[Senate Hearing 109-928]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 109-928
 
        NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, 
                     SECOND SESSION, 109TH CONGRESS 

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

                                HEARINGS

                               before the

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                       ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                                   on

                             NOMINATIONS OF

  HON. PRESTON M. GEREN; HON. MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ; JAMES I. FINLEY; 
THOMAS P. D'AGOSTINO; CHARLES E. McQUEARY; ANITA K. BLAIR; BENEDICT S. 
 COHEN; FRANK R. JIMENEZ; DAVID H. LAUFMAN; SUE C. PAYTON; WILLIAM H. 
 TOBEY; ROBERT L. WILKIE; LT. GEN. JAMES T. CONWAY, USMC; GEN BANTZ J. 
CRADDOCK, USA; VADM JAMES G. STAVRIDIS, USN; NELSON M. FORD; RONALD J. 
     JAMES; SCOTT W. STUCKY; MARGARET A. RYAN; AND ROBERT M. GATES

                               __________

      FEBRUARY 15; JULY 18, 27; SEPTEMBER 19; DECEMBER 4, 5, 2006

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

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

36-311 PDF                      WASHINGTON : 2007 

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



  

































                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                    JOHN WARNER, Virginia, Chairman

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

                    Charles S. Abell, Staff Director

             Richard D. DeBobes, Democratic Staff Director

                                  (ii)














































                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                    CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

                                                                   Page

                           february 15, 2006

Nominations of Hon. Preston M. Geren to be Under Secretary of the 
  Army; Hon. Michael L. Dominguez to be Deputy Under Secretary of 
  Defense for Personnel and Readiness; James I. Finley to be 
  Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
  Technology; and Thomas P. D'Agostino to be Deputy Administrator 
  for Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration.     1

Statements of:

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas.     2
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado......     4
Geren, Hon. Preston M., to be Under Secretary of the Army........     9
Dominguez, Hon. Michael L., to be Deputy Under Secretary of 
  Defense for Personnel and Readiness............................    10
Finley, James L., to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 
  Acquisition and Technology.....................................    11
D'Agostino, Thomas P., to be Deputy Administrator for Defense 
  Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration.............    11

                             july 18, 2006

Nominations of Charles E. McQueary to be Director of Operational 
  Test and Evaluation, Department of Defense; Anita K. Blair to 
  be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and 
  Reserve Affairs; Benedict S. Cohen to be General Counsel of the 
  Department of the Army; Frank R. Jimenez to be General Counsel 
  of the Department of the Navy; David H. Laufman to be Inspector 
  General, Department of Defense; Sue C. Payton to be Assistant 
  Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition; William H. Tobey to 
  be Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, 
  National Nuclear Security Administration; and Robert L. Wilkie 
  to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs...   155

Statements of:

Lott, Hon. Trent, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi.....   156
Cox, Hon. Christopher, Former Representative from the State of 
  California.....................................................   158
Allen, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia......   159
Martinez, Hon. Mel, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida.......   161
Blair, Anita K., to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
  Manpower and Reserve Affairs...................................   165
Cohen, Benedict S., to be General Counsel of the Department of 
  the Navy.......................................................   166
Jimenez, Frank R., to be General Counsel of the Department of the 
  Navy...........................................................   167
Laufman, David H., to be Inspector General, Department of Defense   168
Payton, Sue C., to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
  Acquisition....................................................   169

                                 (iii)

Tobey, William H., to be Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear 
  Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security Administration.....   171
Wilkie, Robert L., to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
  Legislative Affairs............................................   172
McQueary, Hon. Charles E., to be Director of Operational Test and 
  Evaluation, Department of Defense..............................   173

                             july 27, 2006

Nomination of Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, USMC, for Appointment to 
  the Grade of General and to be Commandant of the Marine Corps..   327

Statements of:

Conway, Lt. Gen. James T., USMC, for Appointment to the Grade of 
  General and to be Commandant of the Marine Corps...............   333

                           september 19, 2006

Nominations of GEN Bantz J. Craddock, USA, for Reappointment to 
  be General and to be Commander, U.S. European Command; VADM 
  James G. Stavridis, USN, for Appointment to be Admiral and to 
  be Commander, U.S. Southern Command; Nelson M. Ford to be 
  Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and 
  Comptroller; and Ronald J. James to be Assistant Secretary of 
  the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs......................   367

Statements of:

Craddock, GEN Bantz J., USA, for Reappointment to be General and 
  to be Commander, U.S. European Command.........................   371
Stavridis, VADM James G., USN, for Appointment to be Admiral and 
  to be Commander, U.S. Southern Command.........................   371
Ford, Nelson M., to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
  Financial Management and Comptroller...........................   392
James, Ronald J., to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
  Manpower and Reserve Affairs...................................   392

                            december 4, 2006

Nominations of Scott W. Stucky to be a Judge of the United States 
  Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; and Margaret A. Ryan to 
  be a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 
  Forces.........................................................   495

Statements of:

Stucky, Scott W., to be a Judge of the United States Court of 
  Appeals for the Armed Forces...................................   501
Ryan, Margaret A., to be a Judge of the United States Court of 
  Appeals for the Armed Forces...................................   503

                            decmber 5, 2006

Nomination of Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense.........   529

Statements of:

Dole, Hon. Robert, Former U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas..   535
Boren, Hon. David L., Former U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Oklahoma.......................................................   536
Gates, Robert M., to be Secretary of Defense.....................   541

                            december 5, 2006

Continuation of the Nomination of Robert M. Gates to be Secretary 
  of Defense.....................................................   589

                            december 5, 2006

To Consider Certain Pending Civilian and Military Nominations....   681

APPENDIX.........................................................   685


NOMINATIONS OF HON. PRESTON M. GEREN TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE ARMY; 
 HON. MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ TO BE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR 
 PERSONNEL AND READINESS; JAMES I. FINLEY TO BE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY 
OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION AND TECHNOLOGY; AND THOMAS P. D'AGOSTINO TO 
BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY 
                             ADMINISTRATION

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2006

                                       U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:46 a.m. in room 
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner 
(chairman) presiding.
    Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain, 
Chambliss, Cornyn, Thune, Levin, and Dayton.
    Also present: Senators Allard and Hutchison.
    Committee staff members present: Charles S. Abell, staff 
director; Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk; and 
John H. Quirk V, security clerk.
    Majority staff members present: William M. Caniano, 
professional staff member; William C. Greenwalt, professional 
staff member; Elaine A. McCusker, professional staff member; 
David M. Morriss, counsel; Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional 
staff member; Stanley R. O'Connor, Jr., professional staff 
member; Kristine L. Svinicki, professional staff member; Diana 
G. Tabler, professional staff member; and Richard F. Walsh, 
counsel.
    Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, 
Democratic staff director; Jonathan D. Clark, minority counsel; 
Daniel J. Cox, Jr., professional staff member; Madelyn R. 
Creedon, minority counsel; Gabriella Eisen, research assistant; 
Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member; Gerald J. 
Leeling, minority counsel; and Peter K. Levine, minority 
counsel.
    Staff assistant present: Pendred K. Wilson.
    Committee members' assistants present: Christopher J. Paul 
and Paul C. Hutton IV, assistants to Senator McCain; Clyde A. 
Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Russell J. 
Thomasson, assistant to Senator Cornyn; Stuart C. Mallory, 
assistant to Senator Thune; William K. Sutey, assistant to 
Senator Bill Nelson; Kimberly Jackson and Luke Ballman, 
assistants to Senator Dayton.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN

    Chairman Warner. Good morning, everyone. This is a very 
important day in the lives of four individuals together with 
their wonderful families who've joined us here this morning. So 
we'll get underway very promptly. As protocol has it, we always 
want to start promptly such that our colleagues who've come for 
purposes of introduction can return to their respective duties.
    So this morning we welcome the Honorable Pete Geren who has 
been nominated to be Under Secretary of the Army, the Honorable 
Michael Dominguez who has been nominated to be the Principal 
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 
better known as Charlie Abell's replacement. We also welcome 
James L. Finley who has been nominated to be Principal Deputy 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, and 
Thomas P. D'Agostino, nominee to be the Deputy Administrator 
for Defense Programs in the National Nuclear Security 
Administration. We have with us the distinguished Senator from 
Texas, I think there were two here--oh, there they are, and 
we'll at this point in time recognize our colleague, Senator 
Hutchison.

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

    Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 
very pleased to be here to be able to support and ask your 
support for Pete Geren who has been a friend of mine for a very 
long time. He comes from Fort Worth and I know he is going to 
do a terrific job as Under Secretary of the Army. He served in 
Congress. When I first got here, he was serving in Congress 
representing his district in Fort Worth for four terms and he 
was a member of the House Armed Services Committee. He did a 
lot of really good work, particularly in coming up with the 
first joint Reserve base concept which is now Naval Air 
Station, Fort Worth, that included units from the Navy, Air 
Force, Marine Corp, and the Texas National Guard. It really 
became a model for joint Reserve bases that has been followed 
throughout the rest of the country.
    He then came back to government, couldn't stay away after 
he retired from Congress voluntarily, I might add, and started 
working in the Pentagon as an assistant to the Secretary of 
Defense, really being very low key. He went to Iraq several 
times to try to be helpful there spending a month at a time per 
visit. Then when the Secretary of the Air Force position was in 
flux, he became the acting Secretary of the Air Force and did 
such a great job in all of these positions that he then was 
nominated for Under Secretary of the Army.
    I know that he knows the military, he knows the Pentagon, 
he is very familiar with the efforts to modernize our military 
so that it best serves not only our country but also helps to 
serve the people in the military as well. I recommend him most 
highly, and I hope that you will take an expedited initiative 
on this so that he can be confirmed and become an official 
Under Secretary with Senate confirmation.
    Chairman Warner. Senator, we thank you very much. Indeed we 
did expedite this hearing. We had not intended to have it 
before the recess, but in consultation with Senator Levin we 
also felt it very important. Secretary Rumsfeld is quite 
anxious to get this team in place as is the President, of 
course, and I compliment both for their selection of 
outstanding individuals. I've never seen a better panel. We 
thank you for your remarks and I associate myself with your 
high regard for this distinguished individual.
    Senator Cornyn.
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to 
join my colleague, Senator Hutchison, in introducing Pete Geren 
to the committee, but obviously he needs no introduction. He's 
well known to the committee and has done outstanding work over 
the past 4 years in the Department of Defense, most recently as 
Acting Secretary of the Air Force. Mr. Chairman, we always 
focus on the nominees but really this is a family matter----
    Chairman Warner. Would you undertake the honors then.
    Senator Cornyn. I'd be delighted. If people will allow me, 
I'd like to ask for his wife, Becky, and their three daughters, 
Tracy, Annie, and Mary to stand and be recognized. We're glad 
to have all of them here, and I know Pete's glad to have them 
here as well.
    Chairman Warner. We welcome you. This is a very special day 
because each of you in your respective ways have contributed to 
making possible this day. Let me just give you a little bit of 
advice. If he isn't home by around 7:30, forget it, because 
they have a tendency in the Department of Defense to work into 
the late hours. I had the privilege of spending many years 
there myself, and everything done after about 7:30 is changed 
the next morning so go home. [Laughter.]
    Senator Cornyn. That sounds like sage advice, Mr. Chairman. 
Thank you very much.
    Senator Levin. I was going to say, Senator Cornyn, that if 
he's not home by 7:30 blame us because he is probably preparing 
some report which we demanded. Who are the three daughters 
here? Which is the wife? [Laughter.]
    This is the way I win elections, folks! [Laughter.]
    Senator Cornyn. Now we know the winning formula for Senator 
Levin. Just in conclusion, let me add, Mr. Chairman, our Army, 
as we all know, is undergoing major changes while fighting the 
war on terror, and we are, of course, working closely with the 
Pentagon to ensure that as the Army and our Armed Forces are 
transformed that it becomes an even more effective fighting 
machine while we at the same time watch the budget, 
procurement, and acquisition process very carefully to make 
sure the taxpayers get all they can for their hard-earned 
dollars. Secretary Harvey will be fortunate to have such a 
dedicated public servant as Pete Geren working for him. I want 
to welcome him to the committee and commend him to you. Thank 
you.
    Senator Hutchison. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Warner. Oh, yes.
    Senator Hutchison. Could I reclaim one more minute?
    Chairman Warner. Yes, of course.
    Senator Hutchison. I'm very remiss not to have mentioned 
that he is a graduate of the University of Texas and the 
University of Texas Law School.
    Senator Levin. How about elementary school? Where did he 
go? [Laughter.]
    Mr. Geren. You might note that they played in the Rose Bowl 
last year against Michigan.
    Senator Hutchison. Yes, I won't mention the Rose Bowl last 
year, maybe just this year, Senator Levin.
    Senator Levin. You had my vote until then. [Laughter.]
    Chairman Warner. We enjoy these moments of levity. They 
often occur in connection with the confirmation process, but I 
can tell you from my own personal experience, having gone 
through this process so many years ago that I don't want to 
mention it, but it's something you'll always remember and your 
children will remember it. So I thank each of you for bringing 
your families.
    Now, at this point in time, Senator Allard, you've waited 
very patiently. You're a former member of this committee so you 
understand the protocol here.
    Senator Allard. I do, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. Senator 
Hutchison, I appreciated your introductory remarks. Once a 
cheerleader, always a cheerleader, I guess.
    Chairman Warner. Oh, you're in trouble. [Laughter.]

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF 
                            COLORADO

    Senator Allard. I've been looking forward to appearing 
before the committee. It's a great committee, and one of the 
opportunities you afforded me early on in my serving on the 
committee was to be chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee and 
Charlie Abell, at that time, was my staff person. I 
congratulate him on his duties here now with the committee. I 
think he's a great person, and I was enthralled that we now 
have Mike Dominguez who'll be Charlie Abell's replacement, but 
I'd also want to say that in his own right he deserves to be 
the Deputy Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness there in 
the Office of Secretary of Defense.
    I've known Michael Dominguez for nearly 5 years. It's a 
pleasure for me to be able to introduce him to your committee. 
I worked with him on a number of personnel issues, even though 
I wasn't on the Personnel Subcommittee. Because of the Air 
Force Academy, over the last couple of years, Michael and I 
have worked together. I've always valued Michael's candor, 
openness, and willingness to pursue the facts. He grew up in 
the Air Force as a dependent but later switched services and 
attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. After serving 
5 years in the Army, Michael attended Stanford's Business 
School and later joined the Office of Secretary of Defense 
(OSD) as an analyst during the Reagan administration. Michael 
entered the senior executive service in 1991 as the OSD 
Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation, and in 2001, 
Michael returned to the Air Force when he was nominated and 
confirmed to be the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
    I've worked most closely with Michael in solving several 
difficult challenges at the Air Force Academy involving sexual 
assault and religious intolerance. Michael took a prominent 
role in restoring public trust and confidence in the Academy 
and was willing to consult with concerned Members of Congress. 
He was wise enough to seek outside expertise, particularly when 
it came to the difficult issue of sexual assault. I'm pleased 
to say that the Air Force Academy's sexual assault response has 
become the model for the other Service academies and for many 
public universities now.
    From March to July 2005, Michael took on the challenging 
role of Acting Secretary of the Air Force. His expanded role 
included the Base Realignment and Closure round, the 
Quadrennial Defense Review, and the restructuring of several 
major Air Force Space Acquisition Programs. Michael is well-
prepared for this new position and understands the importance 
of leadership. He is willing to tackle the tough issues that 
can make things happen in the Department of Defense (DOD), and 
I'm confident that Michael can accomplish his new duties with 
the same degree of success that he enjoyed elsewhere in his 
career. I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the 
opportunity to introduce Mr. Dominguez and to say hello to you 
today.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Allard, we thank you very much. 
You keep a continuing interest in all areas of national 
security, but you have made a major contribution with regard to 
the Air Force Academy. Understandably. You're proud that it is 
in your State, but we must focus on the importance of these 
academies. They are symbols throughout the educational system 
of this Nation, and they attract the finest of individuals to 
come from all over our Nation. It is extremely important that 
all of us work with these academies to make them the models 
that America views them as and looks up to them.
    Senator Allard. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Chairman. 
I couldn't agree more with you.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you. Now we'll proceed with the 
regular order here. We thank our colleagues.
    Senator Dayton. Mr. Chairman, if I may make one more 
introduction, please.
    Chairman Warner. I beg your pardon. Of course, we're 
delighted to have you.
    Senator Dayton. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. Yes.
    Senator Dayton. Thank you, sir. I'm honored to introduce 
James I. Finley from Chanhassen, Minnesota, who has been 
nominated by the President to be Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition and Technology. Accompanying Mr. 
Finley, and I ask them to stand and be recognized please, are 
his wife, Sharon, one of his six children, Dan, and Dan's wife, 
Jessica. Welcome. As true Minnesota natives, Dan and Jessica 
dug out from about 2\1/2\ feet of snow in Connecticut to be 
here in Washington and join their father today.
    Chairman Warner. We welcome you and that's wonderful.
    Senator Dayton. Mr. Finley is superbly qualified for this 
key position. He has 30 years of experience in successfully 
designing and managing acquisition and technology systems in 
the aerospace industry. He's held management and senior 
management positions at General Electric, Singer, Lear Sigler, 
United Technologies, and General Dynamics where he was a 
Corporate Officer, President of Information Systems, and Chair 
of the Business Development Council.
    In 2002, Mr. Finley formed his own consulting company, the 
Finley Group. His biography states that his leadership and 
strategic planning abilities have led many companies to achieve 
double-digit financial growth which commends him very well for 
this position. I told him that we would settle for double-digit 
improvements in efficiencies for acquisitions, technology, and 
logistics.
    Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to introduce Jim Finley to our 
committee and also to enthusiastically support his nomination. 
Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. Senator, that's very important that you've 
joined in. We thank you very much for that contribution. Given 
that my colleagues have fairly well introduced three of them, 
with your permission, I'll introduce you.
    Thomas P. D'Agostino is the nominee to be the Deputy 
Administrator for Defense Programs in the National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA), which was created by Congress. 
I remember well participating in establishing that. He 
currently serves as the Assistant Deputy Administrator for 
Program Integration in NNSA and directs the Stockpile 
Stewardship Program. He is responsible for maintaining the 
safety, security, and reliability of the Nation's nuclear 
weapons stockpile. That's an extraordinarily important function 
that you fulfill. That stockpile is carefully monitored by this 
committee and in the course of our proceedings today I'll 
direct questions to you about that.
    He's a captain in the Navy Reserve, served over 8 years on 
Active-Duty in the submarine service, and served on the U.S.S. 
Skipjack during Admiral Rickover's tenure as the Director of 
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. When you visited with me, we 
exchanged our particular reminiscences of that distinguished 
American, Admiral Rickover, an extraordinary person in the 
annals of the history of our Nation. During our office call 
last week, I learned that you served under that Navy legend, 
Admiral Bulkeley. I knew him so well when I was Secretary of 
the Navy. He was an extraordinary man. He was a D-Day 
Congressional Medal of Honor winner, and he stayed on in the 
Navy many years for the sole purpose of assuring the Navy that 
no ship went to sea unless it was technically perfect and you 
learned a lot under that wonderful man. So we congratulate you, 
sir. Do you have family here today that you would introduce?
    Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have both my parents, 
Anne Claude D'Agostino, my mother, my father, Tom D'Agostino, 
my son, Tommy, and my wife, Beth. They're all here. They live 
locally and were able to make it for the hearing and are here 
to look after me.
    Chairman Warner. All right. We thank you very much for 
coming. Now, Mr. Dominguez, would you introduce your family.
    Mr. Dominguez. Yes, Senator, thank you very much. I have 
with me here today my wife, Sheila; my daughter, Michelle; and 
my brother, who is also serving the Nation as an Assistant U.S. 
Attorney in the District of Columbia, John.
    Chairman Warner. Delighted to have you. Regarding your 
brother, I know the audience is weary of hearing about me but I 
served 5 years in that office and they were marvelous years. 
That was back in the good old rough and tumble days. I'll 
insert the balance of my statement for the record.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
               Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
    I am pleased to have four distinguished nominees before the 
committee this morning.
    We welcome the Honorable Pete Geren, who has been nominated to be 
the Under Secretary of the Army, and the Honorable Michael L. 
Dominguez, who has been nominated to be the Principal Deputy Under 
Secretary of Personnel and Readiness. We also welcome James I. Finley, 
who has been nominated to be the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition and Technology, and Thomas P. D'Agostino, the 
nominee to be the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs in the 
National Nuclear Security Administration.
    I understand our colleagues, Senator Hutchison and Senator Cornyn, 
will introduce Mr. Geren. Following those introductions, Senator Allard 
will introduce Mr. Dominguez and Senator Dayton will introduce Mr. 
Finley.
    I now ask our nominees to introduce their family members and 
guests. Mr. Geren, please start, followed by Secretary Dominguez, Mr. 
Finley, and Mr. D'Agostino.
    We welcome all of you, and thank you for the vitally important 
support you provide to our nominees. They cannot succeed in these 
demanding positions without your continued encouragement and support, 
as I'm sure they all recognize.
    As our colleagues from Texas indicated, Mr. Geren has had a very 
distinguished career in public service. He represented the 12th 
District of Texas--Fort Worth--for four terms, from 1989 to 1997, 
serving on the Committees on Armed Services, Science and Technology, 
and Public Works and Transportation. He joined the Department of 
Defense in September 2001 to serve as a Special Assistant to Secretary 
Rumsfeld. On July 29, 2005, Mr. Geren was appointed Acting Secretary of 
the Air Force and served in that capacity until November 3, when 
Secretary Wynne assumed that office. Mr. Geren, thank you for your 
public service, and, in particular, for your assistance to this 
committee as Secretary Rumsfeld's representative. Congratulations on 
your nomination for this critically important position.
    Michael L. Dominguez has served as Assistant Secretary of the Air 
Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs since August 2001. He also 
served as the Acting Secretary of the Air Force from March 2005 through 
July 2005. I note that Mr. Dominguez is a 1975 West Point graduate and 
served on Active-Duty in the U.S. Army with the 509th Infantry 
(Airborne) and the Southern European Task Force. He will succeed 
Charlie Abell, current staff director of the Committee on Armed 
Services, who left the Department in August of last year . . . 
obviously, for greener pastures. Secretary Dominguez, we thank you for 
your public service to date and your willingness to continue serving.
    James I. Finley has been nominated to be the Principal Deputy Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology. Mr. Finley has had 
a remarkable career in the private sector with over 30 years of multi-
national business leadership and management experience. Programs he has 
headed have included air, land, sea, and space projects for the 
Department of Defense, NASA, and the FAA. Mr. Finley has demonstrated 
expertise in the challenges posed by advanced research projects and 
business transformations, and has most recently headed his own 
consulting company focusing on all facets of the business cycle. Mr. 
Finley, welcome.
    Thomas P. D'Agostino is the nominee to be the Deputy Administrator 
for Defense Programs in the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA). Mr. D'Agostino currently serves as the Assistant Deputy 
Administrator for Program Integration in the NNSA and directs the 
Stockpile Stewardship program, which is responsible for maintaining the 
safety, security, and reliability of the Nation's nuclear weapons 
stockpile. Mr. D'Agostino is a captain in the Navy Reserve having 
served over 8 years on Active-Duty in the submarine service. He served 
in U.S.S. Skipjack during Admiral Rickover's tenure as the Director of 
the Naval Nuclear Propulsion program. During our office call last week, 
I learned that Mr. D'Agostino also served under another Navy legend, 
Vice Admiral John D. Bulkeley, the renowned Medal of Honor winner, who, 
for many years headed the Navy's Board of Inspection and Survey. 
Congratulations on your nomination.

    Chairman Warner. Senator Levin, do you have some comments 
you'd like to make at this time?
    Senator Levin. No, Mr. Chairman. I will just join you in 
welcoming our nominees and their families. As you and others 
have already pointed out, the families are truly as important 
as the nominees in terms of getting this work done. We thank 
particularly the children who are here today. They will not see 
their dads as often as they would like and your fathers would 
like but that's part of the territory. That's some of the 
dedication that you will see and have seen all your life in 
your parents. So we just want to particularly thank the 
children, as well as the brothers, fathers, spouses, and others 
who have contributed to their being here today and to their 
commitments and to their success.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin. As in all 
nominations, again, we commend our President and the Secretary 
of Defense and others who made it possible to recruit this 
extraordinary team for public service. We asked you a series of 
advance policy questions. You have responded to those 
questions, and without objection they'll be made a part of 
today's record. There are certain standard questions that the 
chairman of this committee always propounds to each nominee, 
and I will do that now and if you will indicate your 
concurrence or nonconcurrence with these questions. Please do 
so as a group.
    Have each of you adhered to the applicable laws and 
regulations governing conflicts of interest?
    Mr. Dominguez. Yes.
    Mr. Finley. Yes.
    Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
    Mr. Geren. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken 
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the 
confirmation process?
    Mr. Dominguez. No, sir.
    Mr. Finley. No, sir.
    Mr. D'Agostino. No, sir.
    Mr. Geren. No, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Will you ensure that your staff complies 
with deadlines established for requested communications coming 
from the Congress of the United States, including questions for 
the record in hearings such as this?
    Mr. Dominguez. Yes.
    Mr. Finley. Yes.
    Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
    Mr. Geren. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses 
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
    Mr. Dominguez. Yes.
    Mr. Finley. Yes.
    Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
    Mr. Geren. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from 
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
    Mr. Dominguez. Yes.
    Mr. Finley. Yes.
    Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
    Mr. Geren. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and 
testify upon request before this committee?
    Mr. Dominguez. Yes.
    Mr. Finley. Yes.
    Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
    Mr. Geren. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Do you agree to provide documents, 
including copies of electronic forms of communications, in a 
timely manner when requested by a duly constituted committee of 
the Congress of the United States or to consult with the 
committee regarding the basis for any good faith delay or 
denial in providing such documents?
    Mr. Dominguez. Yes.
    Mr. Finley. Yes.
    Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
    Mr. Geren. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. That concludes our 
questions. Now, as you observed, several colleagues came in to 
introduce an individual or nominee here this morning. I must 
depart for a few minutes to introduce an individual from my 
State who's becoming a United States Marshal for the United 
States, the entire country. To ensure that, if I'm locked up, 
I'll get good treatment, I'm going to get up there and 
introduce him. Would you kindly take over?
    Senator Chambliss [presiding]. Not that I am a capable 
replacement for the gentleman from Virginia, but let me extend 
my personal welcome to each of you here. Pete, it's always good 
to see you back. You've been here several times before. We're 
always glad to see you come back. Gentlemen, we'll begin with 
opening statements at this time and Mr. Geren, we'll start with 
you.

 STATEMENT OF HON. PRESTON M. GEREN, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF 
                            THE ARMY

    Mr. Geren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Senator 
Levin, members of the committee, I'm honored that the President 
has nominated me to serve as Under Secretary of the Army and to 
appear before your committee. I want to thank President Bush 
and Secretary Rumsfeld for their confidence in me and the 
members of this committee for your consideration. I 
particularly want to thank Senator Hutchison for being here 
this morning and Senator Cornyn, both of them for their very 
kind and charitable words. They've been great friends over the 
years, and I appreciate very much their taking the time to be 
here today. I want to thank Senator Cornyn for recognizing my 
family. I'm delighted that they could be here. I want to thank 
Becky and our girls for their love and support. We appreciated 
the words of Senator Levin and Senator Warner, warm words that 
they gave to all these family members. Thank you very much.
    All of us in public life have people who have helped us 
along the way, friends and family, people too numerous to 
mention. There's one person, however, I'd like to recognize 
today and thank for his friendship and help with my career. He 
was one of your colleagues, Senator Lloyd Bentsen. He's not in 
good health today. I wanted the record to reflect the personal 
affection, appreciation, and gratitude I hold for him. When I 
was young, his leadership drew me into politics. He gave me the 
privilege of working on his Senate staff, and he gave 
generously of his counsel and his support during my time in 
elected politics. I want to thank him and his devoted wife, 
Beryl Ann, for the friendship and generosity they've shown 
Becky and me over the years. Without them, my life would have 
taken a different course.
    To serve as Under Secretary of the Army at this time in our 
Nation's history is a daunting and humbling task. If confirmed, 
I recognize that my success in the job will depend on my 
ability to reach out to others, to those who have devoted their 
lives to the Active, Guard, and Reserve components of the Army, 
to build a team and work effectively with the many stakeholders 
dedicated to the success of the Army.
    I've been asked my top priority. That is an easy one: the 
soldier and his or her family. Everything the Army must 
accomplish depends on recruiting, training, equipping, and 
retaining the finest soldiers in the world, and the family 
cannot be neglected. The old adage, you recruit the soldier, 
you retain the family, is more true today than ever before. Our 
policies and practices must reflect that reality.
    As a former Member of the House, I understand fully Article 
I, Section 8, of the Constitution. If confirmed, I look forward 
to working with this committee in service to the Army. I stand 
ready to answer your questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Pete, and I would be remiss 
because Watson Brown would be curious why you don't have your 
orange tie on today.
    Mr. Geren. I wore it yesterday.
    Senator Chambliss. Mr. Dominguez.

   STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ TO BE DEPUTY UNDER 
        SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS

    Mr. Dominguez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
this committee for all you do to support the men and women who 
defend the Nation. I am grateful to Senator Allard for his kind 
introduction and to Chairman Warner for recognizing my family 
with me here today. I am also deeply grateful to the President 
for nominating me to this position and to Secretary Rumsfeld 
for his confidence in me and his support of this nomination.
    For the last 4\1/2\ years, I have been privileged to serve 
as Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and 
Reserve Affairs. These past years have been a time of trial and 
challenge as well as enormous opportunity. I am proud of the 
airmen with whom I have served, of their sacrifice, their 
achievement, and together with their joint service and 
coalition partners, of the contribution they make to a secure 
future for people who love peace and freedom. It is a great 
honor to be offered another opportunity in service to our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their families. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions.
    Senator Chambliss. Thank you. Mr. Finley.

 STATEMENT OF JAMES L. FINLEY TO BE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF 
             DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION AND TECHNOLOGY

    Mr. Finley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Mr. 
Chairman, Senator Levin, members of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, I am deeply honored and humbled with the trust and 
confidence of President Bush to nominate me for the position of 
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology. I'm also very appreciative of Secretary of Defense 
Rumsfeld for his support, trust, and confidence in me 
throughout this nomination process. I particularly also want to 
thank Senator Dayton for his introductory remarks.
    For me, this is a very special occasion. It will be my 
first time, if confirmed, to serve in our government. With over 
30 years of extensive business leadership, it is with great 
passion and experience in acquisition and technology systems 
that I come before you today for consideration of confirmation. 
I am delighted to have my lovely wife, best friend, Sharon, and 
my son, Daniel, and his wife, Jessica, from Connecticut to join 
me here today. Dan is a marine, and needless to say, I feel 
very safe with a marine at our side.
    Mr. Chairman, Mr. Levin, and members of the committee, I 
have further prepared for this hearing by having read the 
recently released Quadrennial Defense Review, as well as the 
Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment Report. I've also 
read title 8, the 800 series section of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. As an outsider and 
coming in from Minnesota, it was with great glory to see so 
much snow here this weekend which helped keep me inside 
reading, reading, and reading a fair mountain of documentation.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for your kind remarks and the 
opportunity to appear before this committee. If confirmed, I 
look forward to working with you and this committee and 
Congress. I stand ready for your questions.
    Senator Chambliss. Thank you.
    Mr. D'Agostino.

 STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. D'AGOSTINO TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 
 FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

    Mr. D'Agostino. Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, members of the 
committee, I am both humbled and honored to be the President's 
nominee for Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs in the 
National Nuclear Security Administration. I appreciate deeply 
the confidence that the President, Secretary Bodman, and 
Ambassador Brooks have placed in me.
    If confirmed, I'll work with Congress and the 
administration as we continue to assure the safety, security, 
and reliability of our Nation's nuclear stockpile. I am blessed 
to be entrusted by the President to be his nominee and if 
confirmed by the Senate, I hope to lead this organization as we 
continue to move forward in maintaining our Nation's security.
    I've been with the Department of Energy's nuclear weapon's 
program for over 15 years and I've seen great changes in that 
time. Through the Treaty of Moscow, we will reduce 
operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons to about 1,700 
to 2,200 warheads by December 2012. In addition, the President 
took further steps to reduce the size of the stockpile, both 
deployed and nondeployed. At his direction by 2012, the 
stockpile will be lower by nearly one-half from the 2001 level, 
resulting in the smallest stockpile since the Eisenhower 
administration.
    Also, as described in the administration's Nuclear Posture 
Review, we're in the midst of transforming the nuclear weapons 
complex to implement a responsive infrastructure and to provide 
for a deterrent that does not rely on significant number of 
nondeployed warheads and weapons as a hedge against technical 
uncertainty or geopolitical changes.
    If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress on 
the transformation of the stockpile and shift to the responsive 
infrastructure. This will present challenges that will shape 
our nuclear forces to reflect the reality that the Cold War is 
over while at the same time maintaining that credible deterrent 
consistent with our national security needs. This is the better 
future for the nuclear weapons program. It's a future of an 
integrated and responsive nuclear weapons enterprise that is 
modernized, cost effective, safe, and secure.
    Service is important to me, and as Chairman Warner 
mentioned earlier, I have over 29 years of military service in 
the United States Navy and 16 years of civil service in the 
Department of the Navy as well as the Department of Energy 
(DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration. As an 
officer in the United States Navy, I was selected by Admiral 
Rickover and trained as a submarine officer, and in this 
capacity, I managed technically complex high hazard operations 
onboard nuclear submarines. This training instilled in me a 
commitment to quality, discipline, and integrity that are so 
vital and important when dealing with nuclear operations.
    After over 8 years on Active-Duty in the submarine force, I 
continued to serve in the national security arena as a Naval 
Reserve Officer and the civil service as a Propulsion Systems 
Program Manager for the Seawolf Submarine Program. I then moved 
to the DOE and worked in a wide variety of technical and 
management positions in the area of tritium reactor restart, as 
a Deputy Director for the Office of Stockpile Computing, as the 
Deputy Director for the Nuclear Weapons Research and 
Development and Simulation Program, and most recently as the 
Assistant Deputy Administrator for Program Integration. In that 
capacity, I reported directly to the Deputy Administrator for 
Defense Programs to integrate the Stockpile Stewardship Program 
and budget across our three national laboratories, four 
production sites, and the Nevada Test Site.
    For all my professional life, I have focused on service in 
support of our Nation's security and with your support I hope 
to be able to continue this service as a Deputy Administrator 
for Defense Programs. I'm privileged to have been able to serve 
my country and am confident that my experience will serve me 
well, if confirmed.
    Along with service, integrity, perseverance, and the proper 
attitude are important to me. My father taught me that nothing 
is beyond reach as long as you have these attributes. In 1st 
Chronicles, King David said, ``I know my God that you test the 
heart and are pleased with integrity. All these things have I 
given willingly and with honest intent.'' If confirmed, I will 
bring all these things to the Deputy Administrator position and 
to the men and women of Defense Programs who work so hard on 
the important task of preserving our Nation's security. With 
your approval, it will be my great privilege to lead Defense 
Programs as we meet our challenges and work towards a better 
future. Thank you for your consideration.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. D'Agostino follows:]
               Prepared Statement by Thomas P. D'Agostino
    Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and members of the committee, I am 
both humbled and honored to be the President's nominee as Deputy 
Administrator for Defense Programs in the National Nuclear Security 
Administration at the Department of Energy. I appreciate the confidence 
that the President, Secretary Bodman, and Ambassador Brooks have placed 
in me. If confirmed, I will work with Congress and the administration 
as we continue to assure the safety, security and reliability of the 
nuclear weapons stockpile to meet our national security requirements. I 
am blessed to be entrusted by the President to be his nominee, and if 
confirmed by the Senate, I hope to lead this organization as we 
continue to move forward in the work of maintaining our Nation's 
security.
    I have been with the Department of Energy's (DOE) nuclear weapons 
program for over 15 years, and have seen great changes in that time. 
Through the Treaty of Moscow we will reduce operationally-deployed 
strategic nuclear weapons to 1,700-2,200 by December 2012. In addition 
the President took further steps to reduce the size of the stockpile, 
both deployed and nondeployed. At his direction, by 2012, the stockpile 
will be lower by nearly one-half from the 2001 level, resulting in the 
smallest stockpile since the Eisenhower administration. Also, as 
described in the administration's Nuclear Posture Review, we are in the 
midst of transforming the nuclear weapons complex to implement a 
responsive infrastructure to provide for a deterrent that does not rely 
on a significant number of nondeployed weapons as a hedge against 
technical problems or geopolitical changes.
    If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress on the 
transformation of the stockpile and the shift to a responsive 
infrastructure. This will present challenges that will shape our 
nuclear forces to reflect the reality that the Cold War is over, while 
at the same time maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent consistent 
with our national security needs. This is the better future for the 
nuclear weapons program--a future of an integrated and responsive 
nuclear weapons enterprise that is modernized, cost-effective, safe, 
and secure.
    Service is important to me. I have over 29 years of military 
service in the United States Navy and over 16 years of civil service in 
the Department of the Navy and then the DOE and National Nuclear 
Security Administration. As an officer in the U.S. Navy, I was selected 
by Admiral Rickover and trained as a nuclear submarine officer. In this 
capacity I managed technically complex, high-hazard operations on board 
nuclear submarines. This training instilled in me a commitment to 
quality, discipline, and integrity that are so important when dealing 
with nuclear operations. After over 8 years on Active-Duty in the 
submarine force, I continued to serve in the national security arena as 
a Naval Reserve Officer and in the civil service as a propulsion 
systems program manager for the Sea Wolf submarine program. I then 
moved to the DOE and worked in a wide variety of both technical and 
management positions, in the areas of tritium reactor restart, as 
Deputy Director in the Office of Stockpile Computing, as the Deputy 
Director for Nuclear Weapons Research, Development and Simulation, and 
most recently, as the Assistant Deputy Administrator for Program 
Integration. In that capacity, I reported directly to the Deputy 
Administrator for Defense Programs to integrate the Stockpile 
Stewardship Program and budget across four production sites, three 
national laboratories, and the Nevada Test Site.
    For all of my professional life I have focused on service in 
support of our Nation's security. With your support I hope to be able 
to continue this service as the Deputy Administrator for Defense 
Programs. I am privileged to have been able to serve my country and am 
confident that my experience will serve me well if confirmed.
    Along with service, integrity, perseverance, and the proper 
attitude are important to me as well. My father taught me that nothing 
is beyond reach as long as you have these attributes. In First 
Chronicles, King David said, ``I know, my God, that you test the heart 
and are pleased with integrity. All these things have I given willingly 
and with honest intent.'' If confirmed, I will bring all of these 
things to the Deputy Administrator position, and to the men and women 
of Defense Programs who work so hard on the important task of 
preserving our Nation's security. With your approval, it would be my 
great privilege to lead Defense Programs as we meet our challenges and 
work towards a better future. Thank you for your consideration.

    Senator Chambliss. Thank you.
    Senator Levin.
    Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. First, Mr. Geren, 
let me ask you a few questions. The Army plans to increase the 
operational force by about 40,000 people. In your written 
answers to the committee you wrote that there's a two-phase 
approach to reduce the institutional Army by first converting a 
total of 27,000 spaces from military to civilian, and I'm 
wondering if you can tell us about that plan. Is it 
progressing?
    Mr. Geren. I don't know the details of the plan, Senator, 
but the plan is to move 40,000 faces into the operational Army. 
They intend to meet the needs in the institutional Army three 
ways: one through military/civilian conversions, another is in 
some cases discontinuing practices that are determined no 
longer to be relevant, and the other is through contracting, 
outsourcing, and other business transformation initiatives. 
They have, as I understand it, have moved 7,000 or 8,000 
already into the operational Army. I don't know the timetable. 
I'd be glad to furnish the details of it for the record.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    The Army has been evaluating force requirements within the End 
Strength Plan outlined by the Secretary of the Army in August 2005. 
Under this plan, the Army is building an expeditionary, campaign 
quality force capable of meeting the broad and complex array of 
challenges while ensuring its forces remain the preeminent land power 
and ultimate instrument of national resolve. The operational force grew 
by approximately 20,000 spaces from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 
2005 (315,000 to 335,000) and is forecasted to grow another 10,000 
spaces from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006 (335,000 to 345,000). 
The Army will achieve the goal of a 355,000 space operational force in 
fiscal year 2007. The Army will realize this growth through gaining 
efficiencies in its institutional force and through Business Process 
Transformation. The Army's goal is to attain a reduction to 75,000 
soldiers in its institutional force and reduce the transients, 
trainees, holdees, and students (TTHS) to 52,400 Soldiers. The 
military/civilian conversion plan is a key component of the overall 
Army End Strength Plan. A two-phase approach to reduce the 
Institutional Army through military-to-civilian conversion is being 
executed. Phase I (fiscal year 2005-2009) will convert up to 11,000 
positions. Phase II (fiscal year 2008-2011) will convert up to 14,000 
additional positions and is under review by major commands. Through 
fiscal year 2006, we have converted 9,644 Active military positions. 
Business Process Transformation will streamline or eliminate redundant 
operations to free up human resources to redirect to the operational 
force.

    Senator Levin. Thank you. In your written answers to the 
committee you wrote that one of your highest priorities would 
be to work with the Secretary of the Army to enhance the Army's 
coordination and communication with Members of Congress and 
staff. As a prior member of the House of Representatives and 
its Armed Services Committee, I think you have personal 
experience. Your commitment is very important to us. Do you 
have any specific recommendations that you would give to the 
Secretary of the Army on how to improve the Army's relationship 
with Congress?
    Mr. Geren. I know that he shares the same commitment to 
work with the House and with the Senate, and understands fully 
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. I believe strongly 
that if we are going to do our jobs well in the DOD or, if 
confirmed, the United States Army, we cannot do it without 
being full partners with Congress. The Army has to remain 
connected to the people that we represent, has to remain 
connected to the people of the Nation, and in addition to the 
partnership serving our ability to make the right decisions 
about the Army and lead the Army properly, Congress helps us 
stay connected with the American people. The American people 
must retain faith in the United States Army. They entrust their 
sons and their daughters to the care of the Army. They send 
their Army all over the world, and I believe a strong, vital 
relationship with Congress is key to maintaining that 
connection to the people.
    Senator Levin. As Special Assistant to the Secretary of 
Defense, you were the liaison to Congress on detainee abuse 
issues. You may know that I have initiated a factfinding effort 
to fill in some of the gaps in the DOD investigations into 
detainee abuses and to examine issues of accountability for 
policies, practices, and activities that may have contributed 
to such mistreatment. Will you cooperate with me in that 
effort?
    Mr. Geren. I will cooperate, Senator. As I understand it, 
the Office of Secretary of Defense has your request under 
consideration, but I can assure you, sir, as I have over these 
last 2 years, I worked very hard to be forthcoming and provide 
transparency and work with you and with your staff in making 
sure that we answer all your questions and provide you the 
information you need.
    Senator Levin. Will you help us get answers from persons 
that you have some control over or influence with?
    Mr. Geren. Yes, sir, to the extent I can. As I said, the 
Office of Secretary of Defense is, I believe, taking that issue 
on and I'll work with them and work with Congress. I know their 
goal would be to cooperate to the extent possible.
    Senator Levin. We also would appreciate, not just that kind 
of support and cooperation, but also prompt responses as well. 
Can we count on you for that?
    Mr. Geren. I understand the value of promptness, yes, sir.
    Senator Levin. Are you aware of any additional authority 
that the Army needs to mobilize the Army National Guard and 
Army Reserve personnel when they are needed?
    Mr. Geren. Yes, sir. As I understand it, there are a couple 
of initiatives that the Army would like see enacted to support 
their mobilization needs. One is, under the President's 
authority to call up the Guard, we would like to extend it from 
270 days to a year, I believe, and also provide the opportunity 
on a voluntary basis, to make guardsmen available for training 
in advance of mobilization in excess of 39 days a year. I think 
those are the priorities for the Army.
    Senator Levin. Thank you. Mr. Dominguez, the Washington 
Post a few days ago reported that the Army is projecting a 
shortage of 3,500 Active-Duty officers in career fields 
strained by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They indicated 
one of the measures the Army is taking to address this 
shortfall is recalling officers who have completed their 
Active-Duty commitments and are fulfilling the remainder of 
their military service obligations in the Individual Ready 
Reserve. Are you familiar with those alleged shortages in the 
junior officer ranks?
    Mr. Dominguez. Sir, only generally from my conversations 
with my counterparts and my reading in the media.
    Senator Levin. Okay. Now, the Air Force as well as the Navy 
is downsizing and seeking incentives for excess officers to 
leave the Service. If confirmed, will you take actions to 
attempt to ensure that Air Force and Navy officers who have the 
skills, training, and experience that are in short supply in 
the Army are encouraged to serve in or with the Army?
    Mr. Dominguez. Oh, absolutely, Senator.
    Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, I just have a few questions of 
our other nominees. With your permission, and if Senator Dayton 
would allow me; then I'd be able to get on to another 
commitment that I have, and I would appreciate that.
    Secretary Dominguez, there is an article in the Washington 
Post on February 9, 2006, where the columnist, Robert Novak, 
asserted that Active-Duty servicemembers are being offered to 
Republican county chairmen to speak in a duty status about 
their experiences in Iraq. Are you aware of any such activity?
    Mr. Dominguez. No, Senator, I am not.
    Senator Levin. Mr. Finley, you've indicated you have read 
the Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment (DAPA). I'm 
wondering now if you would tell us what you see as the most 
serious problems in the DOD's acquisition of major weapons 
systems and what steps you believe we should take to address 
those problems, either from that review or from your own 
personal experience.
    Mr. Finley. Thank you, Senator Levin. The problems and 
issues are fairly detailed in the DAPA Report. The number one 
issue that was identified was oversight, number two issue was 
acquisition strategy, and the number three issue was the 
requirements and instability requirements. What I see is 
bringing my experience from the business world into this arena 
of requirements creep. Scheduled growth and budgeting would put 
more stability in what they call the bigger A concept as 
opposed to just focusing on individual program performance 
areas.
    Senator Levin. Mr. Finley, the acquisition of contract 
services is too often neglected by senior DOD acquisition 
officials who spend much of their time on major weapons 
systems. If you are confirmed, can you make it a top priority 
to improve the management of contract services within the DOD?
    Mr. Finley. Yes, sir.
    Senator Levin. All right. I just have one question for Mr. 
D'Agostino and that has to do with the Robust Nuclear Earth 
Penetrator (RNEP) Program. Do you know if the budget request 
for fiscal year 2007 includes any money for RNEP or RNEP-
related activities?
    Mr. D'Agostino. Senator Levin, there's no money requested 
or resources requested for the RNEP in the fiscal year 2007 
President's budget.
    Senator Levin. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, again, my thanks to 
you and to Senator Dayton.
    Senator Chambliss. Senator Dayton.
    Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 
all four of you for your willingness to serve. Mr. Geren, 
yesterday we had a hearing with the Secretary of the Army and 
the Chief of Staff of the Army and a subject that came up 
frequently was the plans for the National Guard. This occurred 
in part because of a lack of ongoing communication with the 
Adjutant Generals and even Governors that led to quite a flurry 
of contacts between Members of the Senate and the House in the 
last couple of weeks. Yesterday, both the Secretary and the 
Chief of Staff made a commitment to involve the Adjutant 
Generals in ongoing communication about the future plans. I 
would ask if you'd be willing to make that same commitment and 
assure us when you arrive in your position that ongoing 
communication does in fact occur.
    Mr. Geren. Yes, sir, I certainly would.
    Senator Dayton. All right. Thank you. Secretary Dominguez, 
Senator Allard referenced the situation with the Air Force 
Academy and the plan, or the program, to combat sexual abuse. I 
wonder if you could give some particulars because that's a 
subject of great interest to the members of this committee. 
What has been done there? What has been instituted? How is it 
judged to be effective, and why is it a model for the other 
academies?
    Mr. Dominguez. Yes, sir. Thank you. Senator, my colleagues 
and I responded aggressively to this challenge. We addressed 
this problem openly, consulting with Congress and keeping the 
press informed. We sought, from outside experts, assistance in 
understanding the problem and in fashioning our attack upon the 
problem. We focused on prevention through clarified roles and 
responsibilities, and we improved training. We improved our 
response capabilities through assignment of full-time sexual 
assault response coordinators, training for victim advocates, 
training for first-responders, and, importantly, implementation 
of a confidential reporting avenue. We regained the trust and 
confidence of our men and women so that they know when they 
report this crime they'll be protected and we will seek 
justice.
    Senator Dayton. Let me ask, how do you know you have their 
trust and confidence? How do you determine that?
    Mr. Dominguez. Sir, we monitor that through surveys, both 
incidents of sexual assault as well as surveys of the attitudes 
of our young men and women regarding their trust and confidence 
in command. We've seen a major turn-around in that. The 
openness with which we address it and continue to address it, 
the specific actions that we took, and the monitoring of that 
data and putting that data out in front, again, in the open, is 
one of the ways we do that. If you're interested, Senator, the 
Academy Board of Visitors will be meeting this week, and 
they'll see the statistics from the surveys in that public and 
open forum.
    Senator Dayton. I thank you for your contributions to that. 
That's a very important, urgent in fact, reform. Thank you.
    Mr. Finley, acquisitions and better efficiencies in 
contracting seems to be the Sisyphus that afflicts the DOD. 
You've been on the other side in the private sector. Could you 
identify what you think are the principal problems and 
therefore, opportunities for improvements that will make the 
system process more efficient, save taxpayers dollars? What's 
going to be critical now is to stretch every defense dollar to 
go even farther.
    Mr. Finley. Yes, sir. Senator Dayton, I feel a fundamental 
common denominator from a business point of view is the 
workforce. The people in the workforce make things happen, both 
in the senior management all the way down to the people who 
clean the floors at night. The first ingredient, I believe, you 
need to have is good people. Fundamentally, I believe our men 
and women in uniform, as well as our civilian forces, are good 
people.
    The second requirement is: do they have the right skill 
sets and have we trained them properly and have we supported 
them properly to get that training? The third requirement is 
getting those skilled people in the right place. I believe that 
is one of management's biggest challenges, and yet an 
opportunity to stop requirements creep, stop cost growth, get 
things that are stable from a planning point of view, and push 
this ability of the people, accountability, responsibility, 
down to the lowest level.
    If confirmed, sir, in OSD, I would see a more value-added 
approach to business, looking strategically at the services 
from the standpoint of eliminating duplication and focusing on 
core competencies of technologies to enable our acquisition 
systems to be more successful, reducing the cycle of time and 
meeting or beating the budget requirements.
    Senator Dayton. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, that concludes the 
questions I have.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Chambliss, thank you, sir, for 
taking the chair while I had to be upstairs for a minute.
    Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Geren, you 
and I go back to our days in the House, particularly serving 
together on the House Armed Services Committee where you were 
such a strong supporter of our men and women in uniform as well 
as various weapons systems that they need to make sure that we 
are the world's strongest military. I can't thank you enough 
for your service that you gave to them and to people of Texas, 
both in the House and in DOD.
    In your service in the Pentagon since September 2001, I 
have had the opportunity to work with you on a number of issues 
but to also observe your commitment to the defense of this 
country. I thank you for your continued willingness to serve 
the people of our country.
    Mr. Geren. Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate it 
very much.
    Senator Chambliss. Mr. Dominguez, let me focus on an issue 
with you that is very critical to the national security of this 
country. About a year ago, we had an issue in the budget 
relative to the multiyear purchase of the C-130J airplane. 
Obviously, coming from Georgia, that program is very important 
to me from a parochial standpoint, but more significantly, it's 
been important to me long before it became a parochial issue 
with me because not one nut or bolt of that airplane was made 
in my former congressional district.
    Last year when the budget coming from the President sought 
to terminate that multiyear contract, there was a lot of angst 
raised on Capitol Hill not just by my office but by dozens of 
Members of the Senate, dozens of Members of the House, and the 
end result of that was the reinstatement of that multiyear 
contract. Now, one of the problems we had was the fact that 
that contract when it was initiated was a commercial contract, 
which is a little bit unusual from a procurement standpoint, 
and at the request of Senator McCain and in discussion within 
this committee, the decision was made to convert that 
commercial contract back to a more traditional contract.
    Would you tell me what your involvement has been from the 
early days of last year in the conversion of that contract back 
to the more traditional form of procurement contract?
    Mr. Dominguez. Certainly, Senator. My involvement was or 
began when I became the Acting Secretary of the Air Force on 
March 28, 2005, and continued through to July 28 when I handed 
the baton off as Acting Secretary. So I inherited a budget 
proposal that was under review by the Secretary of Defense. I 
also inherited this discussion with Congress over the propriety 
of terminating the contract and of the propriety of it being a 
commercial acquisition. We had as you're very aware, Senator, 
several years of struggle, controversy, between the United 
States Air Force and Congress of the United States with regard 
to some of our acquisition programs, and I inherited that as 
well. I made it my priority, therefore, during my tenure as 
Acting Secretary, the number one objective I sought was to 
restore the trust and confidence that the Members of Congress 
of the United States had in the Air Force leadership and our 
ability to acquire weapons systems for the use of the Armed 
Forces of the United States.
    With that background and the controversy about the 
commercial acquisition of that platform, I made the commitment 
to convert that platform or that multiyear contract into a more 
traditional acquisition contract. We approached that, again as 
you pointed out, sir, decision to terminate the contract which 
was in the President's budget and was reversed by the Secretary 
of Defense about May 10. About May 11, Congress legislated a 
prohibition against termination of the contract.
    So our efforts focused on modifying the clauses in the 
contract to acquire the visibility into production costs that 
would be analogous to the kind of visibility we would have had 
if back in the 1990s we had started this as a traditional 
weapons system acquisition. That's the course I set. That 
journey was continuing at the time I left, but we had not 
achieved success yet.
    Senator Chambliss. Now, were you involved in the original 
decision to make this a commercial contract?
    Mr. Dominguez. Oh, no, sir.
    Senator Chambliss. During the time that you were involved 
in this, did you ask the question, or what was the answer to 
the question, of whether or not this had ever been done before?
    Mr. Dominguez. Sir, I knew that this had not been done 
before. I can't say for sure that I knew before I made the 
commitment, but I was confident in our acquisition community 
and in our partners in Lockheed Martin that they could do what 
needed to be done.
    Senator Chambliss. During the course of the work that 
you've done on this conversion, have you found the Air Force as 
well as Lockheed Martin to be very open in trying to come to 
the type of conclusion that this committee mandated in the 
legislation that was passed in May 2005, and that ultimately, 
became law in January 2006?
    Mr. Dominguez. Sir, absolutely. As I said, my first 
priority was restoring trust and confidence of Congress in our 
leadership and our stewardship. I insisted that we be open, and 
as a result of that, the Air Force acquisition professionals 
reached out to the Office of the DOD Inspector General (IG) to 
bring them into the discussions. They reached out to the 
Defense Contract Audit Agency to bring them into the 
discussions. After they had made what they considered 
sufficient progress and thought they had the target in sight, 
they reached out to Congress and the staff of this committee to 
get feedback on their concept.
    Senator Chambliss. So the involvement of the Office of 
Inspector General was initiated by you as opposed to somebody 
questioning what was happening relative to the conversion?
    Mr. Dominguez. That's correct, sir.
    Senator Chambliss. During all of this time that you were 
involved in this, and tell me again the exact time period that 
you were so involved.
    Mr. Dominguez. March 28 was when I became the Acting 
Secretary of the Air Force. About April 13 is when I visited 
with Senator McCain. General Jumper and I committed to convert 
this contract to a more traditional acquisition footing, and 
then July 28 was when I handed the baton as Acting Secretary 
off to my successor.
    Senator Chambliss. So, basically, about a 4-month period 
was all of the time that you were involved in this and that was 
at the initial time of the conversion of this contract to the 
more traditional form.
    Mr. Dominguez. That's absolutely correct.
    Senator Chambliss. Now, during that time, what were the 
comments or findings of the Office of Inspector General 
relative to the work towards converting this contract?
    Mr. Dominguez. Sir, I don't know of any specific comments 
during my tenure. I know because in preparation for this 
hearing I've reviewed the history of what transpired. The 
consultant that the Air Force acquisition team had working with 
them through the summer and from the period of about July 28 
when I actually left the office through the early fall, that 
consultant was onboard with the approach the Air Force had 
proposed. He thought it met the spirit of the congressional 
intent and was supportive, and I know by participating in the 
ongoing dialogue with Members of Congress and Congress' staff.
    Senator Chambliss. After the meeting that you and General 
Jumper had with Senator McCain, which I believe you said was 
April 13, was there any further discussion between you or 
members of your staff with members of this committee or staff 
of this committee?
    Mr. Dominguez. No, sir. I think that is my deepest regret 
at this point, that I did not initiate during my tenure a 
followup conversation with the important members of this 
committee to apprise you of our strategy and the fact that we 
were, in fact, just modifying clauses in an existing multiyear 
contract to add the cost visibility.
    I did not come back and say, ``that was our strategy, are 
you okay with it?'' Nor did I apprise you of the fact that we 
planned, and to iterate we were going to bring back a product 
that had never been done before for us all to look at and see 
if we liked it. But I didn't communicate that clearly, and so 
there was an unfortunate misunderstanding that erupted 
downstream as a result of that omission on my part, sir.
    Senator Chambliss. Was there ever any intention to deceive 
this committee relative to the language which was included in 
the authorization bill in May 2005?
    Mr. Dominguez. Absolutely not, Senator.
    Senator Chambliss. By the same token, did you receive any 
questions relative to the work on this contract during that 4-
month period from any member of this committee or staff of a 
member of this committee?
    Mr. Dominguez. I do not recall, Senator, receiving any 
communication. I hope that there was communication between our 
team and the staff but I don't know it. They didn't apprise me 
of it, and I received no direct inquiry.
    Senator Chambliss. Now, was it your intention to carry out 
the terms of the directive that this committee made in the 
authorization bill?
    Mr. Dominguez. Yes, sir. I have scrupulously followed the 
law, the intent of Congress, and the committee reports.
    Senator Chambliss. At the time you left on July 28, 2005, 
did you think that was well underway?
    Mr. Dominguez. Absolutely, Senator. I thought we were 
making great progress.
    Senator Chambliss. Have you had any further involvement in 
this program or in the transformation of this contract since 
that time?
    Mr. Dominguez. No, Senator, only the last week of fact-
gathering so that I might be able to answer questions at this 
hearing.
    Senator Chambliss. Who replaced you from the standpoint of 
the Air Force's participation in the conversion of this 
contract?
    Mr. Dominguez. Sir, I was replaced as the Acting Secretary 
of the Air Force by the Honorable Pete Geren who, as a result 
of there not being an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Acquisition, also became the Service Acquisition Executive. I 
handed the baton off to my friend, Mr. Geren.
    Senator Chambliss. Were you satisfied at that time that 
everything requested by this committee was in fact moving 
forward in accordance with the directions of the legislation 
that had been passed by this committee?
    Mr. Dominguez. Sir, that was my belief.
    Senator Chambliss. Okay. Mr. Geren, let me ask you, you've 
served as Acting Secretary of the Air Force from April 28 until 
I believe, sometime that fall.
    Mr. Geren. July to early November.
    Senator Chambliss. Tell me what involvement you had with 
respect to the changing of this contract from a commercial 
contract to the more traditional form?
    Mr. Geren. I had no involvement with it at all, sir.
    Senator Chambliss. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your 
leniency, and I have some documents that I would request I be 
authorized to enter into the record, particularly the testimony 
of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics, Ken Krieg, during his confirmation hearing, news 
release coming out of the Air Force dated April 13----
    Chairman Warner [presiding]. Senator, you just advise the 
staff and without objection we'll put those in.
    Senator Chambliss. Thank you.
    [The information referred to follows:]
      
      
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
      
    Chairman Warner. I'd like to advise the witnesses that I 
anticipate Senator McCain will be down. He's been very active 
in this matter, and he will, I hope, have the opportunity to 
come down and pursue a line of questions on it, but I thank 
you, I think you inquired into it very thoroughly. It's a 
matter of concern to the committee, but this is an aircraft 
that's been a workhorse. It's an essential one for the 
inventory of our services, and I think it's important that this 
committee look at the continuing needs and requirements for 
this aircraft and make a decision. I thank the distinguished 
Senator for his participation in filling in for a while for me 
this morning.
    Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. I think I'll depart again from formal 
procedure and recognize our colleague, Senator Thune. You've 
always been very patient to wait. Why don't you take your 
opportunity at this time, and then I'll come back in with a 
series of questions.
    Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's the 
disadvantage of being at the end of this line. I appreciate 
your leadership on this committee and getting the active 
participation of all of us here, including the freshmen 
members.
    Mr. Geren, Mr. Dominguez, Mr. Finley, and Mr. D'Agostino, I 
want to welcome you and thank you for your commitment to public 
service, for your records of service, and your careers and all 
the things you have done for this country, and for your 
willingness to put your names forward and continue to be 
involved. I appreciate as well, the opportunities that I've had 
to visit with you, your responsiveness to questions and issues 
that we have raised that apply to not only my State but also to 
this Nation, and the important work that our military is 
undertaking all over the planet.
    Just a couple of questions, and I direct this one to Mr. 
Geren. The Air Force and the Army have been working since 2004 
to create a joint program with the Army's future cargo aircraft 
which addresses the Army's organic lift gap and the Air Force's 
light cargo airlift, which addresses the Air Force's gap in 
intra-theater airlift capability. There have been some reports 
that, in addition to organic lift, Army wants to take over the 
intra-theater airlift and that there is supposedly a fight 
brewing between the Services.
    With your time as Acting Secretary of the Air Force, you're 
probably aware of this issue. I guess my question has more to 
do with any implications based on which direction this program 
leads, and how you will work to resolve this issue to meet the 
needs of both Services.
    Mr. Geren. Thank you for that question. I'm not familiar 
with the details of the program or the discussions or 
negotiations. I know organic fixed wing and rotary transport 
within theater is a high priority for the Army and, if 
confirmed, it's a matter which I would want to be involved with 
in advising the Secretary as part of his consideration. Beyond 
that, I don't have familiarity with details sufficient to offer 
an opinion at this time. I'd be glad to offer something for the 
record.
    Senator Thune. Okay. That would be great if you could. We'd 
welcome that.
    Mr. Geren. Thank you.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    The Future Cargo Aircraft is a complementary system that fills a 
gap at the tactical (as opposed to operational or strategic) level; 
what we refer to as the Last Tactical Mile. The jointness of the 
program is already reflected in the Acquisition Strategy Report (ASR) 
for Future Cargo Aircraft (FCA)/Light Cargo Aircraft (LCA). In 
addition, the Services have developed a draft memorandum of agreement 
we anticipate will be signed by the Vice Chiefs of Staff no later than 
May 1, 2006, and a Joint Program Office (JPO) charter that will be 
signed by the Services' Acquisition Executives about the same 
timeframe. These two documents will establish the JPO effective October 
1, 2006, in Huntsville, Alabama, with the Army as the lead agency. The 
Army still plans to begin fielding FCA to its aviation force in fiscal 
year 2008. The USAF plans to field the LCA approximately 2 years later. 
In summary, we are a joint (Army/Air Force) team working together to 
field the best equipment possible to meet the combatant commander's 
needs.

