industry is of 
particular concern especially given that this is the only area in the 
fabrication process where raw data is handled for laying down a complex 
pattern for circuitry. This offshore shift in semiconductor 
manufacturing is occurring at a time when these components are becoming 
an even more crucial defense technology advantage to the United States. 
For example, network centric capability demands ever faster real time 
processing for defense purposes and also because of the increasing need 
for such high-end components in the intelligence communities. Why has 
the research in this area been cut back?
    Mr. Krieg. The scope of my current responsibilities as Director, 
PA&E does not include this area. I have not formed an opinion at this 
time but look forward to working with the committee, if confirmed. 
However, I am told that the Department has partnered with the 
semiconductor industry to support a broad agenda of academic research 
at U.S. universities aimed at sustaining the domestic industry's world 
leadership. The goal is to attract U.S. citizens back into science and 
engineering careers to provide the future workforce for both the 
military and commercial semiconductor needs.

    19. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Krieg, without ongoing research in 
place, how do you plan to mitigate this national security risk and are 
these efforts adequate to fully abate this serious issue?
    Mr. Krieg. I have not reviewed this issue in my current position. 
If confirmed, I will look into the question and develop my view on what 
ought to be the Department's approach.

             DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD REPORT ON SEMICONDUCTORS

    20. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Krieg, the Defense Science Board 
released a report titled `High Performance Microchip Supply' in 
February 2005 listing its recommendations to maintain U.S. 
semiconductor capabilities for national security needs. Specifically, 
the report calls for an overall long-term vision for the future of the 
chip industry; the current foundry agreements only address the short-
term needs, not the structural issue of funding research that will 
sustain our information superiority. When will you deliver a plan to 
implement the recommendations listed in this report?
    Mr. Krieg. The scope of my current responsibilities as Director, 
PA&E does not include this area, and I do not have a preconceived plan 
to implement. If confirmed, I will look into the recommendations of the 
report and develop my view.

                        MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY

    21. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Krieg, the U.S. trade deficit in 
manufactured goods increased $94.5 billion in 2004 from $536 billion 
reported in 2003. Our largest goods deficit is now with China, $162 
billion, an increase of $37.9 billion from 2003. We are running major 
deficits with China in defense critical manufacturing areas, such as 
computer hardware ($25 billion) and electronics machinery and parts 
($23 billion) as U.S. production drifts offshore. We are transferring 
major portions of our circuit board, semiconductor, machine tool, and 
weapon system metal casting manufacturing to China because of low wage 
and production costs. Without productivity breakthroughs, the U.S. 
defense manufacturing base particularly, 2nd and 3rd tier small 
manufacturers will continue to erode. What research efforts are in 
place to address the needed innovation in manufacturing and are these 
efforts adequate to fully abate this serious issue? Specifically, do 
you have a plan to focus DARPA on process innovation?
    Mr. Krieg. At this time I do not have direct experience in this 
area to have a preconceived plan. If confirmed, I will look into the 
question and develop my view on what ought to be the Department's 
approach.
    In the broad sense, the Department of Defense is a relatively small 
player in the overall U.S. economy (about 3.75 percent of the gross 
domestic product), and DOD's leverage within the overall U.S. 
manufacturing sector is limited. Many U.S. industries once dominated by 
DOD demand now are focused on, and dependent on, commercial markets. 
Nevertheless, it is desirable--and absolutely necessary--that the 
Department take the steps necessary to ensure the industrial base on 
which it depends remains sufficiently reliable, innovative, and cost-
effective to meet the Nation's national defense requirements.

    22. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Krieg, additionally, ManTech currently 
is funded at $237 million for fiscal year 2005, all of which is 
directly tied to the near term needs of the Services. The Joint Defense 
Manufacturing Technology Panel (JDMTP) does not have funding 
independent of the Services to initiate new efforts focusing on longer-
term, higher-risk, higher-payoff technologies and processes. ManTech 
needs to balance the current shorter-term portfolio by refocusing on 
longer-term, higher risk manufacturing processes and technology 
development that are industry game-changers and yield big efficiencies 
and cost-savings to DOD. When will you provide funding to JDMTP to 
initiate the needed manufacturing programs?
    Mr. Krieg. It is my understanding that a Defense Science Board 
study is currently underway to review the issue of ManTech strategies 
and priorities including the need for cross-cutting programs. This 
report is planned for completion in the fall of 2005. It would be 
premature to make a decision without first reviewing the study.