    Senator Thune. Mr. Dominguez, several of these issues I 
suspect have been touched upon. I don't want to plow ground 
that's already been covered, but one of the issues that has 
been raised relates to transforming the force into the modern, 
lean force of the future. That's been, obviously, a top 
priority for the Department, and some would argue that that 
transformation into a smaller force is not feasible when we're 
fighting a global war on terrorism. We have a lot of airmen, 
soldiers, marines, and sailors who have served multiple tours 
supporting the war effort, and I guess my question is how do we 
effectively cut end strength while simultaneously fighting the 
war without burning out our troops?
    Mr. Dominguez. Sir, thank you. Senator, that's an important 
question. The answer to it is likely to be service specific. 
The Navy and the Air Force, in particular, sir, are platform-
centric and technology-driven arms. While we have in the Air 
Force, for example, some career fields that are challenged as a 
result of the demands of the global war on terror, many other 
career fields are not. So it's a question of rationalizing that 
structure in those Services. With regards to the Army, I am 
just generally familiar with Secretary Harvey's plan that to 
move soldiers out of what they call the institutional Army, 
that part of the Army that runs the infrastructure, runs the 
training establishment, does the acquisition programs, and try 
and move soldiers out of that so that those soldiers are freed 
to meet the needs and demands in the combat force structure. I 
think that strategy of getting leaner and more efficient in our 
business operations, getting soldiers out of those jobs that 
don't require soldiers, and move the soldiers back into the 
combat structure that'll take the stress out of that component 
of force structure. I think Secretary Harvey is fairly 
confident he can accomplish that within the end strength plans 
that he's shared with this committee.
    Senator Thune. Let me direct one question to Mr. Finley 
that has to do with acquisition reform. That's something I know 
that you also probably covered this morning. There are, in that 
whole process, factors including cost growth and schedule 
delays that continue to drive a decrease in procurement 
quantities. I know some of the contributing factors in cost 
growth are under-estimating programs, technical problems, 
schedule slips, requirements changes, those sorts of things. 
I'll take the F-22, and I don't single that out for any 
particular reason, but originally the Air Force sought to 
procure, I think it was, over 600, 648 F-22s at a unit cost of 
approximately $125 million and due to late maturation of 
technology, costs have skyrocketed and the schedule has 
slipped. Now the Air Force is procuring, I think the number is 
183, F-22s at a unit cost of approximately $361 million. That 
amounts to 189 percent increase in the cost per unit. Again, 
just selecting the F-22 for no particular reason other than to 
demonstrate the extent of the problem. This is not an easy 
issue to resolve overnight but at the same time we can't take 
years to get it right. I'd be interested in what your thoughts 
or observations are on actions that we need to take in the area 
of acquisition reform.
    Mr. Finley. Thank you, Senator Thune. I couldn't agree with 
you more, sir. Great to see you again, sir.
    Senator Thune. Good to see you again.
    Mr. Finley. I believe these problems are not simple. I 
think they're complex. Reading a Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) report over the weekend, I forget the exact title 
of it, but one of the things that did strike me in the F-22 
program in particular was something in the neighborhood of 14 
baselines. The ways to solve these problems I think are also 
complex, but we have to keep them simple. One way is to help 
get technology maturity faster in the program sooner rather 
than later. Sooner rather than later on technology maturity 
affects a lot of things in terms of the fielding and the 
operational capability of the aircraft. The F-22 is certainly 
not the only major weapon system. I've now become familiar with 
a number of them. Getting technology maturity upfront earlier 
in the acquisition process, I believe, is absolutely critical 
as one dimension in stabilizing a program and also firming up 
requirements so you do not have this situation, requirements 
creep, over and over again. That needs to be stopped.
    If confirmed, sir, it will be a very high priority on my 
agenda to dig into these details and try to assist and help 
stop these events from happening.
    Senator Thune. I appreciate your answers to those questions 
and look forward to working with each of you in your various 
capacities to make sure that we have the leanest, meanest, most 
effective warfighter out there and at the best possible cost to 
the taxpayer. I think it's really important recognizing that 
it's expensive to be the world's super power and to have the 
strongest, most lethal military in the world. I know that is 
something that we have to deal with in terms of budgets and 
that's obviously something that I, and I think every member of 
this committee and hopefully most Members of Congress, are 
incredibly committed to.
    At the same time, we also have a responsibility to make 
sure we're getting the best possible return to the taxpayers to 
accomplish that objective. So we thank you for your service and 
look forward to working with each of you. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Warner. I thank you, Senator, and I'd like to 
recognize right away Senator McCain and I'll follow with my 
questions after Senator McCain.
    Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. For some 
time, this committee has been concerned with accountability in 
defense procurement practices. So much so that on May 17, 2005, 
this committee reported out the National Defense Authorization 
Bill with a provision which prohibited purchase of C-130J 
aircraft unless it was a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 
Part 15 traditional military procurement contract. The statute 
which is now law is simple. Any C-130J, KC-130J aircraft 
procured after fiscal year 2005, including C-130J, KC-130J 
aircraft procured through a multiyear contract continuing in 
force, et cetera, et cetera, should be procured through a 
contract under Part 15 of the FAR relating to acquisition of 
items by negotiated contract rather through a contract under 
Part 12 of the FAR. What it means is that we required the C-
130J procurement to go through the normal contracting 
procedures which apply to any major procurement. The Part 12 of 
the FAR, and I could quote from the law, is for commercial or 
small business entrance, clearly not applying to the C-130J.
    Now, with regard to the same program, I was assured by Mr. 
Dominguez and General Jumper that in fact the Air Force had 
begun to clean up its act. However, recent developments have 
dissuaded me from that conclusion.
    Today, Mr. Dominguez, I'd like to talk about your 
commitments to me about the C-130J contract. Air Force 
contracting officers and their leadership should never have 
acquired the C-130J using a commercial item acquisition 
strategy, but they did. It was done for 10 years. Had it not 
been for my staff and the DOD Inspector General, not the Air 
Force Inspector General, you with the advice of your 
acquisition experts, would have continued to procure the C-130J 
aircraft under the multiyear procurement as a commercial item 
procurement contract.
    Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take too much time, but there 
was a press release put out by the United States Air Force on 
April 13, 2005, that the Air Force has begun to implement a 
more traditional contract structure with the C-130J. This is an 
Air Force press release. This includes future modifications 
sustainment, they've initiated discussions with Lockheed to 
convert the multiyear to a more traditional structure. I also 
met, oh, it's been quite long ago, the Lockheed Martin CEO who 
assured me that he would be coming forward with information 
concerning this contract, and I've not heard from him since.
    Just a brief chronology: on April 26, 2005, the Airland 
Subcommittee heard testimony which confirmed the Air Force 
acquired the C-130J as a commercial item. So we didn't get the 
cost and pricing information that was to assure it was 
acquiring this aircraft at a fair and reasonable price. On 
April 13, 2005, Acting Secretary Dominguez and Chief of Staff 
of the Air Force Jumper indicated they shared my concerns and 
in so doing they informed me that the Air Force would convert 
the C-130J commercial item procurement contract to a 
traditional military item procurement contract and issued a 
press release stating the same.
    I expressed gratitude at the Air Force receptiveness to the 
subcommittee's concerns. On May 17, the Armed Services 
Committee reported out the Defense Authorization Bill, part of 
the statute I already noted. On June 22, 2005, I wrote 
Secretary Rumsfeld, reiterating my concerns concerning the C-
130J multiyear commercial contract and informed him of the 
commitment by Acting Air Force Secretary Dominguez and Air 
Force Chief of Staff Jumper to change the FAR Part 12 
commercial item to Part 15. Mr. Dominguez received a copy of 
that letter. I also requested my office be advised when the C-
130J contract would revert to a traditional Part 15 program. On 
February 13, 2006, I received a letter from Mr. Dominguez. In 
his letter, he stated he never intended to change the existing 
commercial item procurement contract and instead pressed ahead 
with a modification of the current contract as a commercial 
item procurement contract with FAR Part 15-like clauses added. 
This statement is fundamentally different from what Mr. 
Dominguez and General Jumper committed to me on April 13, 2005, 
concerning the C-130J contract. His position is materially and 
inexplicably changed.
    Furthermore, this statement is in direct contradiction to 
legislation that this committee drafted, the Senate passed, and 
the President signed into law last year.
    Mr. Dominguez, early yesterday evening, my staff received 
the Air Force IG's report on matters related to the C-130J 
program. I wanted to know who authorized using the original FAR 
Part 12 contract with only some terms and conditions changed 
instead of changing the original to FAR Part 15 contract. The 
entire report is based on a false premise that I expected the 
current contract to be terminated and a new one to be rebid. 
That's totally false. Accordingly, its conclusion that only I 
left the meeting last year with you and General Jumper with an 
understanding that so ending the Part 12 multiyear contract was 
required to effect a conversion is nothing more than a 
strawman.
    Equally offensive and ridiculously self-serving is the 
report's conclusion that Air Force officials found it 
``impossible to meet with my military legislative assistant.'' 
It just so happens he was the one who found out that the Air 
Force's new proposal was not substantially different from what 
it had planned to do all along.
    I am gratified by Secretary Wynne's recent assurance to me 
that as of 10 February 2006 the Air Force has executed an 
undefinitized contract action for the fiscal year 2006 aircraft 
procurements under FAR Part 15 embracing all the features for 
audit and cost visibility, but given the IG's report, I need to 
clear up a few points for the record.
    Mr. Dominguez, you and General Jumper met with me in my 
office on April 13, 2005, is that correct?
    Mr. Dominguez. Yes, Senator.
    Senator McCain. During that meeting, you and General Jumper 
assured me--and we'll get a deposition, and remember that when 
you testify before this committee you are testifying under 
oath--during that meeting, you and General Jumper assured me 
that the Air Force would convert the C-130J Part 12 contract to 
a Part 15 contract. Now, before you proceed with that answer, I 
had two staff members in the room taking notes at the time. 
Now, is that correct?
    Mr. Dominguez. To the best of my knowledge, it is, Senator.
    Senator McCain. In providing me that assurance, you never 
intended that only select terms and conditions in the Part 12 
contract be changed, ``to provide the government with nearly 
the same visibility'' into the contractor's cost as would be 
available under a Part 15 approach, is that correct?
    Mr. Dominguez. Senator, I intended to get the cost 
visibility, the visibility into the cost of production of that 
airplane that you and I both needed to assure the American 
people and this committee that we were getting value for the 
taxpayer dollars, Senator. I absolutely wanted to achieve that 
goal.
    Senator McCain. The Air Force IG alleges that you neither 
sought nor received any advice on the feasibility of converting 
the Part 12 contract to a Part 15 version. Is that allegation 
true?
    Mr. Dominguez. Yes. I relied on General Jumper's assurance 
to me. He consulted with our acquisition professionals and with 
the CEO of Lockheed Martin who also agreed that we needed to 
move in this direction and agreed to cooperate with us to get 
there.
    Senator McCain. Of course, this is a multi-billion dollar 
procurement contract program we're talking about here. Were you 
aware that according to the Air Force IG, the legal community 
at the Air Force said that such a conversion was impossible?
    Mr. Dominguez. I was not, Senator.
    Senator McCain. According to the Air Force IG, the Army's 
conversion of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) Operational 
Tasking Authority (OTA) to a Part 15 acquisition was ``much 
simpler than the C-130J situation.'' As you likely know, the 
$168 billion FCS is probably the most complex weapon system in 
the history of the Pentagon. By all estimates, the FCS by an 
order of magnitude more complex than the current $2.4 billion 
C-130J procurement program. I'd like to have the production of 
the December 16, 2005, Memorandum of Understanding between the 
Air Force and Lockheed Martin on the C-130J procurement program 
under which, according to the Air Force Inspector General, 
Lockheed Martin agreed to modify the Part 12 contract to be 
Part 15 compliant. Can you provide the committee with that?
    Mr. Dominguez. Sir, I don't have the authority to do that.
    Senator McCain. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the committee 
subpoena--it's clearly under the supervision and the oversight 
of this committee--a Memorandum of Understanding between the 
DOD and Lockheed Martin on the C-130J procurement program. Why 
don't you have the authority, Mr. Dominguez?
    Mr. Dominguez. Sir, I am not any longer the Acting 
Secretary of the Air Force nor the Service Acquisition 
Executive. I handed those jobs off on July 28, 2005.
    Senator McCain. But they happened on your watch.
    Mr. Dominguez. Sir, I was the Acting Secretary from March 
28, 2005, until July 28, 2005.
    Chairman Warner. If I might interject, Senator, I think 
your request is an important one. We'll take it under immediate 
advisement.
    Senator McCain. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to tell my friends 
at the Pentagon that we went through 3 years on the Boeing 
tanker scam. People went to jail. It was established that we 
saved the taxpayers of America $8 billion by pursuing this, and 
it took us 3 years. I intend to pursue this issue until it is 
completely resolved, and Lockheed Martin is held accountable 
for whatever part they played in this disgraceful performance. 
I do not intend, Mr. Dominguez, to move forward with your 
nomination until this issue is cleared up.
    What has happened here, Mr. Chairman, is the contract--
since I used a lot of legalese and Pentagon jargon--but for the 
record, what has happened here is the C-130J contract was let 
by individuals who still have not been held responsible under a 
``commercial contract.'' Any rational observer knew that there 
was no possible way that there was going to be any commercial 
airline going to purchase a C-130J. Indeed, none did, and none 
has shown any intention of doing so. But using this cover in 
collusion with Lockheed Martin, the contract was let under FAR 
Part 12 which relieves both the manufacturing company and the 
DOD from any accountability of any significant amount. In other 
words, the regular acquisition checks, the audits, et cetera, 
are waived because of that kind of contract. Now, we don't know 
what the cost of a C-130J is going to be. We hear all different 
kinds of numbers. Then, as a result of the Boeing problem, Mr. 
Dominguez and General Jumper, then Chief of Staff of the Air 
Force, come into my office. I said, ``look, this isn't right, 
this isn't right to have this done as a commercial contract 
when it's clear there's going to be no commercial use for this 
aircraft.'' Both Mr. Dominguez and the then Chief of Staff of 
the Air Force not only told me, but issued a press release that 
I just quoted from, that they would convert to FAR 15. My 
staff, looking through the contract, finds out a year later 
that it was really not changed to FAR 15. We pointed it out to 
them at that time, and to my knowledge, it is still not. So 
then we get incredibly, a Department of the Air Force IG 
report, and this is why we're going to need a GAO investigation 
and other organizations looking at this, which by the way, was 
complicit, the Department of the Air Force IG was complicit in 
the Boeing deal, that I believed that there was no conversion, 
or conveyed the impression that there was no requirement to 
convert from a noncommercial acquisition.
    Mr. Chairman, really what this brings up and what we're 
going to have to concentrate on for the next several years here 
is that the procurement system in the DOD is badly broken. 
We've seen the FCS go from $90 billion to $120 billion. In a 
hearing that had to be cancelled yesterday, the GAO will report 
that 9 of the 11 major acquisitions were behind schedule and 
overpriced, and yet received incentive bonuses for being 
overpriced and behind schedule. We've gone in the 1980s, when 
we used to have fixed-cost contracts now to cost plus contracts 
which, of course, in a noncompetitive environment which is 
basically what we have now due to the consolidation of the 
defense industry, an unregulated monopoly. Meanwhile, people 
bounce back and forth from the DOD to the defense industry and 
back and forth. Where are the David Packards of this world? 
Where are the Mel Lairds, even, of this world?
    Mr. Dominguez, I'm sure you're a good man and I'm sure 
you're a decent person and you've tried to be very honest with 
me, but we have to get this cleared up and now we're going to 
get the C-130J cleared up and we're going to get the FCS 
cleared up and we're going to get procurement cleared up so 
that the taxpayers of America can have some kind of confidence 
that their hard-earned dollars are being spent in an efficient 
fashion. I thank you for allowing me this time, Mr. Chairman. I 
have some documents relating to this matter I'd like to submit 
for the record.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you. Good.
    Senator McCain. I look forward to working with you on this 
and what I'm afraid may be another emerging scandal.
    Chairman Warner. Senator, I'll simply say that this 
committee was the last stop for the tanker reprogramming after 
three other committees of the Congress of the United States had 
approved that program. But in consultation with my longtime 
friend and associate here, we decided the buck was going to 
stop on this desk and it did. You have recounted the subsequent 
history where it was determined that this committee was right, 
I repeat, absolutely right in stopping that contract and 
requiring certain other considerations be given to that 
program. Those considerations revealed the flaws that the 
Senator and I felt were present.
    We will similarly handle the matters that you have just 
recited. Do bear with us, Mr. Dominguez. I share the Senator's 
observation that you're a decent and honest man, and you were. 
You've been called on by the President to perform this duty. At 
this time, the Senator and I will continue to work as partners 
until we get to the bottom of this situation. I thank you, 
Senator.
    Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The information referred to follows:]
               Additional Remarks of Senator John McCain
    For some time now I have been concerned about the Air Force 
acquiring C-130J aircraft as commercial FAR Part 12, rather than as 
military FAR Part 15, items. As a result, the Air Force has not 
required the aircraft's manufacturer to provide it with certified cost, 
pricing, and profit information it needs in order to assure that 
taxpayers are not getting ripped off. Against this backdrop, on 
February 15, 2005, the aircraft's manufacturer Lockheed Martin agreed 
to provide me with specific information necessary to alleviate my 
concerns.
    On April 21 and July 7, 2005, Lockheed Martin did supply me with 
relevant information, regarding cumulative earnings, numbers of C-130Js 
produced, whom they were sold to, aggregate development and 
nonrecurring costs, and pricing history of C-130Js. But, while helpful, 
this information was unfortunately not as responsive to my concerns as 
I would have liked. Because the C-130J program is a commercial FAR Part 
12 contract, Lockheed Martin Corporation is not required, by 
regulation, to apply the same accounting standards and audit provisions 
that are required under FAR Part 15 traditional military procurement 
contracts. This is the basis for my concern.
    Last year, Congress took strong action to reverse the Air Force's 
decision to purchase C-130J aircraft as commercial items and directed 
them to change the contract to a FAR Part 15 traditional military 
contract. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 
includes two provisions (sections 135 and 803 of Public Law 109-163, 
attached) regarding commercial item procurements of major weapon 
systems. One prohibited purchases of C-130J aircraft unless it was 
under a FAR Part 15 traditional military procurement contract. The 
other provision would require the express congressional authorization 
to purchase a major weapon system as a commercial item.
    Since then, the Air Force's plan to convert the C-130J multiyear 
procurement contract from a commercial, to a military acquisition has, 
regrettably, not proceeded as I expected and in accordance with the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. However, Air 
Force Secretary Wynne has recently assured me that the future 
procurement of C-130J aircraft will proceed in a manner that fully 
embraces all the audit and cost visibility features associated with a 
FAR Part 15 military item procurement contract. I am gratified by this 
assurance and am hopeful that Lockheed Martin and the Air Force will 
work together to resolve the substantial difficulties that have 
beleaguered this program.
      
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
      
    Chairman Warner. I'm going to ask Senator Thune if he would 
chair. I'm on another committee and Secretary Chertoff is about 
to be the witness, and my presence is needed there. I hope to 
return here a little later this morning though. Mr. Thune, if 
you will chair the committee.
    Before going though, I do want to ask you one question, Mr. 
D'Agostino, and that is about the $6 billion for the Stockpile 
Stewardship Program. We've followed that very carefully.
    Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. When I return, I will press on that 
question so be prepared to give me a complete answer.
    Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. I thank the witnesses. I thank Senator 
Thune for taking over for a few minutes.
    Senator Thune [presiding]. All right. We will continue. 
Chairman Warner has a series of questions that we want to get 
on the record and so I'll start with those. This is directed at 
Mr. D'Agostino. The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board recently 
issued a report titled ``Recommendations for the Nuclear 
Weapons Complex of the Future.'' This report recommended bold 
changes, including shutting down many of the current facilities 
and creating one large consolidated site at a new location. You 
have been part of a DOE team reviewing this report. Do you 
believe this report contained recommendations which merit 
further evaluation or potential adoption by DOE?
    Mr. D'Agostino. Mr. Chairman, I do believe the report 
identified some areas that we should look at. Since last 
November, I have held meetings, brought a team together, we 
have looked at the report very closely. There are basically 
five major recommendations in the report. It turns out we're 
basically proceeding on four of those five recommendations. The 
big open question has to do with the consolidated nuclear 
production complex which you alluded to in your question with 
respect to closing sites across the complex. It's a very 
difficult question to address. It's one that we are proceeding 
on with a certain methodology. The report was clear that there 
are a lot of details behind their broad recommendations that 
they have not yet had a chance to examine, and they recommended 
the Department take a look at the business cases underneath 
their recommendations. We're in the process of taking a look at 
those business cases, running them down and putting something 
together which essentially, as I mentioned in my opening 
statement, would be a responsive infrastructure that brings a 
certain amount of integration and interdependency across our 
production complex. So we are running that down quite seriously 
and we will be briefing the Secretary probably within the next 
few weeks on my recommendations to the Secretary, and we'll be, 
of course, talking and consulting with Members of Congress as 
well.
    Senator Thune. As that process moves forward, I'm sure this 
committee would welcome your insights and recommendations with 
respect to that issue.
    For Secretary Dominguez and Mr. Geren, both of you served 
as Acting Secretary of the Air Force last year and were 
involved in the formulation of interim religious guidelines, 
aimed not only at responding to allegations of religious 
intolerance at the U.S. Air Force Academy, but also at 
providing useful, practical guidance to commanders, chaplains, 
and those in positions of authority. How would you assess the 
initial guidelines and changes that recently were made at the 
direction of Air Force Secretary Wynne? I'll let you answer 
that question first and then I'll do a followup question to 
that. Mr. Geren.
    Mr. Geren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've not had an 
opportunity to see the final product that Secretary Wynne 
issued so I can't speak to the details. I'd like to comment on 
the process though. I think the process was very open. 
Religious matters for all the Services involves some very 
difficult issues to work with as a government and as a 
military, and the Army works with the same issues as well. You 
have to carefully balance the religious freedom that's 
guaranteed under our Constitution, as well as make sure that as 
a Service you don't run afoul of the establishment clause. It's 
an area that Congress has legislated in. In the mid-1990s the 
Religious Freedom Act was enacted by Congress which provides 
the Services guidance, and the Services all have the 
constitutional mission of protecting and defending the United 
States, so there's many competing issues that have to be 
balanced. I think the multiple Secretaries, Acting Secretaries, 
as well as the current Secretary, work very hard to reach out 
to many different people, both inside the Service and outside 
the Service to achieve a proper balance. I have not seen the 
final product but I commend the Air Force for the process they 
went thorough. It was open, it was inclusive, and I'm confident 
that the product was well thought through and well balanced.
    Senator Thune. Secretary Dominguez, do you think that the 
Secretary of Defense should assume a leadership role in the 
effort to devise a comprehensive policy? It certainly would 
appear that the Services are all wrestling with these issues.
    Mr. Dominguez. Senator, as we worked through the issue of 
guidelines, one of the things that we actually discovered was 
the Department's policy in this area is actually quite good, 
and that's really what was necessary, was a conversation to 
help the force understand how to balance these twin 
responsibilities of the non-establishment clause and the free 
exercise clause. I think that we have had a conversation in the 
Air Force, and between the Air Force and the Nation, because 
many thousands of people have commented on these guidelines 
with us. I think that the benefits to the departments now are 
in taking lessons learned from that conversation and rolling it 
into our training, our curriculums, and our professional 
military education so that we don't forget these lessons and 
then err on one side of that fine balance.
    Senator Thune. Mr. Finley. We have covered some of the 
issues with respect to procurement and the length of time it's 
taking to get these weapons systems fielded. We've touched on 
that a little bit, so I won't necessarily re-ask that question, 
but I do want to ask you a question about rapid acquisition 
initiatives. The Department has initiated several technology 
accelerations in rapid fielding initiatives over the last few 
years to respond to emergent needs, such as increased armor 
protection and to counter-improvised explosive device (IED) 
capabilities. In your view, what are the key lessons learned in 
technology transition, test and evaluation, production 
training, and procurement from these processes? I'll let you 
answer that and I'll have a follow-up question to you.
    Mr. Finley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not particularly 
familiar with those, the armor initiative nor the IED 
initiative. In industry, having met with numbers of people to 
get a perspective on the rapid deployment of technology, in 
industry, there are very similar processes. As an outsider more 
or less looking in and not knowing the details, but one of the 
key ones is to get the technology maturity up to a level that's 
fieldable for our joint warfighter. If confirmed, sir, I will 
investigate this as a top area of importance in an open and 
transparent fashion and make it a high priority to continue the 
momentum built from those programs, take those lessons learned, 
and factor them into our processes to make them even more 
effective and more efficient.
    Senator Thune. I think it's fair to say that, if you are 
confirmed, those are things that this committee would have a 
great interest in, in learning about a particular plan of 
action that you would take to evaluate the long-term 
application of those expedited processes for rapidly deploying 
needed equipment. It's something that's been discussed a lot in 
front of this committee in trying to shorten up the timeframe 
to get things out there, and to come up with a plan that would 
accomplish that. So from the committee's standpoint, with 
regard to the oversight responsibility we have, we're very 
interested in specifically what you might undertake in order to 
accomplish that objective.
    Mr. Finley. Yes, sir.
    Senator Thune. Again, for Secretary Dominguez and Mr. 
Geren, last year there was strong support in Congress for 
legislation that was aimed at curtailing the ability of so-
called payday lenders to target military personnel for short-
term exorbitant interest loans. We've been told by the senior 
enlisted advisors that financial difficulties at times related 
to payday loans result in indebtedness, lost security 
clearances, and so on. What is your assessment of the steps 
that can be taken within DOD and the Services to put these 
predatory lenders out of business or at least to limit their 
ability to take advantage of the most vulnerable service 
members?
    Mr. Dominguez. Sir, I don't have any detailed knowledge 
right now of the steps. I acknowledge the nature of the 
problem. I do know that we have a pretty extensive financial 
education outreach to the men and women in our Services because 
their financial readiness is critical. Their financial 
situation, as you clearly point out, can affect their ability 
to do their job, so we pay attention to it. We have outreach 
programs and we limit access to our military installations to 
institutions that are credible, that we evaluate to ensure that 
they are not for profit and, in fact, are educational 
institutions and not selling. So that there's not a ``hook and 
bait and switch operation'' going on. I hope that answers the 
question, sir.
    Mr. Geren. I've not worked in the area in my time in the 
Pentagon, but I understand the seriousness of the problem and 
if I'm confirmed look forward to working with this committee 
and looking into the matter.
    Senator Thune. It's something that there's been a 
considerable amount written on. There have been a number of 
reports. The New York Times and other newspapers have sort of 
exposed what some of these lenders are doing in terms of 
preying on servicemembers and clearly that's something that I 
think we want to see addressed. As I said, I assume that 
somewhere within the Department there are some people who have 
given some attention to this subject, and we would again 
welcome as you get an opportunity to further review that, your 
comments and what might be done. We don't want to see 
servicemembers who are in tight financial situations being 
preyed on by financial institutions that are clearly trying to 
take advantage of them. Some of the interest rates that are 
charged are exorbitant. There's a lot of that activity and it 
seems to be congregating very closely around some of the 
military installations in this country.
    Mr. Dominguez. Senator, if I might followup. That issue in 
terms of policy and practice is clearly within the portfolio 
that I have now in the Air Force and that I aspire to, subject 
to this committee's and the Senate's confirmation. I do want to 
point out also, as you very well know, some of the best things 
that can be done are between the installation commander, the 
commander of the troops, and those local communities, the law 
enforcement, the mayors, and the administrations. The 
partnerships that we form with our communities in which we live 
are invaluable in terms of providing that kind of support and 
protection to the men and women in those areas. I wouldn't 
discount that, and I would say that's a huge piece of the 
solution.
    Senator Thune. This one, again, is for Secretary Dominguez, 
and Mr. Geren. Another thing that it's been troubling to hear 
about is cases in which soldiers are determined to be overpaid 
and indebted to the Army, often in large amounts, due to pay 
errors. The old pay systems for National Guardsmen regrettably 
often contribute to confusion over payment between the State 
Guard, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the Internal 
Revenue Service, and others who have an interest in pay 
matters. There appears to be limited ability to quickly assess 
these cases and rapidly come to a conclusion. Can you comment, 
either of you, on the experience of the Air Force, Air Force 
Reserve, Air National Guard, in these matters, and if 
confirmed, will you give consideration and study to these 
problems within the Army and try to find a remedy for the many 
guardsmen who are trying to resolve pay issues?
    Mr. Geren. I know pay issues, confusion, and mixups in the 
pay system have been a very serious concern of all the 
Services. I don't have details about efforts to correct it, but 
we've seen some examples recently on some need for reimbursing 
soldiers who had been improperly charged with different 
expenses against their pay. It's a very serious issue. We've 
asked men and women of our Active-Duty, Guard, and Reserve to 
leave their families, make great sacrifices on the part of our 
country, and we have to do everything we can to ensure that 
they're paid promptly, fairly, and that we have a system in 
place to correct mistakes quickly and not force the soldiers 
through a bureaucratic maze that unfortunately, too often, 
they're forced to contend with these days. It's a very serious 
matter and, if confirmed, I look forward to working on it, sir.
    Mr. Dominguez. Senator, if I might add to that, I know that 
all of the Services have worked with the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense to put task forces in place to work 
personnel pay issues. In fact, there is a personnel pay council 
that's running in the DOD to work these issues and there are 
mechanisms in place to try and get rapid adjudication of the 
errors. Those are brute force, bandaid solutions to the 
fundamental problem which is that our basic information 
technology infrastructure that does the personnel pay business 
is antiquated. The long-term solution to this problem, Senator, 
is the deployment of the Defense Integrated Military Human 
Resources System (DIMHRS), and we in the Air Force are 
aggressively pursuing that. That system has now been elevated 
to the personal attention of the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
and with the committee's continued support, the Department 
intends to aggressively deploy DIMHRS and that's going to be 
the long-term solution so we get a 21st century personnel and 
pay system where it's integrated into one information 
technology (IT) system and a lot of these problems then will go 
away.
    Senator Thune. Thank you all for your responses to 
questions. Chairman Warner may return, and I have other 
commitments, so what I'm going to do is recess the hearing 
subject to the call of the chair. If Chairman Warner does not 
return, there are some questions that we would like to have 
answered for the record. Again, we appreciate your time here 
today and your responsiveness to the questions and look forward 
to working with you. At this point, we will recess. [Recess.]
    Chairman Warner [presiding]. I thank you for your 
indulgence which you have given us, I appreciate that, and the 
understanding why so many members could not be with us.
    I'd like to return to the stockpile issue because I've 
taken a particular interest in it. I can remember vividly in 
this room one day, we had the directors of each of the labs 
here. This was a critical juncture in this program, and I 
remember one in particular. He sort of got up and--they're 
unique people, the directors of those laboratories, they're 
technically trained, magnificently, and have an enormous 
responsibility, and they don't care anything about politics or 
anything else, they just state the facts. I remember one of 
them saying, ``this committee's going to have to exercise a lot 
of patience, and be careful in its oversight to keep watch on 
this program, because it's so essential.'' For those not 
familiar with it, our Nation, by necessity, has a very large 
inventory of nuclear weapons.
    We'd all like to see all nuclear weapons exterminated from 
the face of the earth, but the reality is they have thus far 
proven to be a deterrent to the utilization of that weapon by 
any nation subsequent to the experiences in World War II which 
was, in my judgment, having been in uniform at that time, an 
absolute necessity on behalf of our President and our 
Government given the circumstances.
    Anyway, I won't go into all that. I can assure you our 
committee's going to keep a watchful eye. We have $6 billion, I 
repeat that, $6 billion in this budget going to that program. 
You have a lot of experience in this area, beginning with 
Admiral Rickover's tutorial and your own experience in the 
United States Navy, which I would say, having had the privilege 
of association with that Navy for so many years myself, we've 
never had a major accident. I want America to understand that.
    At one time, I'm trying to think, we had over 100 ships and 
nuclear operations going on, some ashore, most at sea, and 
today every one of our submarines with the exception of some 
test models are powered by nuclear power. Our entire aircraft 
carrier fleet, save two conventional ships which are being 
phased out in due course, is operated with that system. I point 
that out because I hope America can transition to more 
dependence upon nuclear power to supply our daily needs for 
electricity and other things derived from that power. It's 
interesting, France has 85 percent of its power requirements 
today met by nuclear plants. France spends, I'm told by a very 
able staff member, and I think you know this fine person, she 
worked for you or worked with you, 10 percent of France's 
military budget goes to its own concept of the Stockpile 
Stewardship Program.
    Now, to those following this, what is the purpose of the 
Stockpile Stewardship Program? One purpose is to monitor these 
weapons to make sure they're safe in storage. Remember, they're 
stored in various places throughout the United States. 
Communities are dependent upon that security. Cities are 
dependent upon that security. From time to time these weapons 
have to be transported so that those systems which remain in 
the state of readiness as a part of our defense mechanism, this 
country, they have to be safe for transportation. Most 
significantly, in my view, Congress established the Stockpile 
Stewardship Program to ensure that the enduring stockpile 
remains safe, secure, and reliable. This program provides the 
technical data to support this assurance. We owe a high 
obligation to the men and women or the Armed Forces and the 
civilians who are working with these weapons. So bring us up-
to-date on your opinion as to the stockpile, what does the 
future hold, and why is this enormous sum of $6 billion needed 
for one program? I'm not questioning it. I support that $6 
billion, but I think others would ask that question.
    Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to 
answer that question. The $6 billion is indeed a tremendous 
amount of money. Over time, within that resource, we have taken 
a renewed focus particularly in the area of physical security 
of the assets themselves as well as security of the eight sites 
that we have across the country to maintain these weapons, 
including the security associated with transporting the weapons 
and the material between our particular sites, and as we 
deliver and receive weapons from the DOD, particularly.
    So the security budget within the $6 billion you will 
notice over time has increased and appropriately so given the 
changing world environment. There is, one could say, close to 
but not quite 20 percent of our resources devoted to ensuring 
and protecting the material to protect our citizens, to protect 
and ensure that these weapons and materials stay in the proper 
control and custody.
    It's more than just the security part of it that makes up 
this $6 billion. We have three national laboratories that are 
supported, and they are in charge, as you pointed out earlier, 
with providing an annual assessment to the Secretaries and 
ultimately to the President which gets delivered to Congress on 
an annual basis on asserting the safety, reliability, and 
security of the stockpile without underground testing. In order 
to do that large task, because we have not taken underground 
testing as something that we need to do, we invested a lot of 
resources in a broad array of scientific tools and 
computational tools as well as gathered data, material aging 
data, on our weapons systems themselves and to be able to 
process that data, to understand how the weapon changes over a 
period of time.
    In addition to developing tools, doing this surveillance 
activity that gets done on each weapon system, and running them 
through our tools and simulation tools, we have a periodic set 
of activities known as limited life component exchanges where 
there are certain components, in various weapons systems that 
periodically over time have to be changed out. So jointly, with 
the DOD, we produce these components at our various plants and 
transport them for installation by the DOD themselves. There's 
a supporting the current stockpile aspect of the $6 billion. 
There is an aspect of the $6 billion that's to ensure the long-
term capability for the Nation and the continuance of ensuring 
ultimately to the President that this stockpile is safe. Then 
there is the question of maintaining this large infrastructure 
of three laboratories in the Nevada Test Site as well as four 
production plants around the country.
    Chairman Warner. When do you think the system will be up 
and fully operative?
    Mr. D'Agostino. I'm assuming the system you're talking 
about is the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
    Chairman Warner. Yes, yes.
    Mr. D'Agostino. In fact, it is fully up and operating right 
now. We are gathering data, we continue to learn on a daily 
basis about how our weapons age.
    Chairman Warner. All right. So you think it is, at present, 
up and fully operating.
    Mr. D'Agostino. It's fully operating, however, what I would 
say is that there are opportunities for efficiency 
improvements. Where we are right now with the complex is we 
have a roughly 50-year-old nuclear weapons complex that is at a 
certain stage in need of capital reinvestment. A question 
earlier dealt with responsive infrastructure, and we'll be 
looking at that seriously with you, sir.
    Chairman Warner. I have other questions here. I'll ask all 
witnesses to provide answers for the record for those 
questions.
    Mr. Finley, in your response to advance policy questions, 
you noted continued importance of an independent Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) to ensure effectiveness 
and suitability of major weapons systems. This is something 
this committee has followed very carefully, this subject, 
because as addressed by Senator McCain, we have to make certain 
our procurement and our systems are up and running. What are 
your views on the effectiveness of the Department's test and 
evaluation process in an era of rapid fielding and proposed new 
acquisition processes?
    Mr. Finley. Mr. Chairman, my view is that effectiveness is 
good. I think we can improve upon the effectiveness by 
providing a process where the OT&E folks are at the front of 
the process, not mid-range, not 25 percent of the way through 
the process. We should bring our testing community right up at 
the front end of the process where requirements are being 
defined, and make this an iterative process of making help 
underpin the requirements, if you will, from an OT&E point of 
view, so we know going in what our baselines are. That's so we 
do not get into a catch-22 situation down the pike after 
Milestone A or even Milestone B, all of a sudden we have 
ourselves into extremis where the requirements guy says, I'm 
raising a red flag about a problem, sir. I think the OT&E folks 
are great. I believe strongly in checks and balances. I believe 
in the process of open and transparent discussions. Bringing 
OT&E further up into the process, I believe, will help make our 
process there even more effective, sir.
    Chairman Warner. That's a very thorough and reassuring 
response. I thank you, Mr. Finley.
    Secretary Dominguez, currently DOD has a policy that limits 
the involuntary recall of Reserve and National Guard personnel 
to 24 cumulative months during this period of national 
emergency. In the Air Force, guardsmen and reservists have 
performed magnificently in providing air support to the 
combatant commander but the 24-month clock has run on many of 
these patriotic airmen. The same is true for Army reservists 
and national guardsmen. It's an extraordinary chapter in our 
history, the performance of the Guard and Reserve. I came up 
through the ranks in that system myself, and I tell you it's 
far more effective than most realize. In my time, I remember 
very well when the Korean War sprung upon us, we had to resort 
to the Guard and Reserve very quickly, and it was extraordinary 
how quickly in the aviation community our reservists were in 
the cockpit flying with the regular forces in a matter of 
months. Anyway, given the demands on the Reserve and Guard 
since 2001, what is the impact of this policy on the 
availability of manpower, in your judgment?
    Mr. Dominguez. Sir, thank you for the question. I also 
acknowledge the extraordinary achievement and service of our 
citizen warriors in the Guard and Reserve and their families. 
You are correct in pointing out, Senator, they have been 
tested, and they met the test in an extraordinary fashion. This 
committee can take some credit for that in your stewardship 
over the years of the Guard and Reserve.
    Chairman Warner. Well, it really started with Secretary 
Laird who brought about what we call the Total Force concept. 
He did an admirable job in that and also the discontinuance of 
the draft which was important. I was a part of the Laird team 
at the time those decisions were made and this All-Volunteer 
Force has been extraordinary.
    Mr. Dominguez. It is, Senator. It is extraordinary. Second 
to none, and it will stay that way.
    Chairman Warner. But it needs the support of the Guard and 
Reserve.
    Mr. Dominguez. Absolutely. That is essential and that 
partnership between the Guard and Reserve and the Active-Duty 
Force is essential. I've seen that partnership in its highest 
form of evolution, I believe, in the United States Air Force 
today. The Guard and Reserve are intermixed, and entwined with 
the Active Force in virtually every mission that force does, 
forward or back home, and you can't tell those airmen apart by 
their capabilities.
    Now, the 24-month mobilization is a barrier but it's a 
barrier that, in preparing this Nation and preparing our force 
for a very long conflict, we have to figure a way through. 
Secretary Rumsfeld is adamant, at least in my conversations or 
knowledge of this from in the policy circles in which I 
operate, that he's not going to budge on that because we can't 
involuntarily mobilize our way through a 50-year conflict. We 
have to find mechanisms to bring the volunteers from the Guard 
and Reserve into the fight or change the nature of their 
enlistment and participation contracts so that as they come 
into the Reserve, there's a clear period of when they will be 
on Active service. We're thinking through all of those things 
now, sir. But I think Secretary Rumsfeld is right on target. 
Involuntary mobilization is not the right tool for a very long 
conflict. We're in a very long conflict, we'll need our citizen 
warriors or citizen soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines in 
this fight and we'll have to find mechanisms to be able to 
bring them in, in the true spirit of the volunteer force.
    Chairman Warner. All right. I thank you, because it's 
absolutely essential and needs to be addressed early on.
    Mr. Dominguez. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Mr. Geren, I commented earlier about the 
importance of the academies when Senator Allard was making his 
introduction. It's essential that DOD and the Army leadership 
continues to support the wounded soldiers throughout their 
treatment and for those who are medically retired as they 
return to civilian life. There are many challenges in making 
the Wounded Warrior Program or Marine for Life Program and so 
on successful in ensuring our present day veterans have 
successful transitions. One area I'm concerned about is 
ensuring the health care services and rehab to be available for 
convalescing personnel as needed, even if it means seeing a 
civilian doctor instead of a military doctor. Will you inquire 
into these problems as it relates to your department, the 
Department of the Army, and perhaps you can help others with 
health care access that wounded personnel receive long after 
they've left the military system, and determine what 
improvements we can make?
    Mr. Geren. Yes, sir. If I'm confirmed, I'll consider that a 
top priority. The Wounded Warrior Program is an excellent 
program and it is reaching out to service men and women who----
    Chairman Warner. Marine for Life, that's a comparable 
program.
    Mr. Geren. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. It has a very unique name.
    Mr. Geren. Yes, sir, I understand that, and it's a program 
that has to remain a top priority. It can't fade from our view 
when this conflict is in the distant past. We have to maintain 
that commitment. I know Congress feels that way, the Department 
of the Army feels that way, and I can assure you if I'm 
confirmed it will be a top priority for me. I want to see us 
innovate in that area and do everything we can possibly do.
    Chairman Warner. I opened up on the question about the 
academies but I realize that was asked by my colleague before 
he left. That's a very important issue, and you better check on 
West Point. When I was in the Department of the Navy's 
Secretary's Office we spent a lot of time working Annapolis and 
indeed the under secretaries were constituted as a team of 
three individuals who used to make periodic inspections of the 
academies to make sure that experience gained in one academy 
was transferred to the other academy whether it related to 
education, religion, or preventing sexual harassment and the 
like. I think it might be well-advised that some day when 
you're talking to Secretary Rumsfeld to suggest maybe the three 
under secretaries be constituted as a team to travel 
periodically and do some oversight for the Secretary on those 
academies because if one of them has a problem it pops up on 
the screen right to the top. It was a very effective system 
that Secretary Laird put in place.
    Gentlemen, I thank you very much. I thank your families. 
The day has been a productive one for all of us and one that 
will be remembered in many respects. The President has chosen 
well in selecting you, and I wish each of you well and I'll 
look to trying to get the confirmation process completed in the 
Senate as quickly as possible. In your case, Mr. Dominguez, as 
my distinguished colleague has mentioned, we have a little more 
to work through but let's hope we can work through that. I'll 
give you the assurance that I'll do it fairly and objectively.
    Mr. Dominguez. Thank you, Senator.
    Chairman Warner. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.
    [Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the committee adjourned.]