    23. Senator Lieberman. Mr. Krieg, are the efforts in your area 
coordinated with the Defense Industrial Base Capability Studies (DIBCS) 
that are currently underway in the DOD Office of Industrial Policy? Is 
there more coordination needed and if so, what are your plans to 
achieve this?
    Mr. Krieg. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Industrial 
Policy prepared the Defense Industrial Base Capability Studies. I have 
been briefed on the methodology, conclusions and recommendations of 
several of the studies.
                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka

                ACQUISITION WORKFORCE AND HUMAN CAPITAL

    24. Senator Akaka. Mr. Krieg, at your confirmation hearing you 
answered several questions regarding the Department of Defense 
acquisition workforce and the impact that the downsizing of this 
workforce has had on major program acquisition. Additionally, recent 
guidance was issued by the OMB on acquisition policy which emphasized 
employee training, certification, and the role of chief acquisition 
officers. What do you see as the most critical factors in improving the 
strength of the acquisition workforce within the Department?
    Mr. Krieg. At this time I do not have a specific agenda of action 
on acquisition workforce issues. The issue of how to better structure 
acquisition functions of the DOD is under review as part of the 
Quadrennial Defense Review and this should include the acquisition 
workforce capability to meet future needs. Several key themes seem 
important as we begin this work.
    First, the Department must keep acquisition workforce capabilities 
aligned with the emerging future needs of the DOD. Second, the 
Department must have effective implementation of the National Security 
Personnel System (NSPS). The NSPS provides new mechanisms to hire, 
assign, and reassign employees and to set pay. It enables DOD managers 
to acquire, advance, and shape their workforce in response to changing 
mission needs and to compete for the best talent. Third, the Department 
must use the flexibilities provided by several useful changes that 
Congress made to the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act in 
fiscal years 2004 and 2005. These changes enable the DOD to have a 
single acquisition corps and to streamline management of the 
acquisition workforce. Finally, the Department must integrate workforce 
programs and human capital strategic planning efforts regarding the 
acquisition workforce so that DOD can achieve the outcomes needed 
component and department-wide.

    25. Senator Akaka. Mr. Krieg, what is being done to ensure that 
strategic management of human capital is focusing on not just hiring 
people but hiring the right people with the acquisition skills 
necessary to reverse the trend where lost corporate knowledge is 
limiting the Department's ability to perform acquisition management 
effectively?
    Mr. Krieg. The Department is emphasizing the need to strategically 
analyze and plan workforce capability through assessing the skills of 
the current workforce, projecting workforce capability needs into the 
future, identifying gaps, and ensuring the filling of those gaps. The 
effective implementation of the National Security Personnel System 
(NSPS) and the outcomes of the next Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 
will add to DOD's ability to improve and ensure the right workforce 
capability. Meanwhile, the Department is strengthening its approach 
toward systems engineering by issuing new policy, revamping education 
and training programs and bolstering the learning and performance 
support environment.

                         PLACEMENT OF RESOURCES

    26. Senator Akaka. Mr. Krieg, as Director of Program Analysis and 
Evaluation (PA&E), you have been deeply involved in implementing the 
Department of Defense's Balanced Score Card in support of the 
President's Management Agenda. Through this approach you have used four 
risk areas to ensure that the Department's performance goals cover the 
initiatives of the President's Management Agenda. As you are moving 
from your position of Director of PA&E to Under Secretary of Defense 
for AT&L, do you feel that you are using the proper risk factors in 
determining the placement of resources?
    Mr. Krieg. The approach to managing risk, first outlined in the 
2001 Quadrennial Defense Review, gave the Department an organized 
construct for considering the implications--now and in the future--of 
efforts with respect to operations, managing forces and managing the 
institution. The balanced scorecard approach, used widely in the 
private sector, helps managers think about their initiatives across the 
full range of their enterprise. We have had some substantial success at 
getting management to consider the balance among risks as they consider 
resourcing.
    Fully employed, the approach helps them align activity across the 
enterprise behind key metrics of outcomes that are linked to the 
strategy of the organization. In an enterprise as complex as the 
Department of Defense, the full implementation of the balanced 
scorecard is a challenge as precise metrics relevant from the top to 
the bottom of the organization are difficult to define.

    27. Senator Akaka. Mr. Krieg, how do you best assess the results of 
these resourcing choices?
    Mr. Krieg. Ideally, we would measure all of our results in terms of 
real outcomes. In many cases, we can. However, the outcomes of some of 
our investments are harder to assess in a classic performance 
management sense; the longstanding defense analysis question of ``How 
much is enough?'' is still a challenge. In those cases, we attempt to 
look at a balance between the costs and the benefits of options--both 
in the near and far term.

                        ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES

    28. Senator Akaka. Mr. Krieg, at your confirmation hearing you were 
asked several questions about the current acquisition process, with 
specific references to contracts such as the Army's Future Combat 
System and the Navy's DD(X). In addition, the Defense Acquisition Board 
recently approved funding for the Global Hawk unmanned spy plane 
program, and some in Congress would like to see the C130J cargo plan 
program go forward. You stated at your confirmation hearing that the 
Department must press for acquisition accountability but all of these 
programs have been the subject of much debate both within Congress and 
within the Department. If confirmed as Under Secretary of Defense for 
AT&L, what accountability measures would you put in place to change the 
current acquisition process for major programs to ``contain costs and 
keep programs from ballooning and becoming unworkable?''
    Mr. Krieg. At this time I do not have a specific plan of action on 
containing costs. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress 
on this issue. I do offer two preliminary views, however. The 
Department must carefully construct its statement of requirements, 
balancing among performance, cost, and schedule. Achieving an 
integrated strategic priority across all three of our major defense 
decision processes--requirements generation, acquisition management, 
and the Defense Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution 
process--is also important.

                    CORROSION CONTROL AND PREVENTION

    29. Senator Akaka. Mr. Krieg, the impact of corrosion on systems, 
equipment, and infrastructure costs the Department of Defense billions 
of dollars each year. In late 2003, the Office of Corrosion Policy and 
Oversight was created for the Department of Defense within AT&L with a 
Corrosion Executive leading the initiative. Currently this Corrosion 
Executive is several layers down from the Under Secretary in the AT&L 
organization, which limits his effectiveness, in my opinion. I am 
concerned that the way the DOD has set up this office does not comply 
with the spirit and intent of the legislation that Congress enacted 
regarding corrosion control. I believe the office should report 
directly to the Under Secretary of Defense for AT&L and not be buried 
in the bureaucracy. In October 2004, the Defense Science Board (DSB) 
issued its report on Corrosion Control which assessed ongoing corrosion 
control efforts across the Department of Defense. This report made five 
explicit recommendations and specific actions to implement those 
recommendations. The DSB estimated that 30 percent of the billions 
wasted annually could be avoided through proper investment in 
prevention and mitigation of corrosion during sustainment, design, and 
manufacture. One of the recommendations of the DSB review included each 
Service provide $10 million per year beginning in fiscal year 2006 in 
addition to the funds required by the Office of Corrosion Policy and 
Oversight. But PBD753 recommends reducing funds for corrosion 
prevention by $10 million every year over the Future Years Defense 
Plan. What would be your first priority in the office of Under 
Secretary of Defense for AT&L to ensure that the corrosion control and 
prevention initiative be brought back in line with the original intent 
of Congress in order to save the billions of dollars currently spent on 
corrosion each year?
    Mr. Krieg. As Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation, I have 
only a broad understanding of the issue. I would not bring any 
preconceived plan to the position but would look forward to working 
with the committee on this issue, if confirmed.
    It is my understanding that the Department has embarked on a long-
term study, initiated this year, to provide a justifiable and 
defendable basis for: (a) structuring and prioritizing the Department's 
efforts as they relate to balancing investments in corrosion control 
and in corrosion prevention and (b) attendant funding levels. The OSD 
corrosion program is currently budgeted at $15 million per year across 
the Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP). The Department established Program 
Element (PE) 0604016D8Z for RDT&E ($5 million) and manages the 
corrosion O&M ($10 million) funds in a DOD-wide account.
    From an organizational perspective, the Deputy Secretary appointed 
the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics (PDUSD(AT&L)) as the DOD Corrosion Executive, 
who reports directly to the Under Secretary (AT&L). This ensures that 
corrosion prevention and mitigation receives appropriate executive-
level attention. The Office of the Special Assistant for Corrosion 
Policy and Oversight reports directly to the DOD Corrosion Executive on 
policies, issues, and actions directly associated with the corrosion 
prevention and mitigation initiative. The office is aligned as a 
component of the Directorate of Systems Engineering within OUSD (AT&L). 
This alignment allows the Department to ensure corrosion prevention and 
mitigation receive appropriate attention during design trades as part 
of the baseline systems engineering effort for equipment and 
infrastructure design and development.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of Kenneth J. Krieg follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                     April 4, 2005.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    Kenneth J. Krieg, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, vice Edward C. Aldridge, 
resigned.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The biographical sketch of Kenneth J. Krieg, which was 
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was 
referred, follows:]