    [Prepared questions submitted to Hon. Preston M. Geren by 
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied 
follow:]
                        Questions and Responses
                            defense reforms
    Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense 
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have 
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have 
enhanced civilian control and the chain of command by clearly 
delineating the combatant commanders' responsibilities and authorities 
and the role of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These reforms have also 
vastly improved cooperation between the Services and the combatant 
commanders in the strategic planning process, in the development of 
requirements, in joint training and education, and in the execution of 
military operations.
    Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act 
provisions based on your experience in the Department of Defense?
    Answer. The Goldwater-Nichols Act has made a profound and positive 
change within the operation of the Department of Defense. While I 
believe that the framework established by Goldwater-Nichols has 
significantly improved interservice and joint relationships and 
responsibilities, the Department, working with Congress, should 
continually assess the law in light of improving capabilities, evolving 
threats and changing organizational dynamics.
    Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to 
address in these modifications?
    Answer. This milestone legislation is now 20 years old and has 
served our Nation well. If confirmed, I would like to consider with 
Congress whether the act should be revised to better address the 
requirements of the combatant commanders and the needs and challenges 
faced by the Services in today's security environment. I also would 
like to assess whether the law could be modified to more effectively 
allocate roles and responsibilities among the Joint Staff, the military 
departments, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. For example, 
the Department has encountered questions about the proper division of 
responsibility between the Army and CENTCOM for investigating 
allegations of misconduct arising in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is 
critical that the Department is optimally organized to meet the 
challenges of a dynamic security environment.
                                 duties
    Question. Section 3015 of title 10, U.S.C., states the Under 
Secretary of the Army shall perform such duties and exercise such 
powers as the Secretary of the Army may prescribe.
    Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and powers do you expect to 
be assigned?
    Answer. The Under Secretary of the Army is the Secretary's senior 
civilian advisor on the effective and efficient functioning of the 
Army. The Under Secretary carries out those responsibilities and 
functions specifically delegated by the Secretary. The Secretary has 
not discussed his plans with me in this regard. The Under's 
responsibilities also require him, from time to time, to issue guidance 
and direction to the Army Staff.
    What background and experience do you possess that you believe 
qualifies you to perform these duties?
    Answer. I believe that my experience--including serving as a four-
term Member of the U.S. Congress, representing the 12th Congressional 
District of Texas, in the private sector, and most recently as Special 
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense--has provided me with the 
knowledge and insight necessary to contribute in a meaningful way to 
the Army's ability to address the challenges it faces today. I served 
on the House Armed Services Committee during my tenure in Congress and 
worked with DOD on a wide range of policy and acquisition matters. My 
service in the House gave me a profound understanding and appreciation 
of the important role in national defense matters conferred on Congress 
by article I, section 8 of the Constitution. My work in the private 
sector has given me experience in the governance of a large 
organization that I believe will be valuable in discharging the 
management responsibilities of the Under Secretary of the Army. My work 
with the DOD, including serving as Acting Secretary of the Air Force, 
has enhanced my knowledge and understanding of the unique demands on 
today's military. Should I be confirmed, I look forward to serving the 
Nation during this era of change and transformation. If confirmed, I 
pledge my best effort every day to be worthy of the trust placed in me 
and to uphold the proud tradition of selfless service that 
characterizes the United States Army.
    Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to enhance 
your ability to perform the duties of the Under Secretary of the Army?
    Answer. If I am confirmed, I will work to further my understanding 
and knowledge of the Army, its people, the resources necessary to 
sustain and transform it and the challenges it faces. I will take 
advantage of the many educational programs available to senior Army 
officials and draw on the wealth of knowledge and experience available 
from dedicated professionals, civilian and military, in DOD and 
throughout the Army family--Active-Duty, Guard and Reserve, Active and 
retired. I will seek advice and counsel from the many and diverse 
stakeholders dedicated to the success of the Army, including Members 
and staff of Congress.
                             relationships
    Question. If confirmed, what would your working relationship be 
with:
    The Secretary of the Army.
    Answer. If confirmed, my relationship with the Secretary of the 
Army would be close, direct, and supportive. Within the Department of 
the Army, my responsibilities would also involve communicating the Army 
Staff's plans to the Secretary of the Army and supervising the 
implementation of the Secretary's decisions through the Army. In this 
capacity, my actions would be subject to the authority, direction and 
control of the Secretary of the Army.
    Question. The Chief of Staff of the Army.
    Answer. The Chief of Staff of the Army is the Secretary's principal 
military adviser. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Chief of 
Staff to supervise the implementation of the Secretary's decisions 
through the Army Staff and Army commands and agencies. In this 
capacity, my actions would be subject to the authority, direction and 
control of the Secretary of the Army. I anticipate working closely and 
in concert with the Chief of Staff.
    Question. The Assistant Secretaries of the Army.
    Answer. The Assistant Secretaries of the Army set the strategic 
direction by formulating and overseeing policies and programs within 
their functional areas of responsibilities, consistent with statutes 
and the objectives of the Secretary of the Army. If confirmed, I will 
establish and maintain close, professional relationships with each of 
the Assistant Secretaries and seek to foster an environment of 
cooperative teamwork as we work together on the day-to-day management 
and long-range planning needs of the Army.
    Question. The General Counsel of the Army.
    Answer. The General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the 
Department of the Army. His duties include providing legal and policy 
advice to all members of the Army as well as determining the position 
of the Army on any legal question or procedure. If confirmed, I will 
establish and maintain a close and professional relationship with the 
General Counsel.
    Question. The Vice Chief of Staff of the Army.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will cooperate fully with the Vice Chief of 
Staff to further the Secretary of the Army's policies and to advance 
the interests of the Army. I will establish a close and professional 
relationship with the Vice Chief of Staff and communicate directly and 
openly with him on matters involving the Department of the Army.
    Question. The Judge Advocate General of the Army.
    Answer. The Judge Advocate General plays a significant role in 
providing legal advice to the Secretary and Under Secretary of the Army 
and Department of Army officers, particularly concerning matters of 
military justice. If confirmed, I will establish and maintain an 
appropriate and professional relationship with The Judge Advocate 
General of the Army. This relationship would be grounded in direct and 
open communication. I will seek his counsel on the important legal 
issues confronting the Army.
                            major challenges
    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will 
face the Under Secretary of the Army?
    Answer. As the senior civilian advisor to the Secretary, the Under 
Secretary will work in support of the Secretary in his duties. 
Conducting a global war against an asymmetric enemy while 
simultaneously planning and executing broad strategic transformation 
efforts presents unprecedented challenges. In my view, the Army's major 
challenge is to meet the Nation's global land power requirements and 
sustain its strategic balance while fighting the global war on terror, 
synchronizing transformational initiatives, executing Base Realignment 
and Closure activities, and implementing the Integrated Global Presence 
Basing Strategy. Force protection should also be an Army top priority 
as it faces an evolving enemy. Initiating comprehensive Army-wide 
business transformation will improve overall efficiency and reorient 
available resources better to support the Army's warfighting 
capabilities and meet current and future threats. Other major 
challenges facing the Army are to sustain the All-Volunteer Force and 
to provide the best possible training and equipment for all of its 
soldiers. Force protection in irregular warfare poses challenges that 
require constant attention from senior leadership. The Army must push 
to develop the techniques, tactics, and procedures to enhance force 
protection, push research in relevant technology and continue to 
improve body and vehicle armor.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for 
addressing these challenges?
    Answer. Providing ready, relevant land power to meet global 
commitments now and in the future will require resourcing the Army's 
requirements for resetting and restructuring the Army to achieve a 
proper balance of capabilities in all components. It will be necessary 
to obtain adequate funding to achieve critical recruiting and retention 
goals needed to sustain the All-Volunteer Force and grow its 
operational forces. The Army must work relentlessly to improve force 
protection.
    Housing and other Army initiatives to provide predictability and 
stability for soldiers and their families in both the Active and 
Reserve components are critical to this effort. The Army must develop 
training to shape military and civilian leaders to lead in the complex 
and uncertain 21st century security environment. The Army must continue 
to support efforts that speed state-of-the-art force protection systems 
and weapons to its soldiers in the field.
    The Army must be funded to execute a synchronized plan to achieve a 
new global basing posture, implement stationing decisions, execute Base 
Realignment and Closure decisions, and advance the Modular Force 
initiative. Adopting management reforms and best business practices are 
necessary to achieve targeted efficiencies and secure the financial 
resources needed for operational needs and Army initiatives. Force 
protection must remain a top priority of the civilian Army leadership 
with the Secretary and the Under continuing to push the system to make 
improvements.
                 reserve and national guard deployments
    Question. Deployments completed since the attacks of September 11 
of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve have significantly depleted 
the number of soldiers available for involuntary mobilization under the 
Department's policy limiting involuntary recalls of Reserve personnel 
to 24 cumulative months.
    How should the Army's Reserve component forces best be managed to 
provide essential support for operational deployments in Afghanistan 
and Iraq?
    Answer. The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve are critical 
to the success of the Nation in fighting and winning the global war on 
terrorism. Given the demand of the global war on terror, the use of the 
Army National Guard and Army Reserve will continue to be necessary. To 
best manage and meet requirements, the Army is instituting the Army 
Force Generation Model (ARFORGEN), a rotational system to supply Army 
units to meet the demands of the national security objectives. This 
system enables predictable, rotational deployments for soldiers on a 6-
year cycle for Army National Guard and Reserve units. The Army must 
also move toward making the Reserve components more capable to respond 
to missions in the homeland and abroad. The Army is committed to fully 
man, train, and equip the Guard units with $21 billion in funding over 
the POM to address equipment shortfalls. Additionally, the President is 
committed to funding the National Guard at current manning levels and 
up to the congressional authorization of 350,000 as the National Guard 
continues recruiting. To ensure that the Army and Air National Guard 
are prepared, the President's budget more than doubles the funding for 
equipment and modernization over the next 5 years. If I am confirmed, I 
would fully support the President and the Department's commitments in 
this critical area.
    Question. What is your understanding of the Army's plans to avoid 
excessive demands on personnel and units in low density, high demand 
specialties whose skills are found primarily in the Reserve, such as 
civil affairs, military policy, and logistics?
    Answer. I understand that the Army plans to rebalance the force and 
move the Guard toward more high demand skill sets as it transitions six 
combat brigades into Combat Support, Combat Service Support, and 
Engineering missions. The Army anticipates that the rebalance will 
generate more high demand forces to meet requirements. In conjunction 
with the implementation of the Army Force Generation Model, a larger 
pool of critical capabilities is available in a predictable manner, 
providing the necessary trained and ready units to meet requirements.
                        recruiting and retention
    Question. The Army's Active-Duty recruiting goal for fiscal year 
2006 is 80,000. The Army has achieved its monthly recruiting goals so 
far this fiscal year, but the first quarter has only produced about 
11,000 new soldiers. Retention in fiscal year 2005 exceeded the Army's 
goal, but signs in early fiscal year 2006 have shown some weakening of 
retention behavior, particularly among soldiers completing their first 
term of service.
    What is your assessment of the Army's ability to reach its Active-
Duty recruiting goal by component in fiscal year 2006?
    Answer. Although the current recruiting environment remains 
challenging, the Army is optimistic about achieving Active and Reserve 
component goals for fiscal year 2006. Mission accomplishment in 06 and 
follow on years requires greater recruiter productivity, incentives and 
other resources necessary to meet these goals, effective communication 
of the Army message to the Nation's youth and influencers, and 
continued congressional support. Congressional support was evident in 
the recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2006 which provided the crucial foundation for this year's 
recruiting efforts. The Active component has achieved its recruiting 
goals for the last 8 months, the Guard the last 5 months, with only the 
Army Reserve component falling short of its goals.
    Question. If the Army is able to achieve its recruiting goal of 
80,000 recruits, will the Army meet its authorized end strength for 
fiscal year 2006 of 512,400 soldiers?
    What are the fiscal year 2007 recruiting goals by component?
    Answer. I have been informed that the Army's projected Active-Duty 
end strength for fiscal year 2006 is 500,334 soldiers. As of the end of 
January 2006, counting Active Army, mobilized Guard and Reserve, 
Active-Duty special work, and retiree recalls, the Army strength was 
approximately 574,000 soldiers. The Army's current recruiting goals for 
fiscal year 2007 are: 80,000 for the Regular Army; 36,500 for the U.S. 
Army Reserve; and 70,000 for the Army National Guard.
    Question. What is your assessment of the impact of multiple 
deployments of troops to Afghanistan and Iraq having on retention, 
particularly among young enlisted and officer personnel after their 
initial obligated service has been completed?
    Answer. The Army has not seen a negative impact on the retention of 
enlisted soldiers who have served in deployments to Afghanistan and 
Iraq. It is my understanding that the 3rd Infantry Division recently 
returned from its second deployment to Iraq and achieved 166 percent of 
their year-to-date initial term retention mission. The 4th Infantry 
Division and 101st Airborne Division are currently on their second 
deployment to Iraq and have accomplished 114 percent and 109 percent of 
their year-to-date initial term retention mission, respectively. As of 
31 January 2006, the Army has achieved 109 percent of its year-to-date 
initial term retention mission and 107 percent of its overall year-to-
date retention mission. Recent results are satisfactory, but this 
matter requires constant attention. It is a barometer of the health of 
the Army and must be watched, analyzed in whole and in subsets, and 
understood.
                            women in combat
    Question. Section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 requires the Secretary of Defense to report to 
Congress not later than March 31, 2006, on his review of the current 
and future implementation of the policy regarding assignment of women 
in combat. In conducting the review, the Secretary of Defense must 
examine Army unit modularization efforts and associated personnel 
assignment policies to ensure their compliance with the Department of 
Defense policy on women in combat that has been in effect since 1994.
    What lessons have been learned about the feasibility of current 
policies regarding women in combat from Operation Iraqi Freedom and 
Operation Enduring Freedom?
    Answer. The Department no longer confronts the prospects of a Cold 
War linear battlefield. The irregular warfare and nonlinear battlefield 
of today's conflicts raises questions about the application of the 
policy regarding the assignment of women in combat regions. Women make 
up about 14 percent of the Active Army, 23 percent of the Army Reserve, 
and 13 percent of the Army National Guard. Approximately 10 percent of 
the forces deployed in support of the global war on terrorism are women 
soldiers. Today, almost 14,000 women soldiers are serving in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Forty-seven women soldiers have made the ultimate 
sacrifice in support of the global war on terrorism. Women soldiers 
have been killed in action, have suffered wounds from hostile action, 
and have been held captive by our enemies. The study requested by 
Congress and underway at DOD will help the Department understand the 
implications for and feasibility of current policies regarding women in 
combat.
    Question. How do you anticipate you will participate in the review 
of the policy required by section 541?
    Answer. The Office of the Secretary of Defense has undertaken to 
complete the comprehensive review requested by this committee and 
Congress. The Army will support OSD to complete this review. This issue 
poses complex and critical issues for the Department. If confirmed, I 
will look to the Secretary for guidance with regard to any role he asks 
me to undertake in this matter. It is an important study and will 
inform Department and congressional review of this critical matter. The 
Army and Congress must work together closely if this matter is to be 
addressed properly.
                            missile defense
    Question. In December 2002, President Bush announced the deployment 
of an initial set of missile defense capabilities, including ground-
based interceptors, sea-based interceptors, and additional Patriot PAC-
3 units.
    In your view, is the Army fielding Patriot PAC-3 missiles in 
sufficient numbers to meet the threat posed by short-range ballistic 
missiles?
    Answer. I do not have sufficient background in this highly 
technical area to offer an informed opinion on this matter. The Army 
has advised me that the Combined Acquisition Program strategy has 
allocated sufficient numbers of PAC-3 missiles to defeat the short 
range ballistic missile threat. If confirmed, I will study this 
further.
    Question. Do you support continued development of the multi-
national Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) as a follow-on to 
the Patriot system, and what is the Army's timeframe for fielding of 
this important capability?
    Answer. I do not have sufficient background in this highly 
technical area to offer an informed opinion on this program. From the 
information I have received thus far, the direction the Department has 
taken in the development of the Medium Extended Air Defense System 
appears reasonable. On July 1, 2004, the Defense Acquisition Board 
approved Milestone B for all three increments of the Patriot/MEADS 
Combined Aggregate Program with a MEADS First Unit Equipped date by 
fiscal year 2015. If confirmed, I will study this further.
    Question. What is your understanding of when the Department plans 
to authorize the transfer of the ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) 
system from the Missile Defense Agency to the Army?
    Answer. I understand that the transfer of the GMD System will be 
governed by the BMDS Transfer Plan that currently is in staffing 
between the Missile Defense Agency and the Military Departments. 
Transfer will be based on technical maturity and demonstrated military 
utility.
    Question. Do you believe the fielding of ground-based interceptors, 
which began in 2004, is keeping pace with the long-range ballistic 
missile threat to the United States?
    Answer. I do not have sufficient background in this matter to offer 
an informed opinion. I have been advised by the Army that the pace of 
missile fielding is consistent with intended defensive capability. If 
confirmed, I will look into this further.
    Question. The Army's Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) has 
been developing laser concepts for application on the battlefield. What 
are the Army's plans with respect to fielding laser weapons capable of 
defending against rockets and tactical missiles?
    Answer. The SMDC Solid-State Laser (SSL) Science and Technology 
(S&T) program goal is to develop a SSL demonstrator of at least 100 kW 
by 2013. The Army intent is to begin the weapon system development 
process to employ this rapidly emerging SSL technology as soon as it 
reaches the required maturity level. The Army's current weapon system 
development goal for fielding a Multi-mission Directed Energy Weapon 
System (MDEWS) interim capability is 2014, and to attain the MDEWS 
objective weapon system capability by 2020. These future weapon systems 
are envisioned to counter the rocket/artillery/mortar (RAM), 
manportable Air Defense System (MANPADS), and other tactical missile 
threats.
              tricare fee increases for military retirees
    Question. Press reports indicate that the Department of Defense 
will recommend significant increases in TRICARE costs for certain 
beneficiaries, including higher enrollment fees for military retirees 
and their families.
    What is your understanding of the Department's proposals for 
changes in TRICARE fees for retired soldiers, and, if they are 
implemented, what do you see as the likely impact of these changes on 
the Department of the Army?
    Answer. I understand that the President's budget is proposing a new 
fee structure for retirees under 65 that will increase enrollment fees 
for TRICARE Prime, and assess new enrollment fees and increased 
deductibles for Standard coverage. I understand that the proposed 
rebalancing of cost contributions is intended to slow the rate of 
increase in health care costs and compensate for the increases in 
covered benefits. Currently, 8 percent of the total DOD budget is spent 
on health care, with a projection of 12 percent in 2015. This proposal 
will have no impact on Active-Duty personnel and minimal to no impact 
on TRICARE for Life beneficiaries.
    Question. What is your personal view of the justification for 
increases in TRICARE enrollment fees for retirees and are there 
alternatives to such increases you would recommend if confirmed?
    Answer. The DOD faces the problem of escalating health care costs 
shared by everyone in the United States. I do not understand all the 
implications of the proposal, but the provision in the President's 
budget appears to me to be a reasonable approach to an undeniable 
problem. This year's budget and authorization process will not be the 
final word on this matter. If confirmed, I would work with DOD 
officials and Congress, learn from the experience in the private sector 
and other governmental entities, and seek creative solutions to this 
challenge. There are few issues more difficult to address, both 
substantively and politically. In my opinion, the Department of Defense 
must partner with Congress and tackle this problem. The path we are on 
is unaffordable in the long run.
                 sexual assault prevention and response
    Question. The Department of the Army is in the process of 
implementing changes in policy and procedures aimed at preventing and 
responding appropriately to incidents of sexual assault.
    What is your view of the appropriate role for senior military and 
civilian leaders in the Department of the Army in overseeing the 
effectiveness of implementation of new policies relating to sexual 
assault?
    Answer. The Army has initiated the Sexual Assault Prevention and 
Response Program. Support for this program must come from the top and 
address both the subtle and blatant factors that contribute to the 
persistence of this problem. Senior leaders in the Department must 
communicate by word and deed a zero tolerance policy of sexual 
harassment and must become personally involved in sexual assault 
prevention programs if they are to succeed in attacking this problem. 
Sexual assault is a national problem and the most under-reported crime 
in America. The military should provide a model for the Nation in 
addressing this issue. While at the Air Force, I worked on this issue 
and, if confirmed, would consider it a high priority. If confirmed, I 
will work with the Army leadership to ensure that Army leaders at all 
levels understand their responsibility to support fully the 
implementation of this critical program.
    Question. What is your view of the confidential reporting options 
made available to victims of sexual assault as part of the revised 
policy?
    Answer. I support affording victims of sexual assault the 
confidential reporting options to ensure first and foremost that 
victims receive the help and care they need as quickly as possible.
                     united states military academy
    Question. Complaints of sexual assault and harassment at the U.S. 
Air Force Academy in 2003 demonstrated, among other things, the 
importance of focused, informed oversight by service civilian and 
military senior leaders of conditions for female cadets and midshipmen. 
The Service Academy 2005 Sexual Harassment and Assault Survey completed 
by the Defense Manpower Data Center in December 2005 found that even 
with the implementation of corrective measures, sexual assault and 
harassment continue to be factors negatively affecting female cadets at 
the military academies and that the highest reported rates by cadets 
came from the U.S. Military Academy.
    What actions would you expect to take, if confirmed, to address the 
problems of sexual assault and sexual harassment at the U.S. Military 
Academy and with respect to the Army's programs in this regard?
    Answer. Senior Army leaders must communicate clearly and 
consistently that sexual harassment will not be tolerated and ensure 
that leaders at the U.S. Military Academy understand the gravity of 
this matter. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the 
Superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy has the resources and 
support necessary to advance the Army's commitment to attacking this 
problem. The Academy must improve support for victims, together with 
preventive education and awareness efforts. The Academy must continue 
to evaluate and shape its culture to create an environment in which the 
cadets understand that sexual harassment is antithetical to everything 
the Army stands for and will not be tolerated. If confirmed, I will 
support the Academy's progress toward these goals.
               national security personnel system (nsps)
    Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for 2004 provided 
significant new authorities for the Department of Defense to hire, pay, 
and manage its civilian workforce.
    What is your assessment of the high priority skill needs within the 
Army's civilian workforce, and, if confirmed, how would you anticipate 
employing the new authorities of NSPS to achieve a more effective 
civilian workforce?
    Answer. NSPS is a key pillar in the Department of Defense's 
transformation plans and is essential to creating an environment in 
which the Total Force (military personnel, civilian employees, and 
contractors) thinks and operates as one cohesive unit. While retaining 
the core values of the civil service and merit principles, NSPS allows 
employees to be paid and rewarded based on performance, innovation, and 
results. Army civilians must complement and support the military around 
the world in every time zone, every day. If confirmed, I will seek to 
leverage authorities within NSPS to promote a performance culture in 
which the performance and contributions of the civilian workforce are 
more fully recognized and rewarded. NSPS will allow the Army to be more 
competitive in setting salaries and afford it the ability to adjust 
salaries based on various factors, including labor market conditions, 
performance, and changes in duties. The Army will use the flexibilities 
provided in NSPS to attract and retain skilled, talented, and motivated 
people. NSPS will provide greater opportunities for Army civilians by 
easing the administrative burden routinely required by the current 
system and providing incentives for managers to turn to them first to 
accomplish certain vital tasks. This will free Army soldiers to focus 
on matters unique to the military.
    Question. With respect to the Army's Senior Executive Service, what 
recommendations, if any, do you have to improve professional 
development and overall management of the Army's senior civilian 
executives?
    Answer. I understand that the Army recently centralized the day-to-
day management of its senior executives into a new office that reports 
directly to the Secretary of the Army. This new organization contains a 
separate branch dedicated exclusively to the ongoing professional 
development of its civilian executives. It is the Army's intent to 
develop these executives in a manner similar to that in which they have 
historically developed their general officers. This includes 
implementing a systematic and progressive assignment pattern leading to 
positions of greater responsibility. Such a program also includes 
periodic educational experiences to complement such an assignment plan.
          support for army families in the rebasing initiative
    Question. Plans for the relocation of numerous Army units under the 
Department's rebasing initiative will present significant challenges to 
continental United States (CONUS) installations and their surrounding 
local communities in order to ensure adequate resources, including 
housing and schools, are made available.
    What is your understanding of the steps being taken by the Army to 
ensure the successful implementation of rebasing for both soldiers and 
receiving communities?
    Answer. Full and open communication between military officials and 
state and community leaders is the key to successfully implementing 
rebasing for soldiers. At locations impacted by rebasing, installation 
and garrison commanders must work closely with state officials, mayors, 
city managers, county commissioners and school officials to ensure that 
adequate schools, housing, and child care services are being planned to 
support an increased military population. The Army must form an 
effective partnership with all stakeholders to make this a success for 
soldiers and their families.
    Question. What actions will you take, if confirmed, to ensure that 
the challenges associated with rebasing are met?
    Answer. I do not know what my responsibilities would be in this 
area if I am confirmed. Realizing that rebasing must be resourced and 
executed over time, the Army has developed a detailed plan that 
prioritizes the movement and relocation of operational units, schools 
and headquarters. It is necessary that senior Army leadership work with 
Congress to ensure that the rebasing initiatives are adequately funded 
and supported. I believe that my experience in working in the political 
arena could be valuable in this effort.
                         interservice transfers
    Question. At the same time that the Army and Marine Corps are 
working harder than ever to achieve recruiting goals, the Navy and the 
Air Force are planning for significant reductions in military 
personnel. Under section 641 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2006, an inter-service bonus for transfer of $2,500 was 
authorized. Additional incentives may be necessary, however, to 
encourage ``blue to green'' transfers in order to retain sailors and 
airmen with valuable military training, skills, and experience.
    What is your assessment of the adequacy of existing incentives for 
interservice transfers?
    Answer. This program has not achieved its goals so far and should 
be re-evaluated to determine what it will take to make it a success. It 
is in our national defense interest to promote interservice transfers. 
The Services must work together to make this program a success. 
Financial incentives alone may not be sufficient to make it succeed. 
Force shaping tools should be designed to support the effort. This size 
of the bonus should be reconsidered as, after taxes, it essentially 
covers only the cost of new uniforms and other expenses related to the 
transfer. If confirmed, subject to the direction of the Secretary, I 
will work with Department leadership and Congress to identify and 
establish programs to attract quality personnel from the other 
Services.
    Question. If confirmed, and given your experience as Acting 
Secretary of the Air Force, what steps would you take to enhance the 
number of ``blue to green'' interservice transfers?
    Answer. The program has not worked up to expectations so far. I 
believe the Army needs additional research to better understand the 
program's shortcomings and the lack of attractiveness of the 
interservice transfer option. My experience at the Air Force leads me 
to believe that there are issues that must be better understood if the 
program is to succeed and that will not be addressed solely by 
financial incentives.
                       quadrennial defense review
    Question. The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is the first 
major review of defense strategy, policies, and force structure since 
the attacks of September 11, 2001.
    Do you think the review adequately positions the Army to face the 
future threats to our national security?
    Answer. The 2006 QDR provides a sound strategic game plan to guide 
the Army in meeting the challenges it faces in today's national 
security environment. The 2006 QDR also recognizes the unique needs of 
the long global war in which the Army is engaged, including the need to 
rebalance Active and Reserve capabilities, expand capacity of both 
multipurpose and Special Operations Forces, and transform the Army 
Reserves from the strategic Reserve of the Cold War era to an 
operational force trained and equipped to meet current and future 
challenges. To ensure Army forces are prepared for anticipated 
challenges, the QDR endorses robust and continuous modernization, 
including accelerating the spin-outs of advanced capabilities from its 
Future Combat Systems into the Army modular force.
    Question. Aside from validating the ongoing Army transformation to 
modularity, are there other structural changes you would suggest 
resulting from the QDR review?
    Answer. Structurally, I think the Army's organizational 
transformation is sound, including fully manning, equipping, and 
training its Reserves as an operational force.
    Question. Do you see the Army's roles and missions transforming 
along with the move to modularity?
    Answer. The Army's roles and missions continue to expand. In large 
measure, the Nation's ground forces--multipurpose and special 
operations, Army and Marine Corps, Active and Reserve--are the 
principal deterrence force for the challenges the Army will face in the 
early decades of the 21st century. The roles and missions of the 
Reserve component is a priority of the Guard and Reserve Commission 
established by Congress. Future planning for the Reserve component can 
be enhanced by the Commission's findings.
    Question. What are your views regarding the QDR recommendation to 
increase the role of the combatant commanders in the budget and 
acquisition process?
    Answer. It is my opinion that the budget and acquisition process 
would benefit from better input from the combatant commands in 
identifying operational needs that influence departmental priorities; 
however, the Department must be careful to properly balance short-term 
and long-term needs. Near-term needs must not be allowed to crowd out 
necessary long-term investments. Military departments must continue to 
serve as the developers, integrators, and providers of decisive and 
interdependent joint capabilities, supporting the needs and priorities 
of the combatant commands.
                 army force structure and end strength
    Question. The Army, pursuant to the 2005 QDR, has modified its plan 
to increase the number of combat brigades in the Active and Reserve 
components. The Army will increase the Active component force structure 
to 42 combat brigades and will increase the Army National Guard force 
structure to 28 combat brigades. This action represents a reduction 
from previous planning of one Active component combat brigade and six 
Army National Guard Brigades.
    What are your views regarding the QDR recommendation to reduce the 
number of Army and Army National Guard combat brigades?
    Answer. As a result of detailed analysis and the application of the 
professional judgment of senior leaders across the Department in the 
context of the 2006 QDR, the Army will continue to expand the 
capabilities and capacity of Army forces to meet the demands of the 
National Defense Strategy. The Army is growing capacity and building 
readily available combat and support forces that are fully manned, 
equipped, and trained. The rebalanced force will be more relevant and 
ready for the needs at home and abroad, today and tomorrow. The 
decision to change the planned 43rd Active component brigade to Special 
Forces is a reasonable response to the challenges facing our Nation. 
The Army's plan to fully man, train, and equip the Guard will provide 
enhanced CONUS and outside CONUS (OCONUS) capability in the Reserve 
component. The transition of six combat brigades to Engineering, Combat 
Service and Combat Service Support will provide resources better suited 
to the homeland and the national defense needs of our Nation.
    Question. Do you believe that the QDR has sufficiently taken into 
consideration the Army National Guard's state mission, especially 
homeland security and disaster relief?
    Answer. Yes, the rebalanced force will significantly increase the 
forces and capabilities readily available for State missions, and will 
provide a broader set of capabilities of increased applicability to 
homeland security and disaster relief operations. The Army is committed 
to ending the ``haves and have nots'' paradigm of the past. The ongoing 
transformation is creating, in all components, combat and support 
forces that are fully manned, equipped, and trained, posturing its 
Reserves as a ready and relevant operational force.
    Question. The Army has asserted that 43 Active component combat 
brigades and the 34 Army National Guard combat brigades would ensure 
the Army could maintain a 17 brigade force deployed with Active 
component brigades having 2 years between rotations and the Army 
National Guard combat brigades having 5 years between rotations.
    How will fewer combat brigades impact on the anticipated ``dwell'' 
time in the U.S. between rotations?
    Answer. The current projected force pool will sustain operational 
commitments over the long-term without compromising the ``dwell'' time 
goals of 6:1 and 3:1. The Army Force Generation model (ARFORGEN) was 
developed to support sustained operations, as well as additional 
contingencies, and to help manage unit rotations. ARFORGEN will help 
reduce stress on the force by using a reset-train-deploy cycle that 
allows units to anticipate deployment timelines.
    Question. Despite the continuing pace of operational deployments, 
the Army does not intend to seek permanent increases to its Active-Duty 
end strength as part of its overall plan to increase the number of 
combat brigades that can be operationally deployed.
    What is your view of the Active-Duty end strength necessary to 
support worldwide Army operational deployments, including Operations 
Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom?
    Answer. It appears to me that there is general agreement on the 
need to increase the size of the pool of soldiers available for world-
wide deployments. Some experts advocate a permanent strength increase. 
The Army leadership has developed a plan to accomplish this goal with a 
temporary increase in end strength and transformation of all three 
components of the Army to increase the number of high demand soldiers 
and assets. Included in this plan is the increase in the size of the 
Operational Force from 315,000 to 355,000 and reduction of the size of 
the Institutional Force. The plan appears sound to me. It will require 
careful execution and sustained support and funding to be successful. 
The Army has been evaluating force requirements within the End Strength 
Plan outlined by the Secretary of the Army in August 2005. Under the 
Secretary's End Strength Plan, the Army is building an expeditionary, 
campaign quality force, capable of meeting a broad and complex array of 
challenges, while ensuring its forces remain the preeminent land power 
and ultimate instrument of national resolve. Key to this plan is the 
President's approval of the 30,000 temporary end strength increase 
above the 482,400 program that allows the operational force to undergo 
transformation while at the same time deploying to meeting force 
commitments. The effort has focused on the completion of modular 
transformation, aligning the force to QDR and BRAC, incorporating 
institutional force restructuring, to include business practice 
initiatives, addressing risk in combat support and combat service 
support structures and continuing the refinement of Active Army and 
Reserve component balance. The Active Army will revert to a 482,400 
force in the later years of the POM.
    Question. What is your assessment of the impact on individual state 
National Guard mission capability of the proposed cut in the Army 
National Guard force structure and end strength by 17,000 soldiers?
    Answer. The Army leadership has committed to Congress to fund the 
National Guard at its actual troop strength level. This commitment was 
confirmed by the President Bush in his remarks on February 9. The Army 
will fund to whatever that level the Guard is able to recruit, up to 
the statutory limit of 350,000. The Army's plan to train and equip all 
National Guard brigades and invest $21 billion over the FYDP will 
enhance the ability of the National Guard to respond to state and 
national defense missions. This will also enhance mission capabilities 
and provide skills better suited to mission requirements. The plan 
builds up to 28 Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) and retains 78 supporting 
brigades, for a total of 106. Importantly, this includes the transition 
of six Guard combat brigades to support and engineering brigades, 
increasing the number of currently high demand low density assets and 
personnel. The National Guard plays a central role in homeland 
security, while simultaneously supporting operational deployments. The 
Army could not perform full-spectrum operations without the 
contributions of the Army Guard and Army Reserve. For example, last 
year the Army National Guard had 10 BCTs and a Division Headquarters 
serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Balkans for at least a portion of 
the year. Despite that overseas commitment, the National Guard was 
still capable of responding with 42,000 soldiers in 7 days to support 
Hurricane Katrina relief operations, with tens of thousands more 
National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers available as needed. The Army 
is committed to balancing its capabilities within and across the 
Active, Guard, and Reserve components. The work that the Army is doing 
will increase the quality and effectiveness of its fighting force and 
create a more capable force across all components. The Army is also 
increasing its capacity to ensure that the right capabilities are 
available to support current global operations, prevail in the war on 
terrorism, and respond to expanded homeland defense requirements by 
broadening the options available to civil authorities. This effort is 
essential to having the kinds of current and future capabilities and 
forces needed across the Army for sustaining the warfight and support 
to civil authorities.
    Question. Based on the current demands on the Army Reserve and 
existing policies pertaining to involuntary mobilization, what is your 
view of the justification of proposed cuts in the Army Reserve Force 
structure and end strength from 205,000 to about 188,000?
    Answer. The Army is working to balance force capabilities within 
and across the Active, Guard, and Reserve to develop a total force with 
greater capabilities and greater accessibility. This rebalancing is 
designed to create a larger operational Army and should improve 
readiness and reduce the impact on Reserve component structure. It is 
my understanding that the Army is budgeted to go to a 200,000 end 
strength, and that the Army Reserve will retain 58 supporting brigades.
    Question. Based on the current demands on the Army National Guard 
and existing policies pertaining to involuntary mobilization, what is 
your view of the justification of proposed cuts in the Army National 
Guard force structure and end strength from 350,000 to 333,000?
    Answer. President Bush and the Army leadership have made the 
commitment to fund the ARNG to the level it can recruit--up to its 
Congressionally mandated end strength of 350,000. Within this end 
strength, the ARNG will retain 28 combat BCTs and 78 supporting 
brigades.
    Question. What is your opinion about the plan to reduce the total 
number of Active and Reserve brigade combat teams from a total of 77 to 
70? Will this provide an adequate basis for the frequency of rotations 
planned while still ensuring adequate assurance for successful 
recruiting, retention, and training?
    Answer. The Army is restructuring to form a rotational pool of 70 
BCTs and 211 supporting brigades of various types among the 3 
components. This effort will increase the quality and effectiveness of 
the fighting force and create a more capable force across all 
components. This work also increases Army capacity to ensure that the 
right capabilities are available to support current global operations, 
prevail in the war on terrorism, and respond to expanded homeland 
defense requirements by broadening the options available to civil 
authorities.
    Question. What is your understanding of the overall number of 
personnel the Army seeks to move from the ``institutional Army'' to the 
operational Army and how many soldier billets have already been moved?
    Answer. The military/civilian conversion plan is a key component of 
the overall Army End Strength Plan. The Army plan optimizes the 
Operational Force, that portion of the Army that deploys to meet world-
wide requirements, at 355,000, a growth of nearly 40,000 spaces over 
the fiscal year 2004 total. A two-phase approach to reduce the 
Institutional Army through military-to-civilian conversion is being 
executed. The Phase I (fiscal year 2005-2009) plan to convert 13,000 
military positions to civilian fills are currently underway. Phase II 
(fiscal year 2008-2011) proposes to convert an additional 14,000 
military-to-civilian positions and is under review by major commands. 
Through fiscal year 2006 the Army will have converted 9,644 Active 
military positions to civilian positions.
    Question. What are the means the Army plans to use to accomplish 
these moves?
    Answer. I am advised that the Army intends to accomplish this with 
military-to-civilian conversion, business process changes, and 
divestiture of functions.
    Question. How does the Army propose to accomplish the functions the 
military billets being transferred were intended to perform?
    Answer. I am advised that the Army intends to accomplish this with 
military-to-civilian conversion, business process changes, and 
divestiture of functions.
           quadrennial defense review ``execution roadmaps''
    Question. The Department has announced that it will initiate eight 
follow-on assessments, or ``2005 QDR Execution Roadmaps,'' following 
completion of the QDR with the objective of continuing to examine a 
wide range of key issues, including such topics as DOD Institutional 
Reform and Governance, Irregular Warfare, Joint Command and Control, 
and Strategic Communications. You have been designated to lead an 
assessment of ``Authorities,'' i.e., the need for legislative and 
regulatory change to ensure operational effectiveness in the face of 
new threats.
    What do you consider to be the most significant recommendations of 
the QDR relating to necessary changes in existing law and 
regulationsand what legislative and regulatory areas, in general, do 
you anticipate your group will explore?
    Answer. The tasking of the authorities group is to seek interagency 
and congressional approval of the legislative proposals endorsed by the 
QDR. The senior leadership of the Department endorsed the proposals as 
key to advancing the goals of the QDR. The initiatives are top 
legislative priorities of the Department. The group is not tasked to 
consider or develop additional initiatives. The proposals are:
Building Partner Capacity
         Creation of Presidential Security Investment Fund
         Exception to Legislative Restrictions on IMET
         Expansion of COCOM's Initiative Fund
         Extension of CERP-Plus Authority to Every SSTR 
        Operation
         Increase of Funding Cap on Counterterrorism Fellowship 
        Program
Homeland Defense
         Expansion of WMD-CST Operations Across U.S./Canada/
        Mexico Borders
Human Capital Strategy
         Creation of Operational Reserve Force (15 percent 
        SELRES)
         Expansion of Presidential Reserve Call-Up from 270 to 
        365 days
         Expansion of Presidential Reserve Call-Up to include 
        response to natural disaster
         Creation of Force Shaping Options for USAF and USN
Medical Transformation
         Expansion of bonuses for Pre-Trained Specialists' 
        Recruitment
         Increase Unspecified Minor MILCON and O&M Construction
         Health care rates