                Biographical Sketch of Kenneth J. Krieg

    Ken Krieg currently serves at the Department of Defense as Special 
Assistant to the Secretary and Director for Program Analysis and 
Evaluation. In this capacity, he leads an organization that provides 
independent advice to the Secretary of Defense in a range of areas 
including defense systems, programs and investment alternatives as well 
as providing analytic support to planning and resource allocation.
    He joined the Department of Defense in July 2001 to serve and 
continues as the Executive Secretary of the Senior Executive Council 
(SEC). The SEC, comprised of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Service 
Secretaries and Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology 
and Logistics, is responsible for leading initiatives to improve the 
management and organization of the Department of Defense. Among other 
areas, the SEC is working on strategy-based measurement approaches, 
transformation strategies for the business infrastructure and 
organizational approach and design. The SEC also serves as a senior 
decisionmaking and advisory body on a broad set of issues, including 
resource allocation.
    Prior to joining the Department of Defense, Ken was the Vice 
President and General Manager of the Office and Consumer Papers 
Division. He had responsibility for International Paper's $1.4 billion 
retail, commercial office, and consumer papers businesses. Prior to 
this position, Ken was the business manager for the office and consumer 
paper business.
    Ken was with International Paper for 11 years and held marketing 
and sales positions in the office papers and bleached board businesses. 
He was actively involved in integrating the Federal Paper Board, Union 
Camp and Champion companies into International Paper. He began his 
service with International Paper as executive assistant to the Chairman 
and Chief Executive Officer.
    Before joining International Paper, Ken worked in a number of 
defense and foreign policy assignments in Washington, DC, including 
positions at the White House, on the National Security Council Staff 
and in Office of the Secretary of Defense.
    Ken received his BA degree in history from Davidson College and his 
Masters in Public Policy from the Kennedy School of Government at 
Harvard University. He and his wife, Anne, have two children (Allen and 
Meredith).
                                 ______
                                 
    [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals 
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a 
form that details the biographical, financial, and other 
information of the nominee. The form executed by Kenneth J. 
Krieg in connection with his nomination follows:]

                          UNITED STATES SENATE
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              Room SR-228
                       Washington, DC 20510-6050
                             (202) 224-3871
                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
      BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES

    Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If 
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the 
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation 
of your answer applies.

                    Part A--Biographical Information

    Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in 
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for 
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in 
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.

    1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
    Kenneth Joseph Krieg, also Kenneth J. Krieg, Ken Krieg.

    2. Position to which nominated:
    Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics).

    3. Date of nomination:
    April 4, 2005.

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

    5. Date and place of birth:
    January 29, 1961; Nelsonville, OH.

    6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
    Married to Anne Hurt Krieg.

    7. Names and ages of children:
    Allen Joseph Krieg, 12; Meredith Aileen Krieg, 10.

    8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
    John F. Kennedy School, Harvard, 9/1983-6/1985, M.P.P., 6/1985.
    Davidson College, 9/1979-6/1983, B.A., 6/1983.

    9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the 
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of 
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
    Director, Program Analysis & Evaluation, Office of the Secretary of 
Defense, Supervisor: Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Pentagon, 4/2003 to 
present.
    Executive Secretary, Senior Executive Council, OSD, Supervisor: 
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Pentagon, 7/2001 to present.
    Vice President and General Manager Office and Consumer Papers, 
International Paper, Supervisor: Charlie Greiner, 6400 Poplar 
Avenue,Memphis, TN, 7/2000-7/2001.
    Business Manager, Office Papers, International Paper, Supervisor: 
L.H. Puckett and Rick Smith, 5/1997-7/2000.
    Sales & Marketing Manager, Bleached Board Division, International 
Paper, Supervisor: Tom Gestrich, 6/1995-5/1997.
    National Sales Manager and Marketing Manager, Bleached Board 
Division, International Paper, Supervisor: Scott Murchison, 5/1993-6/
1995.

    10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, 
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, 
or local governments, other than those listed above.
    I supported Chairman and CEO of International Paper, John Georges 
when he was a member of President George Bush's Commission on 
Environmental Quality 1991-1992. I was employed by International Paper, 
but worked on Commission business on his behalf.

    11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an 
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, 
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other 
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
    None.

    12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in 
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and 
other organizations.
    Member of Lewinsville Presbyterian Church, McLean, VA (2002-
present); Stewardship committee member.

    13. Political affiliations and activities:
    (a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or 
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
    None.
    (b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered 
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5 
years.
    None.
    (c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign 
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar 
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
    Bush-Cheney 2000 $1,000.
    Bush-Cheney 2004 $2,000.

    14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions 
for outstanding service or achievements.
    Air Force Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service--January 
2005.
    Army Decoration for Distinguished Civilian Service--May 2003.
    Navy Distinguished Public Service Award--January 2003.
    Davidson College Alumni Service Award--2002.
    DOD Medal for Distinguished Public Service--October 1990.
    Phi Beta Kappa.
    Omicron Delta Kappa.
    Agnes Sentelle Brown Award; Davidson College.
    Richardson Scholar; Davidson College.

    15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of 
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have 
written.
    Introduced a section of a book, ``The All-Volunteer Force-Thirty 
Years of Service,'' which captured the proceedings of a DOD conference 
on the topic in September 2003. Contributed to one article in The 
Washington Quarterly in 1988 with Rhett Dawson and Paul Stevens titled 
Defense Efficiency in the 1990s.

    16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal 
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have 
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have 
been nominated.
    I have delivered numerous talks on defense resources and 
management, as well as defense transformation since returning to 
government. Most of the talks have been to internal audiences, 
conferences or schools. Only two have been from partially prepared 
text; most are delivered off handwritten notes. I have included those 
two.

    17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree, 
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any 
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
    Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the 
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set 
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to 
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
                                ------                                

                           Signature and Date
    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete.
                                                  Kenneth J. Krieg.
    This 13th day of April 2005.

    [The nomination of Kenneth J. Krieg was reported to the 
Senate by Chairman Warner on May 25, 2005, with the 
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination 
was confirmed by the Senate on May 26, 2005.]
                              ----------                              

    [Prepared questions submitted to Lt. Gen. Michael V. 
Hayden, USAF, by Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with 
answers supplied follow:]

                        Questions and Responses

                            DEFENSE REFORMS

    Question. More than 15 years have passed since the enactment of the 
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and 
the Special Operations reforms.
    Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
    Answer. Yes. I support these reforms. I have been personally 
working to implement these reforms in every position I have held since 
they were passed in 1986 because of the efficiency and effectiveness 
they engender.
    Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense 
reforms have been implemented?
    Answer. My experience has been that defense reforms under 
Goldwater-Nichols have been broadly accepted and institutionalized. 
They have been the underpinning of much of our success in joint war 
fighting over the past decade.
    Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of 
these defense reforms?
    Answer. The provisions of Goldwater-Nichols have contributed to the 
success of our armed forces in many areas. My personal view, however, 
is that the personnel provisions of Title IV have done more than any 
other aspects of the law to create a true culture of jointness.
    Moreover, as I said in my testimony to the House Intelligence 
Committee last August, I think that the personnel provisions of the act 
are more transferable to the Intelligence Community (IC) than any other 
aspects of the law.
    The essence of jointness is to consider the whole over the parts 
and to dampen demands for individual control in favor of collaboration 
and cooperation. The underlying principle of Goldwater-Nichols holds 
true for the IC: the rejection of the idea that ``If I don't own it or 
control it, I can't count on it.''
    Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms, 
as reflected in Section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of 
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian 
control over the military; improving military advice; placing clear 
responsibility on the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of 
their missions; ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is 
commensurate with their responsibility; increasing attention to the 
formulation of strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more 
efficient use of defense resources; enhancing the effectiveness of 
military operations; and improving the management and administration of 
the Department of Defense.
    Do you agree with these goals?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. In your view, are the goals of the Intelligence Reform 
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 fully consistent with the goals of 
the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act? Please 
explain.
    Answer. The goals of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004 are consistent with the goals of the Goldwater-
Nichols Act that reorganized the Department of Defense to increase 
cooperation and jointness among the services.
    The authorities given to the Director of National Intelligence will 
allow the DNI to manage the IC in ways that will increase 
interoperability among the elements of the Intelligence Community. A 
more effective Intelligence Community cannot help but better support 
the combined operations of the American armed forces.
    For example, the DNI is to prescribe, in consultation with the 
heads of other agencies or elements of the Intelligence Community, and 
the heads of their respective departments, personnel policies and 
programs applicable to the IC including standards for education, 
training, recruitment, and retention. At the heart of this is building 
a community ethos of cooperation and collaboration--the IC equivalent 
of jointness.
    The Act also directs the DNI to prescribe mechanisms to facilitate 
the rotation of IC personnel through various IC elements during the 
course of their careers to facilitate the widest possible understanding 
of intelligence requirements, methods, users, and capabilities.
    The law authorizes the DNI to give special incentives for personnel 
to get IC-wide perspectives by working in the Office of the DNI or in 
other positions in support of the DNI's IC management functions; I 
strongly support these initiatives.