    Question. Based on your experience in both the legislative branch 
and in the Department of Defense, what areas are in need of change?
    Answer. The Department would be well served by more interagency 
collaboration, and early and continuous consultation between DOD and 
our Nation's Congress. Congress should consider expanding both the 
Defense and State Departments' authorities to train and equip foreign 
security forces. The Department should institutionalize authorities 
from Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom to conduct 
humanitarian assistance and stability operations. Additionally, 
increasing opportunities similar to International Military Education 
and Training (IMET) can assist in shaping relations and developing 
future partners.
                       acquisition program reform
    Question. At an Air Force Association conference in Washington, DC, 
in September 2005, you outlined what you viewed as the ``root causes of 
poor program execution'' within the Air Force. You indicated that these 
included: unstable and expanding requirements; a lack of test community 
buy-in; inadequate systems engineering; unstable and unpredictable 
funding levels; and faulty cost estimates for new weapon systems.''
    Do you believe that these conditions are problems for the 
Department of the Army?
    Answer. Yes, all of the Services face these challenges. Stability 
of programs is essential to delivering needed capability to the 
warfighter in a timely manner. This includes the requirements process, 
the budgeting and funding process, and testing--as well as what the 
Department thinks of as ``traditional acquisition.'' Without the 
stability and integration of these aspects, root causes of poor program 
execution will not be adequately addressed.
    Question. If confirmed, what role, if any, would you expect to play 
in the oversight of the Army's acquisition programs?
    Answer. The Secretary has not informed me of his plans for my role 
in the acquisition process. Reform of major acquisition programs is a 
priority in the Secretary of the Army's Business Transformation 
Initiatives. His goal is to streamline or eliminate redundant 
operations to free financial and human resources to redirect to core 
warfighting missions. If confirmed, I would enthusiastically support 
the Secretary's initiative.
                               detainees
    Question. If confirmed, what do you see as your role, if any, with 
respect to issues pertaining to detainees?
    Answer. The Secretary has not told me of his plans for my 
involvement in detainee matters. The Army is the DOD Executive Agent 
for administering detainee operations policy. The Secretary of the Army 
should continue to coordinate with OSD, the combatant commands and 
Joint Staff, and with other Services to broaden its capability to 
source and sustain short-term and long-term detainee operations in 
support of the global war on terrorism. I have worked in this area 
since May 2004. I believe I could offer relevant experience in this 
area if asked to by the Secretary.
    Question. In addition to corrective actions taken by the Army to 
correct detention and interrogation policies, what are the leadership 
lessons the Army learned from incidents involving abuse of detainees, 
and, in your view, how should these lessons be incorporated into the 
professional military education of Army officers?
    Answer. In post September 11 operations, the Department of Defense 
experienced a paradigm shift in detainee operations from the Cold War 
model--in which DOD detained a disciplined, uniformed Enemy Prisoner of 
War (EPW) population--to the current environment in which DOD detains a 
complex set of enemy combatants, characterized by high-risk insurgents 
and terrorists. The Department is adapting to meet these challenges. 
The Army should continue to leverage the lessons learned in over a 
dozen strategic detainee assessment and investigative reports. Army 
leaders must ensure that the Army completes and effectively implements 
the programmed adjustments to its current doctrine, organizations, 
training, leadership and education. These adjustments will better 
enable Army leaders to anticipate, plan, prepare, and execute detainee 
and detainee interrogation operations.
                         domestic surveillance
    Question. Policies relating to domestic surveillance currently are 
a matter of intense interest currently as a result of Presidential 
directives to the National Security Agency following the attacks of 
September 11, 2001. The activities of Army intelligence components 
which affect United States persons are governed by Executive Order 
12333, DOD Directive 5240-1 (DOD Intelligence Activities), and Army 
Regulation 381-10 (U.S. Army Intelligence Activities).
    What is your understanding of how the Department of the Army 
oversees the implementation of its intelligence oversight program?
    Answer. The Army employs a number of mechanisms to ensure effective 
oversight of intelligence activities at all levels of staff and 
command. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G-2 is responsible for formulating 
the Army's Intelligence Oversight policy and maintaining its currency 
and compliance with the laws of the United States. Army policy on 
intelligence oversight requires that intelligence oversight officers be 
appointed in all Army organizations with an intelligence mission. The 
Army General Counsel exercises oversight of Army intelligence 
activities on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, especially as 
pertains to the legality and propriety of such. The Inspector General 
(TIG) of the Army has a cadre of personnel with intelligence expertise 
who conduct inspections worldwide of Army intelligence organizations 
for the purpose of ensuring compliance with intelligence oversight 
directives. The TIG is also responsible for receiving and coordinating 
reports of questionable intelligence activity in the Army. The Army has 
mandated annual training on intelligence oversight in all intelligence 
organizations. The Commander, Intelligence and Security Command, 
employs staff legal officers at all levels of command to oversee 
intelligence operation, ensuring legality and propriety.
    Question. How does the civilian leadership of the Department 
maintain effective oversight to ensure compliance?
    Answer. The principal mechanism for ensuring compliance with 
intelligence oversight policy in the Army is the intelligence chain of 
command, which maintains oversight of intelligence activities through 
the use of intelligence oversight and staff legal officers embedded in 
their organizations. In addition, all intelligence personnel, 
supervisors, and commanders in the Army are required to be familiar 
with Army policies and to ensure that their intelligence activities are 
compliant. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G-2 exercises oversight through 
his staff, which is responsible for ensuring that he is knowledgeable 
of significant intelligence activities in the Army. Additionally, the 
Department of the Army Inspector General conducts periodic inspections 
of intelligence unit oversight programs and processes.
                 military role in domestic emergencies
    Question. The shortfalls in the emergency response to Hurricane 
Katrina along the Gulf Coast have resulted in debate about the 
appropriate role of the Department of Defense and the Armed Forces in 
responding to domestic emergencies.
    In your view, should the Army have a more expansive role in 
responding to natural disasters?
    Answer. The administration and Congress are engaged in a 
comprehensive review of our Nation's preparedness for domestic 
disasters in the light of the Katrina response. Until that review is 
complete, I want to reserve judgment on the question of an expanded 
Army role. As far as Army capability, the Army plan to invest $21 
billion over 5 years in the Guard and transitioning six Guard combat 
brigades to Engineering, Combat Service and Combat Service Support will 
enhance the Guard's ability to respond to domestic incidents. The 
Department of Defense's primary missions are to protect the United 
States, prevent conflict and surprise attacks, and prevail in war.
    Question. What is your assessment of the Army National Guard's 
ability to meet its state contingency and homeland defense missions, 
given its operational commitments overseas, current equipment 
shortfalls, and proposed reductions in force structure and budget?
    Answer. The Army National Guard has proven itself capable of 
meeting its homeland defense mission while providing vital support to 
international operations, even with the heavy demands placed on it 
following Hurricane Katrina last year. The Guard has been stretched in 
responding to the demands placed upon it since September 11, but it has 
met all of the challenges it has been asked to undertake. As the 
President recently acknowledged, ``Across the world and on every front, 
the men and women of the Guard are serving with courage and 
determination, and they're bringing us to victory in the global war on 
terror.'' The Army's 5-year plan will further enhance the Guard's 
ability to meet domestic and international obligations. The Army plans 
to fully man, train and equip all Guard units and invest $21 billion in 
equipping the Guard over the next 5 years. By converting six combat 
brigades to Engineering, Combat Support and Combat Service Support, and 
increasing the availability of high demand assets and skills, the 
Guard's ability to respond to domestic and international contingencies 
will be strengthened. The plan to institute a 1 out of 6-year 
deployment maximum will provide predictability and stability for 
members of the Guard, their families and their employers. I am 
confident that the Army's plan for the Guard will improve its ability 
and continue its record of service so vital to security of the country 
and peace in the world.
                          aerial common sensor
    Question. On 2 August 2004, the U.S. Army awarded a $879 million 
system design and development contract for the Aerial Common Sensor 
(ACS). ACS was intended to serve as the next-generation airborne 
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) and target 
identification system. Furthermore, ACS was designed to replace current 
aircraft including, the Army's Guardrail Common Sensor, the Airborne 
Reconnaissance Low aircraft, and the Navy's fleet of E-P3 aircraft. The 
ACS program was terminated on 12 January 2006.
    What is your assessment of the Army's ability to meet the near-term 
signals intelligence needs given a current shortage of Guardrail Common 
Sensor systems?
    Answer. The Guardrail Common Sensor fleet has been in heavy demand 
since September 11, providing the tactical maneuver commander with 
actionable signals intelligence in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The fleet 
will remain in high demand for the foreseeable future. I understand 
that the Army is modernizing the system's core capabilities, based on 
feedback from commanders, better to support the warfighter. 
Additionally, the Army is modernizing the Airborne Reconnaissance-Low 
fleet with a modern signals intelligence payload to help prosecute high 
priority targets in Iraq and relieve demands on the Guardrail fleet.
    Question. In your opinion should the Army, and its initial ACS 
partner, the Navy, continue to collaborate to find a joint service 
solution to meet the needs of the ISR gap particularly since some Navy 
EP-3s have already reached retirement age?
    Answer. I do not have the knowledge to offer an informed opinion on 
the value of continued collaboration. I understand that the Army and 
Navy are in the process of completing the Joint ISR study that was 
directed by OSD as a result of the ACS contract termination. The study, 
which will be completed sometime this summer, will help inform the 
Services' discussions on the best path forward regarding ACS.
                      support for wounded soldiers
    Question. Wounded soldiers from Operations Enduring Freedom and 
Iraqi Freedom deserve the highest priority from the Army for support 
services, healing and recuperation, rehabilitation, evaluation for 
return to duty, successful transition from Active-Duty if required, and 
continuing support beyond retirement or discharge.
    What is your assessment of the effectiveness of Army programs now 
in place to care for the wounded, including the Wounded Warrior 
Program, and programs for soldiers in a medical hold status?
    Answer. The U.S. Army Wounded Warrior Program (AW2) is an 
outstanding program and has been effective, but the Army must always 
strive to improve services in this critical area. This outreach-driven 
program provides severely-wounded soldiers and their families with a 
system of advocacy and personal support from the time of initial 
casualty notification to return to military service or to the civilian 
sector. If confirmed, I will be committed to ensuring that injured 
soldiers receive the best care possible and receive support to address 
their needs and issues throughout the recovery process and beyond. I 
will continually assess the effectiveness of this program and would 
like to work with Congress and the private sector to develop innovative 
programs tailored to the long-term needs of our severely wounded 
soldiers.
    Question. How does the Army provide follow-on assistance to wounded 
personnel who have separated from Active service? How effective are 
those programs?
    Answer. I understand that AW2 Soldier Family Management Specialists 
initiate and maintain contact with Veterans Affairs (VA) personnel 
providing VA services to soldiers while they are on Active-Duty and 
through their transition to veteran status. The AW2 and the VA have 
forged a strong relationship to provide comprehensive assistance to 
wounded Army personnel. The Army assigns a VA Liaison in the VA 
Seamless Transition Office to allow the AW2 to ensure wounded soldiers 
receive optimal and timely services and to close potential gaps that 
may arise in the transition process. Based on the information I have 
received thus far, the Army is doing a good job in providing necessary 
follow on assistance to wounded personnel; however, as stated above, I 
would like to see DOD (all Services), VA and Congress continue to 
explore innovative approaches to this challenge.
    Question. If confirmed, are there additional strategies and 
resources that you would pursue to increase the Army's support for 
wounded soldiers, and to monitor their progress in returning to 
civilian life?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would work with Department leaders, 
Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) and Congress to continue to seek 
innovative approaches to this critical challenge. To properly monitor 
progress of its wounded soldiers, the Army must continue to develop and 
implement a decision support and soldier tracking system. The 
Department must also continue strategies that will result in health 
care advances and promote rehabilitation research for its severely 
injured soldiers with traumatic injuries. Private industry should be 
engaged in pursuing strategies for expanded employment opportunities.
                       joint acquisition programs
    Question. What are your views regarding joint acquisition programs, 
such as the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) and the Joint Strike 
Fighter?
    Answer. There are great efficiencies to be gained by joint programs 
as opposed to individual Service procurements. Joint programs have the 
advantages of: economies of scale, reduction in Service spares 
inventories, and Service sharing of training costs. However, the 
critical start-point for a joint program is a ``joint'' requirement. 
Without a solid joint requirement, it is doubtful that a joint 
acquisition program will be cost effective.
    The JTRS program has been plagued with problems. The management of 
the program was not established with a clearly defined chain of command 
and decision making mechanism. The Army, as executive agent, attempted 
to manage the JTRS program, but different Service desires, lack of 
discipline in requirements growth, and the complexity of the program, 
hampered those efforts. Earlier this year, the Department changed the 
management structure by establishing a Joint Program Executive Office 
with the requisite authority to manage the program. I believe this to 
have been a positive change that will accelerate the development and 
fielding of the JTRS program.
    Question. Do you see utility in encouraging the Services to conduct 
more joint development, especially in the area of helicopters and 
unmanned systems?
    Answer. Yes, I believe a joint development approach has utility for 
helicopters and unmanned systems and for all types of systems used by 
multiple Services. A successful joint program demands that the Services 
develop a well defined joint requirement as a starting point and 
vigilant oversight and discipline thereafter.
    Question. If so, what enforcement mechanisms would you recommend to 
implement more joint program acquisition?
    Answer. I have not received sufficient information on the scope of 
the problems and the challenges confronting joint programs acquisition 
to make fully informed recommendations. If confirmed, I will, pursuant 
to the Secretary's guidance, work with Army Department acquisition 
leadership to address this area.
                    morale, welfare, and recreation
    Question. Morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) programs are 
critical to enhancement of military life for members and their 
families, and must be relevant and attractive to all eligible users, 
including Active-Duty and Reserve personnel and retirees.
    What are the challenges in sustaining Army MWR programs that you 
foresee, and, if confirmed, what improvements would you seek to 
achieve?
    Answer. I agree that high quality and affordable MWR programs are 
critical in providing the quality of life that soldiers, their families 
and retirees deserve. This must be a priority for all the Services and 
must be properly funded. The challenge is for Garrison Commanders to 
provide quality programs and effectively compete for and manage 
resources to maintain viability of Army MWR programs. If confirmed, I 
will seek to ensure that MWR programs meet the Army's standards for 
service delivery and satisfy soldiers' priorities and needs.
               soldiers' post-deployment health concerns
    Question. The health-related problems experienced after Operations 
Desert Shield and Desert Storm led to the Department, at Congressional 
direction, undertaking extensive efforts to establish a comprehensive 
health database on deployed forces based on pre- and post-deployment 
health surveys.
    If confirmed, what actions would you expect to take to ensure that 
the Army uses available data on the health of returning soldiers to 
ensure that appropriate treatment is available and that all signs of 
deployment-related illnesses or potential illnesses are identified?
    Answer. It is critical that all the Services have in place an 
effective system to identify deployment-related illnesses as quickly as 
possible, evaluate and address the adequacy of available behavioral 
health support services, and address any shortfalls. In an effort to 
ensure early identification and treatment of emerging deployment-
related conditions, the Army has implemented the Post-Deployment Health 
Reassessment Program. Under this program, soldiers will be evaluated 
90-180 days post-deployment in an effort to identify health concerns.
                  requirements and planning processes
    Question. For the last several years, the Department of Army has 
relied on supplemental and reprogrammed funds to help pay for ongoing 
operations in the global war on terrorism and for Army modularity. 
Funding for expected ongoing operations and planned Army modernization 
efforts are not yet part of the Army's annual requirements and planning 
process.
    What changes in the Army's planning process do you view as 
necessary to mitigate the need for supplemental funding and extensive 
reprogramming requests?
    Answer. Recent years' supplemental funding and reprogramming 
requests were to support the sustained level of conflict in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, evolving operational and security requirements, and repair 
or replacement of the equipment used in those conflicts. Such wartime 
needs are immediate in nature, unpredictable, and difficult to 
incorporate in budgets planned a year in advance of their execution. If 
confirmed, I will work to identify and incorporate better planning 
tools, recognizing however, that annual budgeting will never accurately 
anticipate nor fully incorporate the costs of war and obviate the need 
for supplemental funding.
    Question. As rising personnel and operations and maintenance costs 
expend an increasing portion of the Army's budget authority, and as 
competing demands for Federal dollars increase in the future years, the 
Army will have to address the challenges of modernization and 
transformation with fewer and fewer resources.
    What changes would you recommend to the way the Army prioritizes 
resources to maintain the momentum of Army transformation, while at the 
same time reducing future force protection shortfalls?
    Answer. While I cannot speak to the criteria currently used in Army 
prioritization, the QDR sets the course for future capabilities and 
defense forces. The transformation to Army Modular Force structure and 
continued investments in force protection will be key elements of the 
Army's role in achieving that force. I believe the roadmap for change 
in the QDR should provide the overall framework for Army resource 
priorities. From that will follow sustained transformation momentum and 
enhanced force protection. I expect budgets will continue to be a 
struggle in years ahead. The Army must work closely with Congress to 
ensure that the mission critical needs are funded.
                      relationships with congress
    Question. Effective coordination and consultation between the 
Department and the congressional defense committees--especially with 
regard to force structure issues--continues to be a challenge. Having 
served four terms in the House of Representatives, as a Special 
Assistant to Secretary Rumsfeld, and as Acting Secretary of the Air 
Force, you have extensive knowledge and experience about the manner in 
which effective legislative and executive branch relationships should 
be conducted.
    If confirmed, what proposals or suggestions for the Department of 
the Army, if any, would you expect to make?
    Answer. If confirmed, one of my highest priorities would be to work 
with the Secretary of the Army to enhance the Army's coordination and 
communication with Congress, Members, and staff. Given my background, I 
understand the constitutional role of Congress in national defense 
matters and the need for effective, prompt, and accurate communication 
with Congress. Effective and trusted working relationships with 
Congress are critical to the success of every Army endeavor.
                         future cargo aircraft
    Question. What is your view of the proper roles and missions for 
the Army and Air Force in supplying front line troops?
    Answer. When it comes to intratheater airlift, specifically at the 
strategic and operational levels, no one in the world can match the 
U.S. Air Force's ability to deliver personnel, supplies, equipment, or 
outsized cargo rapidly across strategic distances. Within a theater of 
operations, it is necessary that the Army maintain an organic rotary 
and fixed wing capability to meet the Army's need to transport 
personnel and mission critical materiel within a theater of operations.
                     army modularity infrastructure
    Question. The Army used emergency authorities in 2004 to procure 
and install temporary facilities to support modularity units preparing 
for deployments in support of the global war on terrorism. The cost of 
installing these temporary facilities will exceed $1.4 billion in 
combined military construction, procurement, and operations and 
maintenance funds, resulting in hundreds of trailers at each of ten 
locations around the country to house and provide work areas for over 
40,000 Army personnel for an undetermined amount of time.
    If confirmed, what plans would you propose to address the Army's 
requirement to provide adequate, permanent living quarters and work 
facilities for personnel affected by the Army's transformation 
initiatives?
    Answer. The Army provided temporary facilities over the last 2 
years because permanent Army Modular Force basing decisions were not 
made until BRAC decisions were approved. The fiscal year 2007 budget 
requests funding to start providing adequate, permanent facilities at 
U.S. installations impacted by Army Modular Force transformation 
initiatives. Soldiers and their families are the foundation of the Army 
and they must have the quality housing they deserve. If confirmed, I 
will work to ensure budgets provide sufficient funding to give all 
personnel and their family's quality living and working conditions.
    Question. In your opinion, what policy and guidance should be 
implemented in order to ensure that the relocation of forces into 
temporary facilities does not detrimentally affect morale and the 
quality of life afforded Army personnel and their families?
    Answer. Where interim facilities are being used, the Army must 
continue to ensure that they are quality structures, while at the same 
time programming and budgeting for permanent facilities. Local 
commanders must carefully monitor living conditions and the impact on 
morale and be prepared to address any problems that occur. Senior Army 
leadership should be prepared to support commanders in their efforts to 
address concerns. ``You recruit the soldier, you retain the family.''
                   housing and barracks privatization
    Question. In recent years, the Department of Defense and Congress 
have taken significant steps to improve family housing. However, it 
will take many more years and a significant amount of funding to 
adequately meet the Department's housing needs. The housing 
privatization program was created as an alternative way to speed the 
improvement of military family housing and relieve base commanders of 
the burden of managing their family housing.
    What are your views regarding the privatization of family housing?
    Answer. I strongly support using the authorities provided by 
Congress in 1996 to privatize military family housing. The program 
continues to demonstrate success in leveraging appropriated funds and 
housing assets to improve the quality of family housing quickly and 
economically. As of 1 February 2006, the Army has privatized family 
housing at 27 locations--over 64,000 homes. At these 27 locations, the 
scope of work during the initial development period is estimated to be 
$8.4 billion, of which the Army contributed $562 million in direct 
support. Although most projects are in the early stages of initial 
development, the Army has constructed over 4,700 new homes and 
renovated 6,600 more. I expect the program will continue to show 
success in improving the quality of life for soldiers and their 
families.
    Question. What are your views regarding the privatization of 
unaccompanied barracks?
    Answer. In light of the successes in family housing privatization, 
the Army should examine the potential costs and benefits for 
privatizing unaccompanied personnel housing (including barracks, and 
single senior noncommissioned officer and officer housing). However, 
any decision regarding replacing current barracks with privatized 
apartments must consider: standardization, impact on warrior ethos and 
unit cohesion, access of non-military personnel, and costs.
    Question. If confirmed, how would you recommend that the Army use 
privatization as a means to address the Army's unaccompanied housing 
requirements?
    Answer. Further study is required before committing to a large 
scale program. The Army is reviewing some smaller scale projects for 
possible implementation in the near future.
    Question. In addition to MILCON and privatization, do you believe a 
change in existing unaccompanied housing policy to permit more 
unaccompanied personnel to reside off base is needed?
    Answer. I am not sufficiently familiar with this issue to ascertain 
whether policy changes are required at this time. In 2005, the Army 
began allowing unaccompanied personnel in the grade of E-6 to receive 
basic allowance for housing and reside off-post. (Personnel in the 
grade of E-7 and above already were allowed to receive BAH and reside 
off-post.) Garrison Commanders may authorize unaccompanied junior 
enlisted soldiers to reside off-post when space is not available on 
post. I believe that the Army should continue to review its policies to 
ensure that all soldiers are adequately housed.
                oversight of the army corps of engineers
    Question. In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers has assumed a key role in the development and 
supervision of repairs to our critical infrastructure in the region, in 
particular, the levee system in New Orleans, Louisiana.
    If confirmed, what role do you expect to have in the oversight of 
activities conducted by the Corps of Engineers?
    Answer. Under current Army guidance, the Under Secretary of the 
Army exercises oversight responsibility for Army Civil Works functions. 
If confirmed, barring a change in guidance, I would provide this 
oversight through the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works who is 
responsible for supervision of the Army Civil Works program, the Corps 
of Engineers' reimbursable activities in support of other non-
Department of Defense agencies, and the Corps international activities 
other than those directly in support of U.S. forces overseas. If I am 
confirmed, I would expect to serve as an advisor to the Secretary of 
the Army on all matters related to these programs that may come to the 
Secretary's attention.
                     base closures and realignments
    Question. The 2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) has 
concluded and the military services are in the process of developing 
business plans for the implementation of BRAC decisions.
    What do you see as the responsibilities of the Department of the 
Army in implementing BRAC decisions?
    Answer. The Army is responsible for executing both the Army's BRAC 
recommendations and a portion of the joint cross service group 
recommendations, as assigned by the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics). For this part of the BRAC 
recommendations, the Army is developing implementation plans and budget 
justification materials, and will execute the program in accordance 
with those plans and the BRAC appropriations.
    Question. What do you see as the priorities of the Department of 
the Army in implementing BRAC decisions?
    Answer. I understand that the Army, faced with the Iraq/Afghanistan 
deployments, the Army plans to invest the bulk of the BRAC funding for 
fiscal year 2006 and 2007 in the movement of the tactical Army units 
that are in rotation schedule for deployment to support modularity and 
the return of overseas forces. The Army also plans to invest in the 
movement of two schools that train soldiers and the movement of 
associated headquarters and administrative organizations. While 
completing these three priorities, the Army will construct 125 Armed 
Forces Reserve Centers over the 6-year implementation period.
    Question. When will the Army have the BRAC implementation plans 
completed?
    Answer. The Army has developed implementation plans and these plans 
become the basis for the initial BRAC budget justification material for 
fiscal year 2006-2011. This budget document was submitted to OSD and is 
currently in review with the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations 
and Environment).
    Question. When will Congress be able to review this plan?
    Answer. It is my understanding that DOD will release the Army's 
volume of the BRAC budget justification materials along with the other 
component's budget justification materials as part of the fiscal year 
2007 President's budget detail. It is also my understanding that the 
Army does not yet have a release date.
    Question. The DOD installation closure process resulting from BRAC 
decisions has historically included close cooperation with the affected 
local community in order to allow these communities an active role in 
the reuse of property. In rare cases, the goals of the local community 
may not be compatible with proposals considered by the Department of 
Defense. For example, the recent closure of the Walter Reed Medical 
Center in Washington, DC, will present opportunities for both the local 
community and the Federal Government to re-use the land based on 
potentially competing plans.
    If confirmed, what goals and policies would you propose to assist 
affected communities with economic development, revitalization, and re-
use planning of property received as a result of the BRAC process?
    Answer. As a Member of Congress, I represented a community that had 
an Air Force base closed in the 1991 BRAC. I worked extensively on the 
re-use plan for the facility. If confirmed, and with the guidance of 
the Secretary, I will work closely with the Office of Economic 
Adjustment, the Local Redevelopment Authorities, the Governors, and 
other appropriate State and Local officials to accelerate the property 
disposal process whenever possible. The Army has completed the initial 
phase of Federal screening and is in the process of evaluating 
applications and notifying local communities of the Federal interest in 
the Army BRAC properties. This process will be complete with the 
determination of surplus decisions. From there the Local Redevelopment 
Authorities must submit redevelopment plans that will be folded into 
the Army property disposal process.
    Question. What lessons did the Army learn during the BRAC process 
that you would recommend be included in future BRAC legislation?
    Answer. I believe the Army is generally satisfied with the current 
BRAC authorities, and, if confirmed, I look forward to working with 
Congress to execute BRAC 2005.
                     contractors on the battlefield
    Question. More and more of the Department's maintenance and support 
functions are outsourced. These ``contractor logistics support'' 
agreements have resulted in the deployment and employment of civilian 
contractors in combat areas.
    What problems have emerged for the Department as a result of 
increased numbers of contractors on the battlefield?
    Answer. The Department has identified several focus areas, 
including knowing the exact location of contractor personnel who are 
deployed with the armed forces; force protection issues and arming of 
civilians; delineating command/control responsibilities over contractor 
personnel with contract language; and providing life support for 
deployed contractors which have proven to be problematic. The Army has 
developed doctrine and policy to address accountability and force 
protection for contractor personnel. The Army is working to improve 
housing, dining facilities and other life support to deployed 
contractor personnel. If confirmed, I would work to ensure that the 
Army policies and procedures effectively address these areas.
    Question. What is the status of the Department's initiative to 
review over 300,000 military billets to determine the feasibility of 
shifting various functions into the civil service and private sector 
for potential outsourcing?
    Answer. The 300,000 military billets are Department-wide. I 
understand that the Army's goal is to grow the Operational Army from 
315,000 to 355,000 soldiers by 2013. The Army plans to rely on 
military-to-civilian conversions and business transformation to 
accomplish this change. Through fiscal year 2006, the Army will have 
converted 9,644 Active military positions and realigned these positions 
to the operating forces.
                investment in weapon systems acquisition
    Question. The investment budget for weapon systems has grown 
substantially over the past few years to $150 billion per year. An 
increasing share of this investment is being tied up in ``mega 
systems'' like Joint Strike Fighter, Future Combat Systems, and Missile 
Defense Agency.
    How can we sustain this growth at the same time we are covering the 
increasing costs of operations, Army modularity, and asset 
recapitalization?
    Answer. The DOD cannot sustain the rate of increase and cost 
overruns in major defense systems that it has experienced over the last 
decade. Acquisition reform is necessary and should be a top priority of 
the Department and Congress. I understand that the Army is attempting 
to mitigate cost growth first by using evolutionary development 
strategies. The Army plans to reduce costs through standardization, 
economies of scale, equipment standardization, requirement discipline, 
and common unit designs. More needs to be done DOD-wide. If confirmed, 
I would seek to work with Congress in this critical area.
    Question. How can the budget absorb this kind of cost growth in 
mega systems?
    Answer. The Army has terminated numerous programs and reinvested 
the proceeds into FCS and into technologies that could be quickly 
fielded to current forces. The Army has leveraged technologies 
developed in these terminated systems into the development of FCS 
systems such as the Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon. If confirmed, I will 
continue to leverage resources by examining how the Army could use 
equipment jointly and multiplying its capabilities through joint 
networks, such as the Single Integrated Air Picture. I also would seek 
the reduction of costs in all areas of operations through business 
transformation initiatives. In my opinion, this must be a high priority 
for the Department and for Congress if progress is to be made in this 
critical area.
                       force protection programs
    Question. Over the past several years, the Army, with the 
assistance of Congress, has spent billions of dollars on force 
protection measures (e.g., Interceptor Body Armor, up-armored high 
mobility multipurpose vehicles, counter-improvised explosive device 
measures) primarily using supplemental appropriations.
    If confirmed, how would you ensure that the Army continues to 
support and fund force protection programs, even in the absence of 
supplemental appropriations provisions?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would share the view held by Army 
leadership and place the highest priority on force protection measures 
in developing the Army budget and support OSD and the other Services in 
this area. In the area of force protection, the war drove dramatic 
changes to respond to an adaptive enemy. The Army has worked diligently 
to provide the best and tested force protection equipment in the world 
to soldiers, but can never be satisfied and must be relentless in its 
efforts to do better. Supplemental funding has been required to support 
the costs associated with quantities, technology, and tactics required 
to quickly respond to the changes. The effort has received strong 
support and leadership from Congress, with over $5 billion in funding 
for Up-Armored HMMWVs and Armor Kits, for over $2 billion in body 
armor, and millions of dollars for other efforts. While the loss of one 
soldier is too many, these programs are showing dramatic results in 
protecting soldiers. For the longer term, the Army is integrating force 
protection initiatives into the Army at large. Force protection is a 
broader issue than adequate funding and fielding improved equipment. It 
requires innovative research and development, evolving training, 
refinement of tactics, and changes in doctrine to adapt to an adaptive 
enemy. If confirmed, I am committed to continuing a proactive and 
aggressive approach to this area.
                         technology transition
    Question. The Department's efforts to quickly transition 
technologies to the warfighter have yielded important results in the 
last few years. Challenges remain in institutionalizing the transition 
of new technologies into existing programs of record and major weapons 
systems and platforms.
    What challenges to transition do you see within the Army?
    Answer. In fighting the current war on terrorism, the Army has had 
significant success in fielding improved technology to its soldiers and 
the other Services as part of the Joint Forces. These include Force 
Protection technologies, such as the Warlock family of Improvised 
Explosive Devices countermeasures and the Soldiers' Enhanced Small Arms 
Protective Inserts. Rapid technology transition challenges are not 
unique to the Army. The major challenges are technical complexity and 
maturity, programmatic timing and stable resources. Fielding new 
technologies has inherent risks. The Army's strategy is to maintain its 
science and technology (S&T) investments to mature technology 
sufficiently for rapid transition into its acquisition programs based 
on operational needs and the flexibility within Programs of Record to 
accept new technology.
    Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that technologies are 
rapidly transitioned from the laboratory into the hands of the 
warfighter?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary and the Chief 
of Staff to improve the Army's acquisition processes to reduce cycle 
time for technology transition into useful capability. The Army, with 
the help of Congress, has embraced the concept of Spiral Technology 
Development and has applied that to its largest program of record, the 
Future Combat System. If I am confirmed, I will work to overcome 
obstacles or inefficiencies and ensure the Army seizes opportunities to 
insert technology into the Current Force to meet operational needs and 
improve capability.
    Question. What steps would you take to enhance the effectiveness of 
technology transition efforts?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Army Acquisition and its 
warfighting requirements professionals to ensure that we identify 
improvements to warfighting systems capabilities that are offered by 
new technologies. The decisions to transition these technologies must 
be based on operational needs. The Army is enhancing technology 
transition efforts by increasing its use of Technology Transition 
Agreements between the S&T developers and the FCS Program Manager (PM). 
These agreements between the technology community and the acquisition 
PM clearly define the technology ``products'' relevant to the program 
and when they are available.
                   officer promotion selection boards
    Question. Under section 506 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the Services must provide substantiated 
adverse information to promotion selection boards for officers in the 
grades of O-7 and above.
    What problems, if any, do you foresee in the Army's ability to 
implement this requirement?
    Answer. At this time, I am informed that the Army does not 
anticipate problems implementing this requirement. The Army has a 
system for providing adverse information to General Officer Selection 
Boards. In the event an officer is selected and adverse information is 
discovered or substantiated after the board adjourns, the Army has a 
post-board review process. This process, if necessary, could require 
the convening of a Promotion Review Board to determine if the adverse 
information is grounds for changing a board's recommendation.
    Question. OSD is preparing guidance for the Services concerning the 
implementation of this provision and the Army is awaiting specific 
guidance on any revisions the Army might need to make to its current 
processes.
    If confirmed, what guidance would you provide to promotion 
selection board members about the manner in which such adverse 
information should be considered?
    Answer. When considering the impact of substantiated adverse 
information on an officer being considered for promotion, board members 
must make a determination that the qualifications and potential of that 
officer outweigh the qualifications and potential of the next officer 
on the Order of Merit List who was not tentatively recommended for 
promotion. In applying this standard, board members must keep in mind 
that the selection of an officer for promotion to (or within) the 
general officer ranks should be based on the highest standard that 
exists. The substantiated information must be considered as part of an 
officer's overall record and performance of duty, and should be weighed 
to determine how it may reflect on an officer's judgment, integrity, or 
other qualities necessary to demonstrate potential to perform at a 
higher grade. Ultimately, board members must endeavor to recommend 
officers who have consistently demonstrated the highest standards of 
integrity, personal responsibility, and professional ethics. Board 
members must be convinced that the selection of an officer with 
substantiated adverse information is in the Army's best interest. It is 
their discretion to recommend for promotion a clearly deserving officer 
despite substantiated adverse information.
                      investment in infrastructure
    Question. Witnesses appearing before the committee in recent years 
have testified that the military services underinvest in their 
facilities compared to private industry standards. Decades of 
underinvestment in installations has led to increasing backlogs of 
facility maintenance needs, substandard living and working conditions, 
and has made it harder for the Services to take advantage of new 
technologies that could increase productivity.
    Do you believe the Department of the Army is investing enough in 
its infrastructure? Please explain.
    Answer. Despite the current operations tempo, the Army is making 
steady progress in reducing the backlog of restoration and 
modernization with current levels of military construction funding. 
However, unless the Army is able to maintain these investments through 
a steady and predictable infusion of sustainment dollars, gains will 
erode. The Army continues to focus on its most critical needs and 
balance resources against competing requirements, i.e., quality of 
life, equipping and resetting the force, military pay, medical care, 
enlistment/reenlistment incentives. Facilities are a high priority but 
compete for scarce resources.
                               body armor
    Question. Since combat operations began in Afghanistan in 2001, 
there has been a need to improve individual protection for our service 
members on the battlefield. As requirements emerge, the Army has 
responded in several ways, e.g., by speeding up production of the new 
Interceptor Body Armor (IBA) to replace the older, less capable, Kevlar 
body armor for everyone in the combat zone, not just the ground combat 
units. Most recently, as a result of a study done for the Marine Corps, 
by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), the Army is in the 
process of buying side plates to improve the overall effectiveness of 
the IBA.
    Do you believe the Army's programs to protect its soldiers 
adequately address the requirements for its personnel in combat zones, 
and if confirmed, what, if anything, would you do to accelerate the 
program?
    Answer. Soldier protection is the highest priority at all levels 
within the Department and, if I am confirmed, will be my top priority. 
The Army continually receives input from commanders in the field and 
rapidly provides solutions to the battlefield commander. As new 
technologies emerge, the Army must continue to work aggressively with 
industry to develop, test, produce, and rapidly field the best possible 
equipment for its soldiers. Body and vehicle armor is only part of the 
answer. The Department must continue its focus on counter-IED 
technology and improving operations. The enemy constantly changes its 
tactics to exploit seams. Techniques, tactics, and procedures must 
constantly evolve to meet the changing threat. If confirmed, I will, 
pursuant to the Secretary's guidance, work with Army leadership in 
support of these efforts.
                            equipment reset
    Question. The ongoing requirements of the global war on terror have 
significantly increased usage rates on the services equipment. As a 
result, we know there will be a requirement to ``reset'' the force once 
combat operations wind down. However, given the ongoing nature of both 
the war in Iraq, and the larger war on terror, we need to ensure that 
our force remains ready to respond to whatever contingencies are 
required.
    Do you think that the Army's equipment reset program meets the 
requirements of the global war on terror, as well as the requirements 
for changing to a modular force?
    Answer. The Army's budget provides a reset program that meets the 
equipment requirements for the global war on terror as well as the 
requirements for changing to a modular force. The Army is committed to 
ensure that soldiers have what they need to fight and win the global 
war on terror. The Army's primary supporting effort is transforming to 
a more agile and lethal force--modularity. The purpose of the total 
Army's (Active and Reserve) reset program is to restore unit equipment 
used in the global war on terror to full operational capability. Reset, 
together with the procurement of new equipment, and the Army's Force 
Generation Management Model (ARFORGEN), meets the Army's equipment 
needs for both missions. In order for the Army to continue resourcing 
its equipment requirements for the global war on terror and transition 
to Modularity, it is essential that the Army work with Congress to gain 
its ongoing support.
                 special operations civil affairs unit
    Question. What is your view on whether all Civil Affairs (CA) units 
should remain within the Special Operations Command? Please explain.
    Answer. In accordance with the QDR 2005 directive, all U.S. Army 
Reserve Civil Affairs (CA) and Psychological Operations (PSYOP) Forces 
will transfer from the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) to the 
U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC). USSOCOM will retain the proponency 
function for all Army CA and PSYOP capabilities and thereby remain 
connected to the USAR CA and PSYOP for qualification training, doctrine 
development, and force structure design. In close coordination, 
USSOCOM, USARC, and the US Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) are 
analyzing the requirements and developing the execution plan for this 
action. USSOCOM will provide the plan to OSD Programs, Analysis and 
Evaluation by March 30, 2006.
    Question. With the goal of maintaining skills and enhancing 
professional advancement of CA personnel, what advantages and 
disadvantages do you see in integrating Reserve and Active component 
units and personnel?
    Answer. It has been explained to me that the advantages of 
integration for Active and Reserve Forces outweigh the disadvantages. 
Army Modularity and the ARFORGEN model formally link AC and USAR 
capabilities and doctrine. The proponency and responsibility for all CA 
and PSYOP is in the Active Army under USSOCOM. This ensures a common 
baseline standard for qualification, doctrine and force structure. 
Integrating the AC and USAR Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations 
capabilities operationally has been shown to be beneficial to both 
components as they each bring complimentary capabilities to the 
supported force and receive the benefit of learning from the strengths 
of the other. Integrating these CA and PSYOP capabilities enhances the 
overall capability available to the Regional Combatant Commander to 
address Civil-Military issues from the tactical to the strategic, 
National Policy, level.
                          stability operations
    Question. What do you view as the highest priorities for the Army 
in implementing the recently issued DOD Directive 3000.05, ``Military 
Support for Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction 
Operations''?
    Answer. I believe that the Department should work toward building 
strong International and Interagency partnership capabilities to 
enhance Stability, Security, Transition and Reconstruction Operations. 
Continued support for existing proven programs, such as IMET, Foreign 
Military Training, Security Assistance and Cooperation should continue. 
The Services should also focus on improving planning, information 
sharing, increasing language and cultural awareness training and 
education.
                        congressional oversight
    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information.
    Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before 
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as the Under Secretary of the 
Army?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
               Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
    1. Senator Warner. Mr. Geren, in fiscal year 2005, the Army Reserve 
achieved less than half of its goal in recruiting physicians, and a 
quarter of its goal in recruiting dentists. For an Army that relies so 
heavily on its Reserves for medical support in war, this is a troubling 
and dangerous situation. Are you aware of the critical shortages in 
medical personnel?
    Mr. Geren. The Army Reserve is acutely aware of this situation. The 
Army Reserve provides the bulk of medical support to the total force 
picture. As an example, the Army Reserve provides 63 percent of the 
total force's plastic surgeons, a critical specialty with regard to our 
current operations. The bulk of nurse anesthetists are also within the 
Army Reserve. Thoracic surgeons, also in high demand, are found 
primarily within the Army Reserve (61 percent) and over half of the 
surgical nurses are within the Army Reserve ranks. This highlights the 
importance of ensuring we get the correct formula for attracting these 
professionals.
    What is troubling about our medical professional recruiting picture 
is we are in the same place that we were last year (production) and 
will probably conclude this year in a similar fashion. The numbers show 
little change in the actual mission number, a mere nine-person 
difference between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 for Army 
Nurses, for example. Unfortunately, the production rate is stagnant as 
well. This will not begin to address the critical shortages we are 
experiencing of these professional personnel. If we continue to 
approach the problem with the same tools, the trend will continue. We 
have to be more aggressive in terms of incentives. We are not the only 
agency competing for their skills. These professionals have several 
choices. There are both civilian and government entities competing for 
their skill sets, and many attract these potential candidates with a 
more appealing incentive package, to include full tuition reimbursement 
and stipends.
    Tuition rates have been rising at double-digit rates for years. 
Medical, dental, and other health professional students are stuck with 
crushing debt following their college experience. Two hundred thousand 
dollars in student loans is not unheard of medical and dental school 
graduates Our Health Professional Loan Repayment Program doesn't begin 
to address it with a $50,000 lifetime cap (payable at no more than 
$20,000 per year on current principal balances) at the end of each year 
of satisfactory service in the Selected Reserve. We can begin to get 
realistic by raising the maximum levels from $50,000 to $250,000.
    The Specialized Training Assistance Program (STRAP) is another 
avenue to assist health care professionals in critically short 
specialties complete their rigorous training programs. This program 
provides a monthly stipend of $1,279 per month adjusted annually on 1 
July (full rate). Due to the critical shortage of company grade Army 
Nurse Corps officers, we are also able to offer STRAP to Nurse Corps 
officers that were commissioned with less than a baccalaureate degree 
in nursing, who will complete that requirement before consideration to 
Major. Medical and Dental students may also participate in the STRAP-JR 
program, for a stipend of $1,235 per month. The Army Nurse Candidate 
program assists those looking to become an Army Nurse with a $1,000 per 
month stipend.
    Realistically, with tuition rates at their current levels, and 
their rate of inflation, is this enough? No. It is imperative we be 
flexible with these programs and adjust them when needed. Currently, 
these programs are only updated when a ``crisis'' in manning occurs. No 
intense management occurs unless there is an emergency. This is not a 
cost-effective way of doing business, nor does it assure we'll have the 
personnel we need, when we need them.
    The Army Reserve provides for a ``bonus'' incentive for medical 
professionals through the Health Professions Bonus Program (BONUS) and 
the Health Professions Bonus Program (Retention). The ``Bonus'' program 
pays an annual bonus of up to $10,000, not to exceed $30,000, in return 
for participation in the Selected Reserve (SELRES).
    Payments will be made effective on the date of orders. The 
specialties included in the BONUS Program are reviewed and revised 
annually, as needs change and funding is available.
    The Health Professional Bonus Program-Retention (HPB-R) may be used 
as a retention bonus for Medical Corps and Dental Corps officers. 
Individuals contracting for the HPB-approved Army Reserve critical 
skills specialties will receive up to $10,000 per year. Participants 
must choose 1, 2, or 3 years of affiliation with the Army Reserve 
Selected Reserve (SELRES) at the time of application.
    We can recognize the commitment medical professionals are making 
and the additional sacrifice with the mobilization/deployment schedule 
we're asking them to take. We can recognize this commitment by 
establishing a dental special incentive pay, as well as increase the 
retention bonuses for our health service professionals. There are 
several actions we are pursuing and will need assistance in getting the 
authorizations for them.
    When soldiers, professional or otherwise, are not content, they 
speak with their feet and walk, and choose another agency or company to 
work for. It is imperative we make it more attractive for them to join 
our ranks as well as stem the tide of losing these professionals.