                                 DUTIES

    Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of 
the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence (PDDNI)?
    Answer. The formal answer is that the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act (IR&TPA) of 2004 specifies certain duties and 
functions of the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence. 
These include assisting the Director of National Intelligence in 
carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Director. Further, 
the law specifies that the PDDNI is to act for, and exercise the powers 
of, the DNI during the absence or disability of the DNI or during a 
vacancy in the position of the DNI.
    If confirmed, the DNI and I would work out the details of my job 
description within the formal framework. No decisions have yet been 
made, but it would be reasonable to assume that the DNI would want me 
to help him ensure that the Intelligence Community runs as smoothly as 
possible.
    I should also point out that the IR&TPA notes the sense of Congress 
that either the DNI or his principal deputy should be a serving 
military officer or someone with an appreciation of military 
intelligence activities and requirements. If confirmed, one of my key 
responsibilities will be to provide the DNI with insight into the needs 
of America's combat forces.
    I also expect that my experience in the production of intelligence 
and my knowledge of intelligence sources, tasking, analysis and 
distribution as well as of budgetary issues, laws and military 
organizations should complement the DNI's experience as an intelligence 
consumer.
    Question. What background and experience do you possess that you 
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
    Answer. Over the course of my career, I have had extensive 
experience in managing and leading the military personnel that have 
been under my command. As the Director of the National Security Agency 
(DIRNSA), I have also had a large number of civilian employees under my 
direction.
    In my current position as DIRNSA, we transformed NSA into a modern 
agency that operates effectively and efficiently in the digital age. I 
am especially proud that we have improved many aspects of NSA's mission 
including transforming the SIGINT process to get pertinent SIGINT 
information out to warfighters and to NSA's other customers in a timely 
fashion.
    With regard to my responsibility to provide the DNI with insight 
into the intelligence needs of DOD, I believe my experience in leading 
the National Security Agency through the campaigns in Afghanistan, 
Iraq, and the war on terrorism has given me a robust appreciation of 
DOD requirements in wartime.
    In my position as DIRNSA I have also had extensive experience 
contending with the IC's dispersion of authority. While responsible for 
the Nation's entire cryptologic architecture, I directly controlled 
just over a third of the Nation's cryptologic spending and was obliged 
to influence the remainder through an often cumbersome system of staff 
coordination. The current legislation takes significant steps in better 
aligning responsibility with authority.
    My experience also includes dealing with issues of some political 
sensitivity. For example, while Deputy Chief of Staff, United Nations 
Command and U.S. Forces Korea, I routinely led the military delegation 
charged with negotiating with North Korean generals.
    Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to 
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Principal Deputy 
Director of National Intelligence?
    Answer. If confirmed, there are a variety of actions I would need 
to take to enhance my ability to perform as PDDNI. I would need to 
listen to the advice and counsel of individuals with unique experiences 
to share. I have already made a concerted effort to reach out to such 
people, both inside and outside of government. For example, I have 
listened to insightful advice from the SECDEF, the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Intelligence, other DOD officials, former DCIs, Attorneys 
General, members of the National Security Council, other White House 
officials, leaders of industry, prominent academics, and friends whose 
advice I value. All have been highly supportive.
    I particularly would need to familiarize myself with aspects of the 
IC beyond the immediate confines of DOD and NSA--issues like the 
linkages between law enforcement and intelligence or between foreign 
and domestic intelligence.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do 
you expect that the Director of National Intelligence will prescribe 
for you?
    Answer. In the months ahead we have to set up an office, build an 
organization, hire the right kind of people from inside and outside the 
government, and establish new ways of doing business for the 
Intelligence Community. As with all Deputies, however, I would assume 
much of my time would be taken up with ``other duties as assigned.'' 
That is right and proper and I will use my best efforts to complete 
whatever tasks the DNI assigns me.
                             relationships
    Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the 
following:

        The Secretary of Defense.
        The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
        The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
        The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information 
        Integration.
        The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
        The Director for Intelligence, J-2, the Joint Staff.
        The Service Secretaries and the Service Intelligence Directors.
        The Directors of the Defense intelligence agencies.