    2. Senator Warner. Mr. Geren, what authorities or initiatives are 
needed to remedy this situation?
    Mr. Geren. The Army Reserve provides over half of the Army's assets 
for nurse anesthetists, thoracic surgeons, operating room and surgical 
nurses, and occupational therapists. We are looking at several 
initiatives to address the critical shortfall of medical personnel. 
First, incentives in the form of retention bonuses and loan repayment 
will target the significant educational costs incurred by individuals 
completing their medical education. Most students leave academic 
institutions with a debt load of over $100,000. Tuition costs have 
outpaced the inflation rate for several years, usually at a double-
digit pace. We can begin to address this by improving the Health 
Professional Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP). We are asking for an 
increase in this program to a maximum of $50,000 per year, with a cap 
at $250,000. This will begin to address the double-digit inflation in 
tuition rates and the crushing debt these students incur in order to 
complete their programs of professional education. Our Health 
Professions Bonus Program currently pays $10,000 annually to a maximum 
of $30,000 for participation in a Reserve unit. We believe that 
increasing the Health Professions Bonus from $10,000 per year to 
$25,000 per year annually, until 15 years of service, will have a 
positive impact on recruiting.
    Competition from the private sector for top quality medical 
professionals continues to challenge the military's capability to 
recruit. Without increased bonuses and loan repayment programs that 
provide substantial reduction in the economic impact of these 
educational debts, we will continue to be challenged to recruit top 
caliber officers. With the significant percentage of medical 
professionals within the Reserve component, we must look to creative 
recruiting opportunities. Currently, the U.S. Army Recruiting Command 
is looking at several innovative initiatives, and with congressional 
support, we believe we can address these critical issues.

                         women in combat report
    3. Senator Warner. Mr. Geren, section 541 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 codified the Department of 
Defense (DOD) policy that has been in effect since October 1, 1994, 
which excludes women from assignment to units or positions--below the 
brigade level--whose primary mission is to engage in direct ground 
combat. That provision also required the Secretary of Defense to review 
current and future implementation of the women in combat policy, and to 
closely examine personnel policies associated with creating the Army's 
new modular combat units to ensure compliance with the ground combat 
exclusion rule. What is your understanding of whether the full report 
reviewing the Army's current and future assignment policies will be 
provided to Congress by March 31, 2006?
    Mr. Geren. The Department of Defense plans to provide an initial 
reply to Congress by the end of February 2006; the final report is 
targeted for completion within the next 180 days. This report is 
considerably broader in scope than the question outlined in section 
541. The Department of Defense, with the assistance of the Department 
of the Army, owes Congress, the men and women who serve the military, 
as well as the American people, an unassailable and comprehensive 
report which thoroughly examines the current women in ground combat 
policy and analyzes its implications for the future. That task demands 
considerable research effort, understanding, and expertise. The RAND 
Corporation will conduct extensive research regarding women in ground 
combat policy and its implications given the emerging Army modularity. 
Thereafter, the Secretary of the Defense will report conclusions to 
Congress.

                       support for army families
    4. Senator Warner. Mr. Geren, you understand the importance to 
readiness and morale of providing support for families of soldiers, 
particularly those who have deployed to combat zones. We noted, 
however, that the Army's budget for family center support has declined 
since 2004. In particular, family support for the Guard and Reserve 
since that time has declined by half. What is your understanding of the 
rationale for these reductions?
    Mr. Geren. Senator Warner, funding for Guard and Reserve family 
support since fiscal year 2004 is as follows: fiscal year 2004-$10 
million; fiscal year 2005-$25 million; fiscal year 2006-$41 million; 
and we are requesting $20 million for fiscal year 2007. Fiscal year 
2004-2006 includes additional global war on terror funds in support of 
family support centers during periods of high operational tempo. If the 
high operational tempo of family centers continues into fiscal year 
2007, additional global war on terrorism funding will be provided to 
meet the increased needs.

    5. Senator Warner. Mr. Geren, if confirmed, will you determine 
where the impact of these cuts will be felt and report back to us on 
your assessment of whether these reductions for family support are 
justified?
    Mr. Geren. Although there is no intent to decrease funding for 
family support centers experiencing high rates of operational tempo, I 
will report back on any reductions, should this occur. Each year, the 
Army National Guard and Army Reserve will assess requirements for 
global war on terrorism funding and request the additional funds as 
necessary to address family center needs.

   impact of brac, army modularity, and rebasing on local communities
    6. Senator Warner. Mr. Geren, the Army modular force initiative, 
restationing of forces from Europe, and base realignment and closure 
(BRAC), will have a significant impact on local communities which 
receive large increases in military personnel. Quality education for 
school-aged children is one important concern for military families 
affected by these realignments. What is DOD, and the Army in 
particular, doing to ensure that local school districts are prepared to 
receive and educate military children when they arrive as a result of 
the realignment of forces or BRAC?
    Mr. Geren. The Army is working closely with the Department of 
Defense and Department of Education. The Army has identified the need 
for an Army School Transition Plan to develop strategies for successful 
transition of more than 35,000 military-connected students transferring 
from overseas locations to continental United States schools systems as 
a result of the Army Modular Force transformation, the Integrated 
Global Presence and Basing Strategy, and Base Realignment and Closure.
    Local education agencies have expressed concerns about adequate 
school facilities to accommodate the influx of transitioning students. 
Some communities have moved ahead with bond issues, and others have 
made contact with the Department of Education and/or Department of 
Defense to explore new avenues for funding facilities, transportation, 
teachers, and textbooks.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
                          future combat system
    7. Senator McCain. Mr. Geren, in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2006, 
Congress instructed the Pentagon to report on every program that costs 
at least 50 percent more than initial projections. The provision was 
designed to tie programs to their original cost estimates, rather than 
updated cost and schedule baselines. The Pentagon has been allowed to 
change its baseline without invoking the penalty. For example, the 
Army's Boeing-led FCS program has not triggered an official breach 
despite a $161 billion cost estimate that is more than double its 
original baseline estimate. What plans do you propose to ensure 
programs are held to their original baseline figures instead of 
allowing the current practice of rebaselining?
    Mr. Geren. While the Army's implementation plans for this new 
requirement will be influenced by guidance from the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense, the Army intent is full, timely compliance with 
the law. Oversight of the program baselines will continue through 
milestone decision reviews and program executive officer updates to the 
Army Acquisition Executive. Deviation reports using the new criteria 
outlined in the amendment will be reported using current processes and 
procedures.
    While this amendment does not prohibit the re-baselining of 
programs, it does hold program managers accountable to the original 
baseline estimate. By keeping the original estimate as a data point in 
Selected Acquisition Reports (SAR), the entire Department of Defense 
acquisition chain is sensitive to the cost growth of the entire 
program. This is an improvement of the current practice of re-
baselining which does not retain the original baseline estimate in 
official reports.
    With respect to the FCS program, the $161 billion figure cited in 
the question represents the total acquisition cost in then-year 
dollars, and was reported in the November 2005 SAR. The comparable 
original baseline figure is $92.2 billion, a 75-percent increase. When 
calculated using base-year dollars so that the rate of inflation (which 
is beyond a program manager's control) does not influence the result, 
the overall increase is 54 percent (from November 2005 SAR: SAR 
Development Baseline of $77.8 billion; acquisition program baseline 
objective of $120.15 billion.)

    8. Senator McCain. Mr. Geren, how do you plan to implement this new 
amendment with regard to Nunn-McCurdy specifically as it applies to the 
FCS?
    Mr. Geren. In compliance with the new amendment, each Selected 
Acquisition Report (SAR) must reflect the originally established 
baseline estimate along with the estimate deemed to be the original 
under this amendment. Under this amendment, the FCS current baseline 
would be deemed the original baseline estimate. The current FCS 
acquisition program baseline was signed by the Defense Acquisition 
Executive on November 2, 2005, and reported in the November 2005 SAR.
    Oversight of the program baselines will continue through milestone 
decision reviews and program manager updates to the Army Acquisition 
Executive. The Army will not lose sight of the baseline estimate that 
was originally established for the program in 2003.

    9. Senator McCain. Mr. Geren, what is the status of the transition 
of the FCS contract from an OTA to a FAR Part 15 (traditional military 
procurement) contract which was enacted in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 
2006 and which the Secretary of the Army agreed to do in April 2005?
    Mr. Geren. The Army awarded a System Development and Demonstration 
(SDD) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)-based letter contract on 
September 23, 2005, consistent with section 212 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163). The Future 
Combat Systems (FCS) SDD contract (W56HZV-05-C-0724) is a negotiated, 
sole source contract in accordance with FAR Part 15. The FCS SDD 
contract is fully compliant with the Uniform Contract Format (UCF) 
specified in FAR Subpart 15.2 and includes all appropriate FAR 
prescribed clauses. The FCS SDD FAR-based letter contract was 
definitized on March 28, 2006.

                           kc-135 replacement
    10. Senator McCain. Mr. Geren, in August 2005, as Acting Secretary 
of the Air Force, you released a request for information (RFI) for the 
KC-135 Replacement Tanker Aircraft program prior to an analysis of 
alternatives (AOA) being completed. Why did you feel it was necessary 
to release the RFI?
    Mr. Geren. The RFI should not have been released prior to the 
completion of the AOA. After discussion with Senate staff and with DOD 
officials it was rescinded.

    11. Senator McCain. Mr. Geren, please explain why it should be 
assumed the AOA was not conducted in an unbiased and untainted manner 
with a predetermined outcome?
    Mr. Geren. Based on congressional concern, OSD took extraordinary 
steps to ensure that an unbiased and objective process was established, 
to include the creation of an independent, joint Senior Steering Group 
to provide oversight and guidance on the conduct of the AoA. The 3-star 
level Senior Steering Group, with members from all Services, the Joint 
Staff, OSD, and USTRANSCOM, oversaw the study.
    In addition to the SSG's oversight, USD(AT&L) contracted with the 
Institute of Defense Analyses (IDA), another FFRDC, to conduct an 
independent assessment of the AoA. IDA focused on the RAND methodology 
and their objectivity. IDA worked closely with RAND for over 18 months 
as members of AoA Integrated Product Teams and as participants in cost 
and effectiveness panels. IDA obtained AMC and RAND computer models and 
ran them independently to substantiate results, suggest new approaches, 
conduct excursion analyses, and comment on draft versions of the AoA 
report. IDA's assessment, pending receipt of RAND's formal report, is 
that the AoA is objective based on study balance; correctness; clarity 
in explanation; verifiability and traceability; logic and consistency; 
completeness; and clarity in presentation. IDA stated in their outbrief 
that they had never seen a more complete and thorough AoA and that the 
AoA provides a good foundation for the Department's acquisition 
planning.
    OSD(PA&E), after delivery of the draft AoA in August 2005, also 
performed a sufficiency review of the AoA. PA&E assessed the extent to 
which the AoA illuminated capability advantages and disadvantages; 
considered joint operation plans; examined sufficient feasible 
alternatives; discussed key assumptions and variables; assessed 
technology risk and maturity; and calculated costs. In addition PA&E 
worked closely with RAND in a collaborative, transparent environment 
throughout the entire development of the AoA. PA&E participated in AoA 
working groups, Integrated Product Teams, and SSG meetings. PA&E made 
site visits and reviewed and analyzed all of the data, assumptions, 
models, spreadsheets and programs used in the AoA. PA&E also performed 
independent research, using outside sources to verify the results of 
the models used in the AoA through validation of input data, 
assumptions, and methodology. Their assessment, pending receipt of 
RAND's formal report, is that the AoA is sufficient. PA&E found that 
all discrepancies were resolved, the rigor of review and analysis were 
unprecedented, that the AoA met all guidance provided by USD(AT&L), and 
that a competitive acquisition strategy based on the AoA results should 
yield the best value for the Department.