    Answer. In the broadest possible terms, I will seek if confirmed to 
work with each individual listed in a cooperative spirit for the good 
of the Nation. Much has been written about potential bureaucratic 
roadblocks to effective cooperation. We have all heard the warnings, 
particularly from the WMD Commission, about how bureaucracies are 
loathe to change and how organizations may want to keep a death grip on 
what they perceive as ``their turf.''
    That said, I personally know the individuals listed and know that 
each has the best interests of the country at heart. I look forward to 
working with each of them in my new capacity, if confirmed, because I 
believe they understand that a successful DNI means a successful IC, 
which means a safer Nation. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004 gives us an opportunity to improve the overall 
performance of U.S. intelligence for all consumers.
    Many of the Defense officials noted above will be, as they have 
been in the past, at a key intersection of American national security 
policy and combat operations. They support both the Department of 
Defense and national needs. Some of the discussion and press commentary 
over this past year seems to suggest that this is somehow a new or 
troublesome development. This is not new and has not been new since 
1952 when President Truman established NSA as the first ``national'' 
intelligence component housed within DOD. The ``difficulties'' 
associated with this arrangement are not so much circumstances to be 
solved as conditions to be managed in the national interest. At their 
best, agencies such as NSA are at the cornerstone of a ``culture of 
collaboration'' since their placement makes collaboration essential to 
their success.
    More specifically, as the role of the DNI is established and DOD 
continues to develop the role of the USD(I), it is important that we 
explore ways in which the latter can play an important role in helping 
both the Secretary of Defense and the DNI to develop greater 
integration within those IC elements located within DOD.
    In that light, I would like to echo remarks Ambassador Negroponte 
made in his confirmation hearing. He noted that the act gives him the 
authority to deal directly with heads of IC entities in certain areas 
and that he intended to exercise this authority. I share Ambassador 
Negroponte's views because, as I told the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, I believe it is critically important to the success of the 
DNI that he have robust authority over the big, national collection 
entities like the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial 
Intelligence Agency, and CIA's Directorate of Operations.(start)
    As noted above, as a military officer (and if confirmed) I would 
bring to this job a perspective much sought by Congress. I would also 
note, however, that the IR&TPA states that a commissioned officer, 
during his term as DNI or PDDNI, shall not be subject to supervision or 
control by the Secretary of Defense or by any officer or employee of 
the Department of Defense. This is a carry-over from the National 
Security Act of 1947, and it makes good sense to do so in order to 
ensure the independence of the incumbent.

                     MAJOR CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS

    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will 
confront the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence (DNI)?
    Answer. If confirmed, I see three major challenges that immediately 
will confront me as Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence: 
establishing the organization of the Office of the Director of National 
Intelligence, staffing that organization with the best qualified 
people, and beginning to address significant issues for the DNI and the 
Intelligence Community.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for 
addressing these challenges?
    Answer. With respect to establishing the organization of Office of 
the DNI (ODNI), a number of options exist. If confirmed, the DNI and I 
will weigh those options and decide which structure will best meet the 
needs of the DNI and the goals of the IR&TPA.
    Today, the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence for Community 
Management and those acting as the Assistant Director of Central 
Intelligence for Collection, and the Assistant Director of Central 
Intelligence for Analysis and Production perform important Community 
functions, which the DNI may want to continue in some form under the 
DNI structure. For instance, it may be desirable to have one person in 
charge of management issues that cut across the IC. This could include 
developing and determining the budget for the National Intelligence 
Program.
    The law also gives the DNI important responsibilities for tasking 
intelligence collection, which the DNI may want reflected in the ODNI 
structure.
    Similarly, the law obligates the DNI to ensure analytic integrity 
and objectivity obligations that should be considered as the DNI 
designs the ODNI.
    With respect to staffing the ODNI, if confirmed, I would recommend 
to the DNI that the overriding consideration when selecting personnel 
should be doing what is best for the country. The law makes the DNI 
responsible for ensuring that this happens, and I support his 
authority. I would recommend to the DNI that he look for people who 
have the qualities needed to carry the Intelligence Community into the 
21st century.