                        guidance at army prisons
    12. Senator McCain. Mr. Geren, what specific Army guidance will you 
give to soldiers, military police (MPs), interrogators, translators, 
intelligence soldiers, etc. at army prisons throughout Iraq and 
Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay (GITMO)?
    Mr. Geren. All members of the U.S. Armed Forces, regardless of 
specialty or profession, must understand the requirement to treat all 
detainees humanely at all times and under all circumstances, from the 
moment a detainee falls under U.S. custody and control to the moment of 
release or repatriation. A soldiers also must understand their 
obligation to report any deviation from this standard to the proper 
authority. These basic concepts of responsibility and accountability 
are emphasized in the recently published DODD 3115.09, Intelligence 
Interrogation, Detainee Debriefing, and Tactical Questioning and 
Medical Program Memorandum, Medical Program Principles and Procedures 
for the Protection and Treatment of Detainees in the Custody of the 
Armed Forces of the United States, and in AR 190-8, Enemy Prisoners of 
War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees, and Other Detainees. DOD 
and the Army are in the process of reviewing and updating other 
policies, doctrine and training plans to ensure that these core 
concepts are trained, emphasized, and implemented in each and every 
military operation in which members of the U.S. Armed Forces are 
involved.
    Current pre- and post-deployment training for all military 
services, civilians, and contractors is continuously updated, based on 
training guidance, theater mission requirement, and the Center for Army 
Lessons Learned (CALL) data, with additional training requirements for 
contract interrogators. Internment/Resettlement (I/R) mission pre-
deployment training for Army and Sister Service units is conducted at 
Fort Dix, NJ, Fort Lewis, WA, and Fort Bliss, TX. The Combat Training 
Center (CTC) Program has incorporated detainee operations lessons 
learned vignettes in all rotations since January 2004. Current 
Operational training guidance includes increased cultural awareness 
leader training and country orientation, updated and increased Law of 
War training, theater specific training that includes handling enemy 
personnel and equipment, and an introduction to detainee operations 
using the US Army Military Police School exportable Detainee Operations 
Training Support Packages. The Army continues to support ongoing 
training with Mobile Training Teams tailored to meet unit mission 
requirements.
    Additionally, all soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan are 
under the combatant command of the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) 
while they are deployed. Because USCENTCOM organizes and employs 
forces, assigns tasks, designates objectives, and gives 
theauthoritative direction necessary to accomplish the missions in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, it is imperative that deployed soldiers are aware of 
and follow any AOR specific orders or policies pertaining to detainees 
which are published by USCENTCOM through the operational chain of 
command.

    13. Senator McCain. Mr. Geren, Major General Geoffrey Miller, who 
ran the GITMO camp from October 2002 to March 2004 and GITMO-ized Abu 
Ghraib and has been linked to the abuse scandal in certain reports, is 
declining to answer questions in two court martial cases involving the 
use of dogs during interrogations at the camp. I would like to hear 
your thoughts on this issue and if you are confirmed, what are you 
going to do about it?
    Mr. Geren. I have been informed that Major General Miller has 
invoked his Article 31 rights under the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice by declining to answer pretrial questions in a court-martial 
case involving other service members. It would be inappropriate for me 
to comment on his invocation of rights. Since General Miller's original 
declination, I have been informed that he has since met with the 
service member's attorneys in the ongoing court-martial and answered 
their questions. I understand that the SASC plans hearings on this 
matter and the Army will support the committee in its effort.
    As far as the Army's review of MG Miller, the Department of the 
Army Inspector General (DAIG) independently investigated the 
allegations made against General Miller concerning detainee operations. 
The DAIG determined the allegations to be unsubstantiated. After 
multiple reviews, the DAIG report of investigation has been approved by 
the Army leadership. I have been informed General Miller has cooperated 
with the DAIG throughout its investigation of the allegations against 
him.

    14. Senator McCain. Mr. Geren, can you provide the current 
procedures under which DOD makes available to Congress the confidential 
reports the U.S. receives from the International Committee of the Red 
Cross concerning U.S.-operated places of detention in Guantanamo Bay, 
Afghanistan, and Iraq?
    Mr. Geren. DOD policy requires that the International Committee of 
the Red Cross (ICRC) reports received by a military or civilian 
official of the DOD at any level shall, within 24 hours, be transmitted 
to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)). The DOD policy 
further provides that all ICRC communications shall be marked with the 
statement ``ICRC communications are provided to DOD as confidential, 
restricted-use documents. As such they will be safeguarded the same as 
SECRET NODIS information using classified information channels. 
Dissemination of ICRC communications outside of DOD is not authorized 
without the approval of the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense.''
    According to an agreement worked out between DOD and Armed Services 
Committees leadership, the OUSD(P) has committed to provide the Senate 
Armed Services Committee (SASC) and House Armed Services Committees 
(HASC) with access to ICRC working papers, reports, and letters on DOD 
detention facilities. Under the agreement, OUSD(P) will provide ICRC 
working papers, reports, and letters to the SASC and the HASC on a 
quarterly basis. Prior to this hearing on February 15,2006, our last 
brief on ICRC documents to the SASC occurred in November 2005.
                                 ______
                                 
                Question Submitted by Senator John Thune
                        army/air force aircraft
    15. Senator Thune. Mr. Geren, the Air Force and the Army have been 
working together since 2004 to create a joint program with the Army 
Future Cargo Aircraft (FCA) and the Air Force Light Cargo Aircraft 
(LCA). There have been reports that in addition to organic lift the 
Army wants to take over the Air Force intra-theater airlift mission as 
well, which has created some tension between the Services. If 
confirmed, how will you work to resolve this contentious issue to meet 
both Services' needs?
    Mr. Geren. There are ongoing discussions and agreements between the 
Army and the Air Force on the FCA and LCA programs. When it comes to 
intratheater airlift, specifically at the strategic and operational 
levels, no one in the world can match the U.S. Air Force's ability. The 
Army's FCA was never intended to compete with the Air Force's C-17 or 
C-130 aircraft roles and missions. The FCA is a complementary system 
that fills a gap at the tactical level. That gap is the movement of 
time sensitive, mission critical resupply and key personnel transport 
from the Initial Staging Base or Port of Debarkation (POD) to the 
brigade combat team (BCT); what we like to describe as the last 
tactical mile in the end-to-end distribution system. These BCTs are 
often deployed to austere locations across the noncontiguous 
battlefield. Today we are mitigating our risk associated with this gap 
through employment of a combination of tactical wheeled vehicle 
convoys, CH-47 helicopters, and the use of our smaller, less capable 
cargo and utility aircraft such as the C-23, C-12, and C-26. The FCA 
will enable the Army to lighten the heavy burden on our CH-47 (Chinook) 
helicopter fleet so they can focus on supporting division-level and 
modular brigade force structure warfighting requirements. Furthermore, 
the FCA will reduce the risk to soldiers' lives associated with convoy 
operations and forward arming and refueling points required to support 
extended CH-47 helicopter long haul cargo operations.
    We are in the process of developing a Joint Program Office (JPO) 
that will be established, at least initially, with an Army lead. The 
Services anticipate a JPO Charter will be approved by the Services' 
Acquisition Executives prior to the Army reaching Milestone C on the 
FCA program. The Army still plans to begin fielding FCA to its aviation 
force in fiscal year 2008. The USAF will follow with the fielding the 
LCA approximately two years later.
    In summary, we are a Joint (Army/Air Force) team working together 
to field the best equipment possible to meet the combatant commander's 
needs.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of Preston M. Geren follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                  January 18, 2006.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    Preston M. Geren, of Texas, to be Under Secretary of the Army, vice 
R.L. Brownlee, resigned.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The biographical sketch of Preston M. Geren, which was 
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was 
referred, follows:]

                Biographical Sketch of Preston M. Geren

    Pete Geren joined the Department of Defense in September 
2001 to serve as Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense 
with responsibilities in the areas of interagency initiatives, 
legislative affairs and special projects. Mr. Geren served as 
Acting Secretary of the Air Force from July to November 2005.
    Prior to joining the Department of Defense, Geren was an 
attorney and businessman in Fort Worth, Texas.
    From 1989 until his retirement in 1997, Geren was a Member 
of the U.S. Congress, representing the 12th Congressional 
District of Texas for four terms. He served on the Armed 
Services, Science and Technology, and the Public Works and 
Transportation Committees during his tenure in Congress.
    Geren received his BA degree from the University of Texas 
in 1974 and his JD from University of Texas Law School in 1978. 
He and his wife, Beckie, have three daughters: Tracy, Annie, 
and Mary.
                                ------                                

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

    1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
    Preston ``Pete'' Murdoch Geren III.

    2. Position to which nominated:
    Under Secretary of the Army.

    3. Date of nomination:
    January 18, 2006.

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

    5. Date and place of birth:
    January 29, 1952; Fort Worth, Texas.

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

    7. Names and ages of children:
    Tracy Elizabeth Geren, 16; Sarah Anne Geren, 12; and Mary Caroline 
Geren, 9.

    8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
    Georgia Tech, 1970-1973, no degree.
    University of Texas, B.A., 1974.
    University of Texas, J.D., 1978.

    9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the 
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of 
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
    November 2005-present - Special Assistant to the Secretary of 
Defense.
    July 2005-November 2005 - Acting Secretary of the Air Force.
    September 2001-July 2005 - Special Assistant to the Secretary of 
Defense.
    April 1999-August 2001 - Attorney, self-employed - 210 W. 6th 
Street, Fort Worth, Texas.
    January 1997-April 1999 - Management Consultant, Public Strategies, 
Inc., 2421 Westport Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas.
    September 1989-January 1997 - Member of Congress, 12th 
Congressional District of Texas.

    10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, 
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, 
or local governments, other than those listed above.
    D/FW International Airport - Board of Directors, 1999-2001.
    Executive Assistant to Senator Lloyd Bentsen, 1983-1985.

    11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an 
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, 
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other 
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
    See SF 278 and Ethics Agreement.

    12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in 
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and 
other organizations.
    Honorary Member, Rotary Club of Fort Worth.
    Member, Excahnge Club of Fort Worth.
    Member, State of Bar of Texas.
    Member, Fort Worth Club.
    Member, City Club of Fort Worth.
    Member, Rivercrest Country Club.

    13. Political affiliations and activities:
    (a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or 
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
    Candidate for U.S. Congress: 1986, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994.
    (b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered 
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5 
years.
    None.
    (c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign 
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar 
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
    January 5, 2001, Presidential Inaugural Committee, $475.
    February 19, 2001, Jim Lane for City Council, $100.
    February 26, 2001, Wendy Davis for City Council, $100.
    March 20, 2001, Martin Frost for Congress, $250.
    March 21, 2001, Frank Moss for City Council, $100.
    March 22, 2001, Granger for Congress, $250.
    April 25, 2001, Dionne Bagsby for County Commissioner, $150.
    June 25, 2001, Blunt for Congress, $500.
    October 8, 2003, Charlie Geren for State Representative, $1,000.
    December 16, 2003, Friends of the University of Texas PAC, $500.
    April 15, 2004, Koehler for School Board, $250.
    April 25, 2005, Carter Burdette for City Council, $100.

    14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions 
for outstanding service or achievements.
    Honorary PhD University of North Texas.
    Outstanding Young University of Texas Alumnus.
    Distinguished alumnus, University of Texas Law School.

    15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of 
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have 
written.
    None, other than newsletter-type material when I was in Congress. I 
do not have copies.

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

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

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

                           Signature and Date
    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete.
                                                  Preston M. Geren.
    This 23rd day of January, 2006.

    [The nomination of Preston M. Geren was reported to the 
Senate by Chairman Warner on February 16, 2006, with the 
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination 
was confirmed by the Senate on February 17, 2006.]
                              ----------                              

    [Prepared questions submitted to Michael L. Dominguez by 
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied 
follow:]
                        Questions and Responses
                            defense reforms
    Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense 
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have 
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have 
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain 
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant 
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
They have also clarified the responsibility of the Military Departments 
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment 
to the combatant commanders.
    In your responses to advance questions prior to your previous 
nomination hearing on July 31, 2001, you indicated that ``there are 
dynamics today different from 15 years ago that may warrant review of 
some provisions [of Goldwater-Nichols], such as the personnel 
assignment rules and how we select joint specialty officers.'' You 
expressed an interest in exploring these issues to ensure the services 
have ``sufficient flexibility in the management of our personnel 
resources in a joint environment.''
    Based on your experience as the Assistant Secretary of the Air 
Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, are there specific 
modifications to the Goldwater-Nichols Act for which you see a need?
    Answer. The Goldwater-Nichols Act deserves credit for creating a 
strong framework for today's joint warfighting capabilities. Two 
decades of U.S. military successes bear witness to this. However, while 
operational jointness has matured, the personnel system for Joint 
Officer Management has not kept pace. In the global war on terrorism, 
members are integrated within Joint Task Force organizations, serving 
various tour lengths on a rotational basis. The intensity of these 
joint experiences is almost certainly beyond the scope framers of 
Goldwater-Nichols contemplated. We should build on the foundation 
established by Goldwater-Nichols and devise mechanisms to recognize 
joint competencies accrued in these joint operational experiences, as 
well as those derived from joint training and exercises we now 
routinely conduct in preparation for combat.
    Finally, I believe that ``jointness'' is no longer a desirable 
attribute limited merely to the Active component, and the time has come 
to integrate the Reserve component in this valuable framework, and to 
recognize the role of senior non-commissioned officers and senior 
civilians. This means offering joint education, training and 
experiences that will fully acculturate all of these key contributors 
to joint performance; which necessarily entails tracking/recognizing 
joint qualifications. If confirmed, I would enter policy discussions 
from this general platform.
    Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take in the areas 
you have identified?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary, Joint Staff, 
combatant commands, military services, and Congress to advance the 
vision documented in the Department's recently developed Strategic Plan 
for Joint Officer Management and Joint Professional Military Education.
                                 duties
    Question. Section 136a of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the 
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness shall 
assist the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness in 
the performance of his or her duties.
    Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect you will be 
assigned?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will assist the Under Secretary of 
Personnel Readiness in carrying out every aspect of his 
responsibilities, functions, relationships, and authorities in law 
consistent with DOD Directive 5124.2, ``Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R))'' and DOD Directive 5124.8, 
``Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness (PDUSD(P&R)).'' I will be his principal staff assistant and 
advisor in all matters relating to the management and well-being of 
military and civilian personnel in the DOD Total Force structure. I 
will provide oversight for the direction of policies, plans, and 
programs governing Total Force management as it relates to manpower; 
force management; planning; program integration; readiness; National 
Guard and Reserve component affairs; health affairs; training; 
personnel requirements and management; and compensation. This includes 
equal opportunity, morale, welfare, recreation, and quality of life 
matters for both civilian and military personnel and their families.
                             relationships
    Question. If confirmed, what would your working relationship be 
with:
    The Secretary of Defense.
    Answer. If confirmed, I expect to serve the Secretary as an advisor 
and advocate for the management of human resources in the Department.
    Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
    Answer. If confirmed, I would expect my relationship with the 
Deputy Secretary to be fundamentally the same as that with the 
Secretary of Defense.
    Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness.
    Answer. If confirmed, I would work directly for the Under 
Secretary. I would take my direction from Dr. Chu and assist him in 
carrying out his duties and responsibilities to ensure personnel 
readiness and quality of life for our military and civilian personnel. 
I would expect to interact with the Under Secretary on a daily basis 
and assist him in formulating policies and providing advice and 
recommendations.
    Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense for Reserve Affairs 
and Health Affairs.
    Answer. If confirmed, I would anticipate a close working 
relationship with the Assistant Secretaries toward the achievement of 
Department objectives with respect to our mutual goals. I would expect 
each Assistant Secretary to provide expertise and leadership in his or 
her area of responsibility, to help carry out the responsibilities for 
which I might be held responsible.
    Question. The DOD General Counsel.
    Answer. The General Counsel performs a vital function in support of 
departmental policymaking and the review of myriad decisions. If 
confirmed, I would anticipate regular communication, coordination of 
actions, and exchange of views with the General Counsel and the 
attorneys assigned to focus on personnel policy matters. I would expect 
to seek and follow the advice of the General Counsel on legal, policy, 
and procedural matters pertaining to the policies promulgated from the 
Personnel and Readiness office.
    Question. The Service Secretaries.
    Answer. If confirmed, I would hope to work closely with the 
Secretaries of the Military Departments on all matters relating to the 
management and well-being of military and civilian personnel in the DOD 
Total Force structure.
    Question. The Assistant Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air 
Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
    Answer. If confirmed, I would hope that I could look to these 
officials as partners in carrying out the human resource obligations of 
the Services.
    Question. The Deputy Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force for 
Personnel, the Chief of Naval Personnel, and the Deputy Commandant of 
the Marine Corps for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
    Answer. If confirmed, I would hope to have effective working 
relationships with these officers to ensure that DOD attracts, 
motivates and retains the quality people it needs.
    Question. The Joint Staff, particularly the Director for Manpower 
and Personnel (J-1).
    Answer. If confirmed, I would hope to have a close coordinating 
relationship and open channels of communication with the Joint Staff 
regarding manpower and personnel policy issues.
    Question. The combatant commanders.
    Answer. If confirmed, I would hope to foster mutually respectful 
working relationships that translate into providing the Total Force 
capabilities needed to complete combat missions.
                            major challenges
    Question. Prior to assuming the duties of Assistant Secretary of 
the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, in responding to 
advance questions, you anticipated that your top challenges would be 
``recruitment, retention, civilian force management, and preservation 
of quality military health care.''
    What do you consider to be your most significant accomplishments in 
meeting these challenges?
    Answer. Less than a month after my confirmation as Assistant 
Secretary of the Air Force, our problem set was changed by al Qaeda's 
attack on the U.S. Homeland. Instead of recruiting and retention, the 
Air Force's principal force management challenge of the last 4 years 
has been force shaping--re-sizing career fields within the force to 
distribute stress equitably and meet the demand for skills needed to 
fight the global war on terrorism.
    In the area of civilian force management, the standout achievement 
of the last 4 years is authorization by Congress of the National 
Security Personnel System, and the subsequent design and development of 
the specific policies that will improve the agility of the Defense 
Department's civil workforce and emphasize achievement of the 
Department's national security mission over seniority in setting 
compensation.
    The quality of the Military Health System remains superb, and we 
should all note with pride the system's astounding achievements in 
battlefield care and rapid evacuation of casualties. The cost of the 
system--particularly the rapid increase in costs of care for our 
retired constituents--remains of concern.
    I also look back with pride at achievements in two areas that, in 
2001, were not anticipated as problems. First, sexual assaults at the 
U.S. Air Force Academy highlighted this serious problem in the Air 
Force. The Air Force's aggressive attack on this crisis laid much of 
the foundation for the policy architecture the DOD deployed to deal 
with this tragedy. Second, the war on terror has placed demands on the 
Reserve components unprecedented in their depth and duration. I am 
proud to have facilitated and enabled the Air National Guard and the 
Air Force Reserve in meeting those demands to the greatest extent 
possible with volunteers, and through the practices they developed, to 
have defined much of what it means to be an ``operational reserve.''
    Question. What do you anticipate would be the most significant 
challenges you will face if confirmed as the Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and how would do anticipate 
addressing these challenges?
    Answer. Recruiting and retaining quality men and women to serve in 
the military and as civilians in the Department is a significant 
challenge. Building and sustaining a correctly shaped and skilled force 
to meet the validated demands of the combatant commanders will remain a 
challenge and we will need additional authorities from Congress to 
ensure success. We must not only attract the people who are able to 
carry out the duties required of a 21st century Department of Defense, 
we must retain them by providing appropriate compensation and benefits, 
predictable deployment schedules, care for their families while they 
are away, and work environments free of harassment and prejudice. In 
light of ever-changing threats and operational demands, we must see to 
it that the Total Force, made up of well-balanced Active and Reserve 
components, is trained and ready to defeat our adversaries. When these 
men and women have completed their service, we must help them or their 
survivors transition to different lives, letting them know that their 
contributions made a difference and are appreciated. To meet these 
challenges, I will review current policies and initiatives from the 
broad OSD perspective and recommend adjustments in order to accomplish 
the goal of building and maintaining a military and civilian force that 
can carry out the duties required of a 21st century Department of 
Defense.
                        active-duty end strength
    Question. For fiscal year 2006, the Department of Defense requested 
an authorized Active-Duty end strength for the Army of 482,400. In 
order to meet the manpower demands for current operations, however, the 
Army's actual Active-Duty end strength on a daily basis has averaged 
over 495,000, and strong arguments have been advanced that the Army 
must have substantially more Active-Duty personnel to support 
transformation and operational demands.
    What is your view of the required Active-Duty Army end strength 
needed to perform its various missions?
    Answer. Since 2001, the Army has grown by almost 12,000 soldiers in 
order to support the current national emergency. However, this does not 
imply a need to permanently raise the Active end strength of the Army. 
The Army is taking measures to create a more capable force within its 
current resources. The measures include:

         Reallocating personnel from low demand skills to those 
        experiencing greater stress.
         Rebalancing skills between and within the Active and 
        Reserve components (70,000 through fiscal year 2005; 55,000 
        more through fiscal year 2010).
         Converting historically military positions to civilian 
        performance.