         This would include people who are dedicated to 
        protecting the country. Intelligence work is a high calling and 
        often requires sacrifices by individuals and their families. 
        The IC needs people who are willing to put national needs above 
        personal needs and serve the country by being its first line of 
        defense.
         It would also include people who are proven leaders. I 
        have often said that the strength of NSA is its people; NSA 
        goes down the elevators when our people go home at night. 
        Finding the right individuals with the skills to lead the 
        workforces of the various IC elements is critical to 
        successfully facing the challenges confronting the IC and the 
        Nation.
         I would also advise the DNI to choose people who are 
        committed to working cooperatively across the IC while 
        fulfilling the mission of their host agency or department. This 
        will take a special kind of talent. Individuals chosen to lead 
        the IC must be keenly focused on the IC mission and work 
        together to further the national interests of the United 
        States.
         Ambassador Negroponte values diversity as an important 
        goal in managing large organizations, and I support him in 
        that.

    Question. What do you anticipate will be the most serious problems 
in the performance of the functions of the Principal Deputy Director of 
National Intelligence?
    Answer. I see the most serious problem in the performance of the 
functions of the PDDNI as creating within the IC a culture of 
collaboration. One of my goals as PDDNI will be to build a 
collaborative environment where cooperative analysis becomes the norm, 
resulting in one intelligence discipline being made stronger by 
another, and each prompting useful activity by still a third.
    If confirmed, I would propose to the DNI that every member of the 
IC be given an urgent responsibility to understand his or her role 
within the larger community, and to carry it out as assigned. For 
example, while I would want DIA analysts to have access to NGA-
generated imagery in order to inform their finished reporting, I would 
want, even more, DIA analysts to have access to the NGA expert who is 
responsible for having collected the information in the first place, 
has been collecting such information for 30 years, and can provide 
insights concerning the information that would not occur to a non-
expert.
    We have to stress this kind of culture at every opportunity. It 
needs to be apparent in personnel appointments. It needs to be central 
in all of our professional education and training. It needs to be 
reinforced with a passionate commitment that the DNI leads all of the 
community.
    Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines 
would you establish to address these problems?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would take management actions as soon as 
possible to ensure that the Intelligence Community operates like a true 
``information enterprise.'' We need to find ways to enable the IC to 
provide relevant information at the appropriate stage of its 
development and in a form usable to those who have the mission, 
capability, and expertise to act on it. There ought to be no artificial 
barriers set up--or maintained--that deny significant information to an 
entity that requires it. Access to meaningful information in a form 
that is useful and responsive to the needs of the user is a key 
component of the information enterprise, and is absolutely vital to our 
success.
    The IC has made progress in building close partnerships between and 
among intelligence agencies. Some of the collaborative relationships 
are relatively new; others have functioned effectively and efficiently 
for years. If confirmed, I would recommend to the DNI that we must act 
even more assertively and comprehensively; we need to build on our 
success to make cooperative relationships more lasting in their 
duration, more inclusive across the IC in their breadth, and more 
profound in their depth.
    We would, of course, have to be specific with regard to timelines 
and metrics. In the absence of these, some of our efforts in the past 
to promote information availability and access have been received as 
guidelines rather than as determinative policy.

                               PRIORITIES

    Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish 
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the Principal Deputy 
Director of National Intelligence?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would recommend to the DNI several broad 
priorities. One priority, as discussed above, would be to establish the 
organization of the Office of the DNI and to staff it with the right 
people.
    Another recommendation would be to issue clear DNI guidance on a 
variety of issues to the IC. I would recommend that the DNI's guidance 
be clear, short, and authoritative, and not the product of endless 
staffing or a lengthy search for absolute consensus. Consensus is 
rarely bold and it is often wrong.
    Yet another priority would be to monitor the activities of the IC--
in short, to improve our performance. The IR&TPA is quite clear in this 
regard. Among other things, the DNI is to: ensure the effective 
execution of the budget; monitor the implementation of that budget by 
the heads of the elements of the IC; establish objectives, priorities, 
and guidance for the IC to ensure timely and effective collection, 
processing, analysis, and dissemination of national intelligence; and 
ensure compliance with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

                          INFORMATION SHARING

    Question. A consistent finding of almost all studies, 
investigations, and commissions evaluating the performance of the 
Intelligence Community with regard to the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, 2001 and pre-war intelligence regarding Iraqi weapons of 
mass destructio