    The net result of these actions should allow the Army to add 
additional Brigade Combat Teams to the Force which will increase the 
combat capability of the Army and reduce operational stress.
    Question. The Air Force is under budgetary pressure to reduce its 
Active-Duty end strength, as well as its Reserve components and 
civilian workforce by as much as 40,000 individuals.
    What is your understanding of the steps that will be taken in 2007 
and beyond with respect to the military and civilian employee manning 
of the Air Force and what impact do you foresee on Air Force readiness?
    Answer. I firmly believe that the decisive and timely actions Air 
Force is taking to shape a stream-lined and more cost effective team of 
uniformed, civilian and contractor personnel will prevent a future 
readiness problem. Moreover, the Air Force will achieve its personnel 
reductions in three broad areas: organizational efficiencies, process 
efficiencies, and manpower reductions tied to legacy force structure 
changes. This, in turn, will free up the resources necessary to address 
compelling recapitalization needs. This manpower realignment will be 
deliberate and carefully controlled. As we secure our future 
capabilities we will not sacrifice today's readiness.
    Question. If confirmed, what role would you expect to play in 
assisting the Air Force in balancing its manpower needs against other 
requirements?
    Answer. Manpower is not a requirement in itself. Our manpower 
investments must complement those in many areas, such as platforms, 
weapons, maintenance and training, to deliver capabilities (such as 
combat air dominance or logistics airlift). These capabilities are the 
real requirements. For manpower we believe it is important to help the 
Air Force, and all the Services, define their workload requirements 
such that capabilities can be operationalized in a cost-effective 
manner. Otherwise we would fail to have adequate funds to pay for other 
required capability enablers. In addition to helping the Air Force 
arrive at a fiscally informed Total Force manpower solution, we must 
work with them to ensure they have the tools to build and shape the 
cost-effective force we have defined.
                 reserve and national guard deployments
    Question. Current policy of the Department provides that under 
section 12302 of title 10, U.S.C., members of Reserve components shall 
not be required to involuntarily deploy more than 24 months 
cumulatively in response to the existing national emergency. This 
policy has exempted thousands of members of the Selected Reserve from 
additional involuntary call ups in support of overseas operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan.
    What is your understanding of the number of members of the Selected 
Reserve, by Service, who are unavailable for deployment as a result of 
the 24-month policy?
    Answer. As of November 30, 2005, the current Selected Reserve 
population was 826,171. Of that population, 381,180 (or 46.1 percent) 
have been or are currently mobilized. Based on the best available data 
there are 37,007 servicemembers who have served more than 21 months, 
with the overwhelming majority of these personnel being volunteers.
    Question. What is your assessment of the Army's ability to support 
scheduled troop rotation planning beyond 2006, particularly in combat 
support and combat service support missions, given the 24-month policy?
    Answer. The Army in coordination with the Joint Staff is currently 
planning for rotations in 2007 and beyond. It is important that we 
recognize that neither the Army nor the United States are in this 
conflict alone. The Army's Sister Services, our coalition partners, or 
our immensely capable contractor partners can provide capabilities to 
offset any shortfalls that might emerge.
    Question. What measures are being taken in the Department to 
respond to operational requirements for low density, high demand units 
and personnel whose skills are found primarily in the Reserve 
components, e.g., civil affairs, special operations, military police, 
truck drivers?
    Answer. The Services are conducting a ``Rebalancing'' program where 
structure that is in low demand or no longer required is converted to 
skills and capabilities that is in high demand. Over time, rebalancing 
will help ease the stress on the force caused by repeated deployments 
in these skill or capability areas. In the near-term, while the 
Services are conducting rebalancing, the Department is also using Joint 
solutions to meet Combatant Commander Requirements.
                     operations and personnel tempo
    Question. In your view, what would be the effect on recruiting, 
retention, and readiness of the Army and Marine Corps of continuation 
of the current rates of operations tempo and personnel tempo through 
2010?
    Answer. High tempo is stressful, and protracted high tempo 
compounds the stress. Recruiting and retaining the right numbers of 
people in the right skills has always been a challenge and continues to 
be our challenge today. Yet the Department has well demonstrated, with 
strong support of Congress, that we can sustain recruiting and 
retention despite those challenges.
    Question. In your judgment, what would be the impact on the current 
rates of operations and personnel tempo of assigning principal 
responsibility for crisis and consequence management for natural, 
domestic disasters to either our Active or Reserve component forces?
    Answer. Historically, we have always responded to natural, domestic 
disasters as a Total Force, employing state or Federal authority, as 
appropriate. This allows the President and the Secretary of Defense the 
greatest possible flexibility in meeting both forward defense and 
defense at home needs. Because future demand in these two conflict 
domains is uncertain, specialization is apt to be exactly wrong--
increasing stress in some areas and creating surplus capacity in 
others. In my opinion, the Nation is best served with robust general 
purpose forces in both Active and Reserve components.
                 individual ready reserve recall policy
    Question. The Department of Defense established a policy in July 
2005 mandating the discharge of officers in the Individual Ready 
Reserve (IRR) who are beyond their military service obligation (MSO) 
unless the officer specifically requests retention in the IRR. These 
policies have not been applied to enlisted personnel.
    Such a policy cannot be applied to enlisted personnel since they 
are governed by their enlistment contracts, whereas officers serve 
indefinitely, even after completion of their MSO. This policy 
emphasizes communication as a critical aspect in managing the officer 
corps. It focuses on ensuring that our IRR is a viable military asset 
comprised of officers who desire to remain available to the military 
after completing their obligation.
    What are your views about policies affecting continued service by 
officer and enlisted personnel in the Reserve component who have 
fulfilled their MSO?
    Answer. The Department views all service, including that served 
beyond MSO, for both officers and enlisted members, to be voluntary, 
and our policies support that view. Simultaneously, we recognize the 
value of retaining trained and motivated members in the service and we 
therefore continue to offer opportunities to retain our members.
    Question. In your view, should members of the Reserve who are 
deployed when they reach the end of their MSO be treated differently?
    Answer. Department policy treats deployed and nondeployed members 
the same regarding expiration of their MSO unless a stop-loss policy 
has been implemented. Currently, only the Army has a stop-loss policy 
in effect. For Army Reserve component members, this means that they 
will be retained on Active-Duty for the duration of their mobilization 
tour plus 90-days to ensure proper post-deployment transitioning. Use 
of stop-loss policy is sometimes necessary for force stabilization and 
continuity purposes to ensure the safety and security of units and 
members.
     mobilization and demobilization of national guard and reserves
    Question. In the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, 
the National Guard and Reserves have experienced their largest and most 
sustained employment since World War II. Numerous problems have been 
identified in the planning and procedures for mobilization and 
demobilization, e.g., inadequate health screening and medical readiness 
monitoring, antiquated pay systems, limited transitional assistance 
programs upon demobilization, lack of access to members of the 
Individual Ready Reserve.
    What is your assessment of advances made in improving mobilization 
and demobilization procedures, and in what areas do problems still 
exist?
    Answer. There have been advances in the mobilization and 
demobilization procedures. Notification lead time for mobilization has 
a goal of 30 days or greater for individuals and units ensuring 
individuals have sufficient time to prepare prior to their 
mobilization. Mobilization lengths are being more closely examined to 
ensure prudent and judicious use of Reserve component units and 
individuals. Post mobilization training is more efficient, shortening 
post mobilization training time without endangering the individuals due 
to insufficient or incomplete training. Demobilization advances include 
providing medical screening as soon as possible, sometimes even 
conducting screening in the theater of operations prior to 
redeployment. An issue we will be watching as part of the 
demobilization process is the re-equipping of the Reserve component, 
particularly the Army Reserve and Army National Guard.
    Question. What do you consider to be the most significant enduring 
changes to the Reserve components aimed at ensuring their readiness for 
future mobilization requirements?
    Answer. Among the most significant and enduring changes for our 
Reserves in the Total Force is the shift in the paradigm of their use--
from the traditional strategic Reserve to today's operational Reserve. 
As such, our Reserves are an integral part of all service operations 
across the whole spectrum of conflict. To ensure the maximum readiness 
of the Reserves, the Department in conjunction with the Services, is 
actively working a number of initiatives. We are actively reshaping 
both our Active and Reserve Forces through Rebalancing. We are 
establishing predictable timetables for Reserve component use. With the 
``train, mobilize, and deploy'' approach to Reserve component 
employment we are working to capitalize our efforts on scarce 
resources, reduce cross-leveling of units, and limit unit disruptions. 
Lastly, the improvements legislated in recent years to improve the 
timely access to TRICARE for Reserves, both the members and their 
families, have allowed the Reserves to be ready to be employed with 
less disruptions.
              medical and dental readiness of the reserves
    Question. Medical and dental readiness of Reserve component 
personnel has been an issue of significant concern to the committee, 
and shortfalls that have been identified have indicated a need for 
improved policy oversight and accountability. For example, significant 
problems occurred when mobilizing and demobilizing soldiers were placed 
on medical hold for extended periods of time due to lack of 
coordination and insufficient medical resources. More recently, the 
threatened cancellation by the Department of Health and Human Services 
of a contract for health care services for reservists revealed a lack 
of communication between the Army Reserve, Office of Health Affairs, 
and Reserve Affairs.
    If confirmed, how would you seek to clarify and coordinate 
reporting on the medical and dental readiness of the Reserves?
    Answer. Tracking the medical readiness of the force is an important 
issue. Health Affairs has established a standardized management 
framework for quality assurance and a compliance monitoring program to 
measure Individual Medical Readiness (IMR). On January 3, 2006, DODI 
6025.19 was published. It implements responsibilities, and prescribes 
procedures to improve medical readiness through monitoring and 
reporting on IMR.
    Question. How would you improve upon the Department's ability to 
produce a healthy and fit Reserve component?
    Answer. A fit and healthy Reserve Force is a shared responsibility 
between the Department and each individual member of the Reserve 
components. Ensuring a fit and healthy force is of prime importance to 
the Department and several key initiatives are currently underway to 
support that goal. Making the reservist a partner in managing and 
reporting on their physical, medical and dental readiness through 
periodic health assessments and annual dental screenings is already 
having a positive effect on individual medical readiness. This approach 
is not only revolutionary but is proving to be successful.
                implementation of tricare for reservists
    Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2006 authorized new categories of eligibility for TRICARE for members 
of the Selected Reserve, which are required to be implemented by 
October 1, 2006.
    What is your assessment of the Department's ability to timely 
implement the new benefits and the challenges it will have to overcome?
    Answer. In order to implement the expanded TRICARE Reserve Select 
program on October 1, 2006, we will need to determine the program 
design and documentation requirements for reservists who are eligible 
unemployment recipients or not eligible for an employer-sponsored 
health plan, establish procedures for an open enrollment season, 
publish regulatory changes, modify the Defense Enrollment Eligibility 
Reporting System to include new categories of eligible beneficiaries, 
modify our TRICARE contracts, and work with the Reserve components to 
educate Selected reservists on their new health care opportunities. 
This is clearly a daunting set of tasks, but I am confident that it can 
be accomplished. Last year, through the untiring efforts of many 
dedicated OSD and Military Department staff members, we implemented the 
initial TRICARE Reserve Select program in a 6-month timeframe.
    Question. If confirmed, what role would you play in coordinating 
the efforts of the Assistant Secretaries of Health Affairs and Reserve 
Affairs in the implementing these new benefits?
    Answer. As noted, several steps are required to meet the deadline 
of October 1, 2006 for implementation, and these steps involve several 
elements within the Personnel & Readiness organization--including 
Reserve Affairs, Health Affairs, and the Defense Manpower Data Center. 
My role would involve tracking progress on the needed tasks, 
coordinating our efforts with those of the Military Departments, and 
quickly resolving issues.
                        training transformation
    Question. The Department has implemented its Training 
Transformation plan and made progress in articulating milestones for 
establishment of a joint national training capability. Despite the 
importance of achieving realistic joint training, however, achievement 
of key goals aimed at supporting joint training, such as establishment 
of a fully trained Standing Joint Force Headquarters, will not be 
achieved until October 2009.
    If confirmed, what role would you expect to play in overseeing the 
DOD Training Transformation Implementation Plan?
    Answer. Realistic joint training within the DOD is not solely 
dependent upon Training Transformation (T2). The Department conducts 
many realistic joint training events. Training Transformation has a key 
role in accelerating progress toward more effective and efficient joint 
operations. I, along with my Service and OSD counterparts, have been 
actively engaged in shaping the strategy and implementing direction 
since the inception of the T2 Program.
    Since we began this program in 2001, the spirit of cooperation and 
collaboration among the Services, Joint Forces Command, Special 
Operations Command, the other combatant commands, and the Joint Staff 
only deepens and broadens. The T2 business process can be described as 
open, collaborative, incentivized and transparent.
    Question. What do you consider to be the greatest challenges to be 
overcome in establishing realistic and required joint training 
opportunities?
    Answer. DOD must persist and expand in its transformation of joint 
training and education of the Total Force (Active military, Reserve 
components, career civilian, and contractor). The goal is to better 
enable joint force operations. We will also build partner capacity and 
enable the continuous, capabilities-based transformation of the 
Department.
    The emergence of new joint mission areas and the inevitability that 
more irregular warfare challenges will surface in the future 
necessitate innovative, effective, and efficient training and education 
concepts to address them without increasing the stress on the force. 
These imperatives require a new approach in providing training and 
education initiatives to equip civil and military warfighters to 
overmatch any future opponent. The Department should continue to pursue 
increased joint training efficiency and capability through live, 
virtual, and constructive technology tradeoffs and explore alternative 
business practices to ensure efficient alignment and consolidation of 
joint training programs and resources with joint training priorities 
based on mission needs.
    Question. How do you evaluate the performance of the services to 
date in supporting joint training initiatives?
    Answer. We have, with your support of the T2 Program and the 
President's budget, made significant progress in the creation of T2's 
three supporting joint capabilities: Joint Knowledge Development and 
Distribution Capability (joint training and education for individuals); 
Joint National Training Capability (joint unit and collective 
training), and Joint Assessment and Enabling Capability (assessments to 
answer the question are we truly transforming training).
    The Joint Knowledge Development and Distribution Capability (JKDDC) 
has fielded its JKDDC.Net website to provide a centralized location for 
accessing Service and DOD Agency learning management systems, populated 
with 19 joint courses for wide area distribution on prioritized 
combatant command needs and with their sponsorship. Another success for 
JKDDC is their hosting of the Combating Trafficking in Persons course 
which was developed collaboratively with the Department of State and 
our Academic Advanced Distributed Learning Co-laboratory at the 
University of Wisconsin. Over this year the office of primary 
responsibility for JKDDC will transition from the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff to Commander, Joint Forces Command.
    Joint National Training Capability (JNTC) works to provide 
realistic distributed joint context to Services' sites and events and 
to the combatant commands as well. JNTC has already moved from discrete 
events to one that is venue centric with significantly decreased 
planning time for the distribution of joint training by moving 
electrons and not people.
    Participation by the Services in Joint National Training Capability 
(JNTC) events has not interfered with their title 10 responsibilities 
to train their forces for the combatant commands. JFCOM achieved JNTC 
Initial Operational Capability in 2004 and we are on track to meet Full 
Operational Capability in 2009 although we will never really have an 
end point to transformation. The asymmetric threats in the 21st century 
will require new, realistic, innovative, and adaptive joint training 
constructs and capabilities to be able to provide robust joint training 
prior to deployment in support of the global war on terrorism 
operations, so that those who serve never experience a joint task in 
combat for the first time.
    The Department is also migrating from the construct under which 
staff and other collective training was planned and completed in an 18-
24 month pre-deployment cycle. JNTC has allowed us to insert 
appropriate joint training into these Service events and mission 
rehearsal exercises. Through your support the JNTC program has started 
to create, for the Department, a Live, Virtual, Constructive (LVC) 
environment that will support efficient participation of joint forces 
in appropriate training across the country and around the world. When 
not utilized for joint training, this LVC environment is being used by 
the Services to improve their own training capability.
    We will, with your help, over the next year expand the persistence 
of JNTC to be more globally postured. The need to build this capacity 
to train with our multinational partners is imperative. When we look at 
the breadth and depth of current and recent operations we have seen the 
need for a persistent global joint training environment so that the 
Department can habitually interact with allies and partners in the 
joint, multinational, intergovernmental, training environment to avoid 
playing a game of pick up football. JNTC will become a Joint Global 
Training Capability (JGTC) in the future.
    Regarding our Joint Assessment and Enabling Capability they created 
this past year a T2 performance assessment architecture and used it as 
a start point for the conduct of a block assessment and balanced 
scorecard assessment. Our first block assessment, due shortly, will 
serve as a baseline set of metrics to measure T2. Are we enabling the 
joint force and are we indeed transforming training? Upon completion of 
these assessments and outcome measurements of T2 missions and programs 
we will adapt and revise our strategic guidance and programmatics.
                     sustainable ranges initiative
    Question. The adverse effects of encroachment pressures, including 
private development, restrictions imposed by environmental regulation, 
and growing competition for airspace and frequency spectrum, on the 
ability to conduct realistic training are well recognized.
    The Department has implemented its Sustainable Ranges Initiative as 
a comprehensive strategic plan at local, State, and national levels 
aimed at preventing further deterioration of the utility of military 
training ranges.
    What do you consider to be the most serious dangers at present to 
essential military training as a result of encroachment?
    Answer. Encroachment is a many-faceted challenge, and requires the 
Department pay comprehensive attention to a number of issues. At the 
root of many of these issues lies incompatible development and urban 
growth adjacent to our training ranges or under key airspace or low-
level training routes, whether within the U.S. or worldwide. DOD is 
working to improve its cognizance of land use activities outside our 
fence line and to partner with States and communities to promote more 
compatible uses around our installations and ranges. Congress has 
provided us with valuable tools in this endeavor, such as the authority 
and funding to partner with conservation organizations and states to 
secure buffer lands around ranges. Success on land use will also help 
address many other encroachment concerns, such as noise complaints, 
further loss of endangered species habitat off DOD lands, and some 
types of frequency interference, to name a few.
    Question. What additional steps are needed, in your judgment, to 
address problems caused by encroachment of all types to enhance the 
effectiveness of the Sustainable Ranges Initiative?
    Answer. The key to counteracting encroachment is understanding and 
managing all the diverse issues and their interdependencies. I believe 
the Department has a comprehensive approach to range sustainment in 
place that will enable us to stay ahead of encroachment. But we must 
remain vigilant, and continue to recognize the importance of test and 
training resources to live training, readiness, and national defense. 
As resource competition increases and undeveloped lands shrink, we must 
place a high priority on protecting the land, air, sea, and spectrum 
resources necessary to prepare our forces for combat. Congress clearly 
recognizes this need; we ask for your continued support in our efforts 
to craft encroachment solutions that protect readiness while also 
safeguarding our environment and the health and welfare of our 
neighbors.
                  defense readiness reporting systems
    Question. The Department is developing guidelines and procedures 
for a comprehensive readiness reporting system that evaluates readiness 
on the basis of the actual missions and capabilities assigned to the 
forces. DOD Directive 7730.65, ``Defense Readiness Reporting System'' 
(DRRS), directed the implementation of a capabilities-based, adaptive, 
near real-time readiness reporting system. This system is required to 
measure and report the readiness of military forces and supporting 
infrastructure to meet missions and goals assigned by the Secretary of 
Defense.
    What is the status of the DRRS, and what advantages over existing 
systems does it possess?
    Answer. DRRS is a single, comprehensive readiness reporting system 
for the Department of Defense. DRRS achieved initial operating 
capability in October 2004, and is on schedule to be fully operational 
by the end of fiscal year 2007. DRRS is data driven, and uses web-based 
software on DOD's classified internet to provide near real time 
readiness information. DRRS is mission and capability focused, and 
provides global visibility of DOD forces. DRRS provides more accurate, 
thorough, and comprehensive readiness information of DOD force 
capabilities to aid in war planning, force management, and risk 
assessment.
    Question. Given the importance to the success of DRRS of 
Department-wide collaboration and cooperation, what is your assessment 
of the support provided by the stakeholders?
    Answer. We have broad DOD support for DRRS. DRRS was fully 
supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff at a recent DRRS update 
briefing. Furthermore, the Secretary of Defense is briefed every other 
month on the status of DRRS implementation. The combatant commanders 
are some of the strongest DRRS supporters, with PACOM, STRATCOM, and 
NORTHCOM leading the way in realizing the DRRS vision.
    Question. Under section 117(e) of title 10, U.S.C., a report on the 
results of the most recent joint readiness review, including current 
information derived from the readiness reporting system, must be 
submitted on a quarterly basis to the congressional defense committees.
    What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that the 
readiness information available through DRRS and its web-based 
reporting system is made available to the congressional defense 
committees in a timely manner?
    Answer. We are currently developing a DRRS module that will greatly 
reduce the time required to prepare the Quarterly Readiness Report to 
Congress. We have also used DRRS functionality to assist in answering 
readiness questions of the congressional defense committees.
        defense prisoner of war/missing personnel office (dpmo)
    Question. In 2005, the leadership of DPMO came under criticism from 
survivor family groups who alleged that insufficient attention and 
resources were being committed to recovery of U.S. personnel missing 
from conflicts from World War II to the present.
    In view of the mission of the DPMO, do you think that this 
organization, as well as the U.S. Army Central Identification 
Laboratory in Hawaii (CILHI) would more appropriately be placed under 
the proponency of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness?
    Answer. I believe the DPMO program is appropriately aligned within 
the purview of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International 
Security Affairs under the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 
(USD(P)). Moreover, the USD(P) can best meet the predictable and often 
complex challenges associated with the necessity to coordinate with 
foreign governments for the recovery of remains. Additionally, the 
USD(P) works, on a daily basis, with the Joint Staff and the combatant 
commands, to include the Pacific Command, on the worldwide use of 
military assets. This is important because the utilization of these 
assets is often central to the planning and conduct of DPMO related 
operations.
    Note: The U.S. Army Central Identification Laboratory no longer 
exists under that title. In 1993, the Laboratory was merged with 
Pacific Command's Joint Task Force-Full Accounting. It is now the Joint 
POW/MIA Accounting Command and remains a Pacific Command asset with a 
worldwide mission.
    Question. Do you believe that the Personnel and Readiness 
organization should have a larger role in the oversight of the DPMO?
    Answer. I believe P&R has an effective relationship with USD(P) and 
that there is no requirement for a direct P&R oversight role. Indeed, 
because of the considerations discussed in the previous answer, 
attempting to inject such oversight in matters dealing with 
international coordination issues could actually have a negative 
impact. Having said the above, I am keenly aware of P&R 
responsibilities to the families of all servicemembers--especially 
those whose loved ones are missing or deceased. If I am confirmed, I 
will ensure P&R coordination with DPMO is all that it should be. 
Moreover, once an individual's remains have been identified through 
work completed by DPMO, P&R should continue to work with the Military 
Services to honor the family's desires as to disposition of remains and 
any military funeral honors.
                     employment of military spouses
    Question. In your view, what progress has been made, and what 
actions need to be taken to provide increased employment opportunities 
for military spouses?
    Answer. DOD has been committed to helping military spouses start 
rewarding careers and to remove barriers to career advancement. We have 
made significant progress in the last 2 years.
    We have begun to raise awareness among employers about the value of 
hiring military spouses and we have increased our efforts at the state 
level where licensing and certification requirements differ state to 
state.
    In the 9 months since www.military.com/spouse site was launched, 
over 800,000 spouses have visited the site; over 500,000 have signed up 
for the newsletter, over 400,000 have visited the chat rooms and over 
1.5 million job searches have been conducted. In recent months, DOD has 
also co-sponsored specialty career fairs that focus employers on 
severely injured servicemembers and military spouses.
    We commissioned research studies to determine which careers were 
most popular and which States provided the most opportunity for 
removing these barriers. We were able to determine that teaching, real 
estate, nursing, and medical assistant positions were popular spouse 
careers that have State-specific licensing requirements. Since then, we 
have worked to use the American Board for Certification of Teacher 
Excellence (ABCTE), a national passport credentialing organization 
supported by No Child Left Behind, as a beneficial alternative 
transportable teaching credential for military spouses. Five States 
have adopted ABCTE's credential and more States with many military 
families are considering it. We are identifying other career 
opportunities where employer affiliations will aid spouses in staying 
on track, such as in real estate; and industries that offer portable 
credentials, such as computer networking.
                             family support
    Question. In your view, do the Services have adequate programs in 
place to ensure support for Active and Reserve component families, 
particularly those who live great distances from military 
installations?
    Answer. Yes, two-thirds of military families do not live on DOD 
installations. Reserve and Guard families are often long distances from 
support systems. Therefore, DOD leveraged technology to reach all 
military families by providing easy access to accurate and timely 
information wherever they may live around the world. Every Service and 
the Reserve components are now plugged into Military OneSource. This is 
an innovative way of providing information and assistance to troops and 
families 24 hours a day, 365 days a year by a toll-free number or 
online, from any place, tailoring services specifically to individuals 
and families. This service also provides counseling and emotional 
support when needed by Master's degree level staff.
    Each of the military services, including their Reserve components, 
also has important, unit-based family support programs. These programs 
provide a human face to families in need, and reinforce the unit 
commander's role in supporting and caring for the families of those who 
are serving.
    Question. If confirmed, what additional steps would you take to 
enhance family support?
    Answer. The Department has done an excellent job designing flexible 
family support programs that meet the needs of our servicemembers and 
their families who live on military installations, near military 
installations, and those who live at a distance. Spreading the word 
about these innovative support programs to the members of the Total 
Force and their families is high on my priority list. Next steps are to 
make sure everyone knows about the services, uses them to their 
advantage, and recognizes it is a wise choice to seek help to cope with 
military life's challenges.
                  general and flag officer nominations
    Question. Under DOD Instruction 1320.4, adverse and alleged adverse 
information pertaining to general and flag officers must be evaluated 
by senior leaders in the Services and in the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense prior to nomination.
    If confirmed, what role would you play in the officer promotion 
system, particularly in reviewing general and flag officer nominations?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would perform those duties and 
responsibilities assigned by the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness. Those duties may include management of 
compliance with governing statutes and policy, as well as sustainment 
of consistency in the Department's approaches to major policies.
    Question. What is your assessment of the ability of the Services to 
timely document credible information of an adverse nature for 
evaluation by promotion selection boards and military and civilian 
leaders?
    Answer. The Military Services are diligent in ensuring that timely 
documentation is available for evaluation by promotion selection 
boards, and that it is available to military and civilian leadership 
who oversee that process. If confirmed, I will promulgate policy 
guidance to ensure that the newly-enacted provisions of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 are accomplished. That 
statute directs that all substantiated adverse information be made 
available to general and flag officer promotion boards convening after 
October 1, 2006.
                   national security personnel system
    Question. The Committees on Armed Services and Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs have closely monitored the implementation of 
the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) throughout its first year 
of development and implementation.
    If confirmed, what would your role be in the management, 
implementation, and oversight of policies relating to NSPS?
    Answer. If confirmed, I anticipate that I will continue as the Co-
Chair of the NSPS Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT) along with 
George Nesterczuk, our Office of Personnel Management partner. The OIPT 
is Secretary England's mechanism for providing advice and counsel to 
the NSPS Program Executive Officer and for quickly resolving design, 
development and deployment issues that do not require his personal 
involvement. Secretary England, Dr. Chu, and I are committed to making 
sure we do this right for the benefit of our people and our national 
security mission.
    Question. How do you evaluate the concerns of employee groups with 
respect to changes in collective bargaining, content and collaboration 
over Department of Defense issuances, the independence of the National 
Security Labor Relations Board, and procedures associated with 
performance appraisals?
    Answer. The unions have raised a variety of concerns, and the 
Department has done its best to respond to these concerns. Even so, the 
employee representatives may disagree with how these concerns were 
addressed.
    The continuing collaboration process offers many opportunities for 
employee representatives to participate. It is a very robust process 
that provides employee representatives an opportunity for greater 
involvement in workforce issues, including areas previously excluded by 
law or other agency rules.
    The National Security Labor Relations Board is designed to be 
independent. Members are appointed by the Secretary to fixed terms of 3 
years. Members will be independent, distinguished citizens known for 
their integrity, impartiality and expertise in labor relations and/or 
the DOD mission, and/or related national security matters. Finally, 
members may be removed only for inefficiency, neglect of duty or 
malfeasance in office, which is a standard similar for removing members 
of the Federal Labor Relations Authority and the Merit Systems 
Protection Board.
    Based on feedback from a number of stakeholders, including employee 
representatives, the NSPS Program Executive Office is currently 
undergoing a redesign effort to simplify the performance management 
system.
    Question. What steps, if any, do you believe the Department should 
take to address these concerns?
    Answer. The Department has already taken extraordinary steps to 
address these concerns. For example, we revised the final regulations 
to permit collective bargaining on certain operational matters if the 
Secretary determines that bargaining would advance the Department's 
mission accomplishment or promote organizational effectiveness. The 
proposed regulations did not permit such bargaining. This change was in 
response to concerns raised by several Members of Congress, as well as 
the unions.
    In response to suggestions raised by employee representatives 
during the meet and confer process, we revised the final regulations to 
make clear that each national labor organization with bargaining units 
affected by an implementing issuance will be provided an opportunity to 
participate in the continuing collaboration process. We also modified 
the regulations to make clear that the Department will consider the 
views and recommendations of employee representatives before taking 
final action. The Department will provide employee representatives a 
written statement of the reasons for taking final action regarding an 
implementing issuance.
    In response to concerns by several Members of Congress and employee 
representatives, we revised the final regulations to require the 
Secretary to consider labor organization nominations for two of the 
Board members. This is fair and assures labor organizations a voice in 
the National Security Labor Relations Board selection process.
    In response to concerns regarding the performance management 
system, the implementing issuances will address the specific processes 
and practices that will be used within the Department. The Department 
will ensure that the NSPS performance management system complies with 
the law. It will establish effective safeguards to ensure that the 
management of the system is fair and equitable. Continuing 
collaboration will provide employee representatives the opportunity to 
provide input as needed.
    Question. What metrics do you believe are necessary to assess the 
impact of NSPS on mission readiness of the Department of Defense?
    Answer. The Department's readiness is high. Our employees are 
effective, dedicated contributors today. NSPS will not change that. It 
will improve human resource management practices to heighten commander 
and supervisor attention to their civilian employees' performance, 
increase employees' and supervisors' confidence in their own and each 
other's accountability for mission accomplishment, and be more 
competitive in hiring the people we need in mission-critical 
occupations and labor markets where we have lagged.
    I believe we must monitor employees' satisfaction with working for 
the Department, their jobs, and leadership. We must monitor how 
important employees think their work is and how well prepared they and 
their organizations are to accomplish the mission.
    Measuring employee and supervisor opinions of how effectively we 
deal with poor performers and disruptive employees is as important as 
accounting for associated management actions. We should measure 
relative changes in where supervisors, managers, and commanders invest 
their human resource management time. For example, are they 
increasingly engaged with employees on performance and mission 
objectives, while spending less effort on administrative demands like 
job descriptions, personnel action requests, and answering discovery 
requests in adverse action appeals?
    NSPS effects may be assessed through a combination of job-offer 
acceptance rates, the speed with which we fill vacancies, and 
supervisor satisfaction with candidate quality. NSPS should also 
increase the Department's agility in realigning the workforce to meet 
changing mission demands emanating from a more dynamic security 
environment; we'll need to develop measures to see that we have done 
that. I expect to look at how much use we make of new or more flexible 
employment authorities for emergency hiring to meet urgent mission 
demands, and for term or temporary appointments that help the 
Department get through transformational periods such as BRAC.
    It will take time to see the effects of NSPS--not all authorities 
will be used heavily or early, and there will be a learning curve. 
Additionally, many factors contribute to mission readiness. We 
therefore must use a judicious mix of metrics to assess NSPS impact and 
be wary of pronouncing on the meaning of the metrics too early.
       management of senior executive service civilian personnel
    Question. Although the Office of Personnel Management has recently 
approved the Department's performance management and pay system for 
senior executives, it did so only after finding that the Department's 
initial performance plan was not satisfactory.
    What is your understanding of the status of the DOD transition to 
performance-based management of Senior Executive Service (SES) 
personnel?
    Answer. OPM approved the Department's Executive and Senior 
Professional Performance System on April 1, 2005, and it was 
implemented on June 30, 2005. Since that time, the Department has been 
on a pay for performance system for its Executives and Senior 
Professionals. The new Executive and Senior Professional Pay and 
Performance System made fundamental changes in the way the Department 
establishes performance requirements, assesses performance, and 
compensates and rewards senior executives. In our just completed fiscal 
year 2005 rating cycle, we were able to accurately reflect, assess, and 
recognize individual and organizational performance using the fiscal 
year 2005 performance standards, and we were able to make clear 
distinctions in performance. The Department did very well overall in 
OPM's 2005 assessment, achieving a score of 100 percent in 4 of the 6 
rating areas. It was only in one area in which the Department needed 
improvement.
    Because our Executives and Senior Professionals will have been on a 
pay for performance system a couple years in advance of the 
implementation of NSPS, they understand the magnitude of the changes as 
well as the level of commitment and leadership essential to drive a pay 
for performance culture. The lessons learned will be invaluable as we 
move the rest of the Department into a new pay for performance system. 
Continued training is essential and the Department will be redoubling 
its efforts to train the Executive and Senior Professionals on the new 
pay and performance system. We are confident that our executives will 
be able to lead the way for the Department's transition to a pay for 
performance culture.
    Question. Do you believe that delays in achieving an acceptable 
plan will have an impact on approval of the performance pay for the 
SES?
    Answer. OPM already approved the Department's Executive and Senior 
Professional Performance System on April 1, 2005, and DOD implemented 
it on June 30, 2005. Since that time, the Department has been on a pay 
for performance system for its Executives and Senior Professionals. The 
new Executive and Senior Professional Pay and Performance System made 
fundamental changes in the way the Department establishes performance 
requirements, assess performance, and compensate and reward senior 
executives. The Department already made its first pay outs under the 
pay for performance program.
    Question. If confirmed, how would you propose to ensure that 
performance pay is made in a timely manner, not only for senior 
executives but for all civilian employees within the NSPS?
    Answer. Training is key to the success of moving toward a pay for 
performance culture. Making our managers comfortable with the new 
methodology for calculating payouts will ensure that they are completed 
in a timely manner. Our training plan should be comprehensive and 
incorporate a robust learning strategy that will prepare our managers 
to transition to the new pay for performance system. The NSPS 
implementation plan calls for training of every employee and mock 
performance assessments and payouts.
       management and development of the senior executive service
    Question. Under the NSPS, the Department has broad latitude over 
the management of its SES personnel.
    What is your vision of the approach the Department should take to 
improve its management of the SES under the authorities provided by the 
NSPS?
    Answer. Today, our senior executives require an extraordinary skill 
set to meet the challenges of the global war on terrorism. These 
challenges have accelerated our efforts to make our Department more 
agile, responsive, and more joint in the way we do our business. I 
envision an SES Corps that is prepared to lead in a joint environment; 
has a diverse perspective based upon varied experiences at different 
levels of DOD and, as necessary, outside the Department; is mobile and 
ready to assume leadership responsibilities where needed; has 
substantive knowledge of national security mission; a shared 
understanding, trust, and sense of mission with military leaders; and 
strong leadership and management skills.
    To this end, the Department is currently examining its SES corps 
and will be making recommendations to move toward a more flexible, 
agile, and joint SES corps. As the Assistant Secretary of the Air 
Force, I am involved in these efforts, and I expect to see significant 
progress within the next few months.
    Question. Some SES members within the Department have voiced 
concerns over the lack of professional development and career 
management efforts for the SES within the Department, in contrast with 
other Federal agencies. The Air Force, however, has initiated a senior 
leader management model to enhance and improve management, development, 
and assignment of SES and general officers.
    What is your assessment of how the Air Force program is working?
    Answer. The Air Force program is, to the best of my knowledge, 
unique within the Federal Government, and an unqualified success. About 
15 years ago, the Air Force's senior career civilian executives 
initiated a comprehensive effort to increase the executive competencies 
of members of the SES serving the Air Force, and a companion effort to 
deliberately develop and prepare high grade civil servants for 
executive leadership. Their efforts are now embedded into Air Force 
culture. Aspirants to the SES know they must learn the business by 
moving to different positions, different Air Force commands, and even 
to different functional specialties. More junior Senior Executives know 
that, should they aspire to more senior levels, they must broaden and 
deepen their leadership competencies in the same way. Military leaders 
now embrace members of the SES as peers. The Secretary of the Air Force 
and the Chief of Staff manage both General Officer and SES assignments. 
Some Air Force senior leader positions are filled interchangeably with 
a General Officer or an SES--depending on the best candidate available 
and the needs of the job. There is now an Air Force SES leading one of 
the Air Force's major repair depots. The Air Force invests in executive 
development and provides both General Officers and members of the SES 
continued professional development opportunities. The concept of 
competency-based management was pioneered by the Air Force SES, spread 
into Air Force General Officer management concepts, thence into Joint 
Officer Management concepts, and now is influencing the Department's 
Human Capital Strategy.
    Please understand that even though I am the Assistant Secretary of 
the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (M&RA), I claim no 
credit for this ``best practice''. Career Air Force executives 
conceived of and implemented this program. It was in full swing when I 
arrived in August 2001. I have supported and encouraged progress, 
shared the model with the Departments of the Navy, Army, and the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense, and championed the extension of that model 
into the development of joint competencies and joint perspectives in 
our senior civilian executives.
    Question. In your view, should a similar program be designed and 
expanded throughout the Department?
    Answer. We should certainly consider expanding this model more 
broadly across the Department of Defense. The Department of the Navy is 
already moving quickly in this direction. As we think about extending 
this model, we must also be mindful that each component of the 
Department is different, faces a different set of challenges, and will 
likely need to tailor application of this executive management 
``model'' to its own circumstances. If confirmed, I would expect to 
shepherd and encourage this process. I will, in particular, champion 
the Department's efforts to do for the SES corps what Goldwater-Nichols 
did for the Department's officer corps--create a powerful imperative 
for knowing, thinking, and acting joint.
    Question. If confirmed, would you support an initiative to require 
SES members to obtain broadening experiences and assignments in the 
military departments, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint 
Staff, combatant commands, and elsewhere? If so, how would you plan to 
achieve this?
    Answer. Yes, if confirmed I would support an initiative that 
prepares individuals for senior leadership positions in a ``joint'' 
environment. We are currently examining a proposed concept of 
operations for a joint-qualified SES corps as a potential model for the 
Department. We are bringing a group of our best talent together to 
review the proposal and make recommendations for a broader, DOD 
application.
                             sexual assault
    Question. On February 25, 2004, the Senate Armed Services Committee 
Subcommittee on Personnel conducted a hearing on policies and programs 
of the Department of Defense for preventing and responding to incidents 
of sexual assault in the Armed Forces at which the service vice chiefs 
endorsed a ``zero tolerance'' standard. Subsequently, in response to 
congressional direction, the Department developed a comprehensive set 
of policies and procedures aimed at improving prevention of and 
response to incidents of sexual assaults, including appropriate 
resources and care for victims of sexual assault.
    Do you consider the new sexual assault policies and procedures, 
particularly those on confidential reporting, to be effective and, what 
problems, if any, are you aware of in the manner in which this new 
reporting procedure has been put into operation?
    Answer. The Department is fully committed to combating sexual 
assault and eliminating this societal problem from the ranks of the 
military. DOD's comprehensive policy provides commanders at all levels 
the direction and tools necessary to deal with this crime, and the 
military Services have been vigorously implementing its provisions.
    I am unaware of any problems instituting confidentiality, and 
initial data have been very positive. This provision enables many 
victims to receive medical care and treatment who previously would not 
have come forward. Significantly, some of these victims changed from a 
restricted report to an unrestricted report within weeks of receiving 
medical care, thereby enabling law enforcement to conduct 
investigations and increase offender accountability.
    We will evaluate and refine, as necessary, our comprehensive policy 
to ensure it best meets the needs of our servicemembers and becomes the 
benchmark for other organizations to follow.
    Question. What is your vision for the future role of the Joint Task 
Force for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, and, if confirmed, 
what actions would you take to ensure senior management level direction 
and oversight of departmental efforts on sexual assault prevention and 
response?
    Answer. The Joint Task Force is transitioning into the Sexual 
Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO), a permanent 
organization within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness. It currently enjoys ready access to senior 
leadership, and, if I am confirmed, it will have equal access to me.
    SAPRO will remain the Department's single point of accountability 
for sexual assault prevention and response policy. This office will 
continue to work closely with the Military Services to evaluate and 
refine sexual assault policies. It will also collaborate with other 
Federal agencies and be a conduit for advocacy groups to interface with 
the Department. SAPRO will spearhead the Department's efforts to 
institute cultural change with the goal of eliminating this societal 
problem from the military.
    If confirmed, I will facilitate SAPRO efforts by ensuring the full 
commitment of Health Affairs, Reserve Affairs and the Service M&RAs in 
implementing and resourcing sexual assault policies throughout the 
Active and Reserve components.
                           service academies
    Question. What do you consider to be the policy and procedural 
elements that must be in place at each of the service academies in 
order to prevent and respond appropriately to sexual assaults and 
sexual harassment and to ensure essential oversight?
    Answer. The Department's sexual assault and sexual harassment 
policies provide the foundation for combating sexual misconduct at the 
service academies as well as the Active and Reserve components.
    The three superintendents have initiated in-depth programs, and we 
are making progress. While more work remains to achieve our goal of 
zero sexual assaults, I believe the service academies' programs are 
setting the standard for collegiate America.
    Augmenting the significant efforts of the superintendents are 
several echelons of oversight to include the Boards of Visitors of each 
institution.
    Question. What is your assessment of corrective measures taken at 
the U.S. Air Force Academy to ensure religious tolerance and respect, 
and of Air Force guidelines regarding religious tolerance that were 
promulgated in August 2005?
    Answer. The Air Force Academy is committed to developing leaders of 
character and to providing cadets with an atmosphere that promotes 
religious tolerance and respect. I personally tasked the Air Force 
Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel, to form a cross-functional team to 
assess the religious climate at the Academy and the Academy's progress 
in integrating principles of respect into its character development 
program. I believe the Academy has implemented an effective program, 
but it is one it and the senior leadership of the Air Force will 
continue to monitor and improve.
    The realization of the need for guidelines concerning free exercise 
of religion and non-establishment of religion emerged from our 
assessment of the Academy. While we had no evidence of religious 
tolerance issues in the larger Air Force, we developed the guidelines 
to ensure the entire Air Force understood its responsibilities in this 
area. In promulgating the interim religious guidelines, the Acting 
Secretary of the Air Force recognized that, in spite of how hard we 
worked developing them, they would not be perfect. He solicited 
comment, therefore, from a wide range of groups, from Members of 
Congress, from commanders, and from airmen. The comments received have 
convinced the current Secretary of the Air Force, the Honorable Michael 
Wynne, of the need to revise the guidelines to make them simpler and 
easier to understand, and to more carefully balance our responsibility 
to promote free exercise of religion, with our responsibility to avoid 
any appearance of government establishment of religion, and with our 
national security mission. Secretary Wynne has, in addition, committed 
to sharing with our sister Services and with senior officials in the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, the lessons learned from the 
national dialog stimulated by the Air Force's interim guidelines. I 
believe the Air Force and the DOD will derive significant benefit from 
this dialog. Our understanding of and sensitivity to these 
responsibilities is and will continue to be much increased. We are, 
therefore, better servants of the Nation and its Constitution.
                         tricare fee increases
    Question. Recent press reports have described an initiative within 
the Department of Defense to significantly increase enrollment fees and 
deductibles for retirees and their families.
    What is your view of the need for and the effectiveness of 
increased beneficiary payments in reducing overall Defense Health 
Program costs to the Department?
    Answer. The Department must continue to modernize and sustain the 
health benefit program to provide a health benefits package that is 
effective, efficient, and well suited to the structure of the force. 
Our Department health care costs have risen from $19 billion to $37 
billion in just 5 years. Good stewardship compels us to consider cost-
sharing and to evaluate the effects of restoring the balance that 
existed when TRICARE was established in 1995.
    Question. What other changes in infrastructure, benefits, or 
benefit management, if any, do you think should be examined in order to 
control the costs of health care?
    Answer. The Department has made concerted efforts over the past 
several years to obtain cost savings wherever possible.

         We have established annual efficiency and productivity 
        targets for our medical treatment facilities and instituted a 
        value based performance system using a prospective payment 
        methodology--which pays these facilities for the actual work 
        they perform.
         In the pharmacy management we seek to achieve 
        considerable savings from our Federal pricing structure.
         We have reduced our supply costs by leveraging modern 
        strategies such as Prime Vendor and ``just in time'' delivery 
        services with our vendors.
         We have streamlined our managed care support contracts 
        to reduce costs and will continue to do so in future contracts.
         We've worked closely with our Department of Veterans 
        Affairs colleagues to share services and reduce duplication of 
        services, wherever possible.
         We are making tremendous strides in our infrastructure 
        to maintain modern facilities and the recent BRAC efforts will 
        help us consolidate services in key areas such as here in 
        Washington and in San Antonio.
                foreign language transformation roadmap
    Question. A Foreign Language Transformation Roadmap announced by 
the Department on March 30, 2005, directed a series of actions aimed at 
transforming the Department's foreign language capabilities, to include 
revision of policy and doctrine, building a capabilities based 
requirements process, and enhancing foreign language capability for 
both military and civilian personnel.
    What is your understanding of the status of the actions identified 
in the Defense Language Transformation roadmap?
    Answer. The roadmap outlined 43 actions to support four overarching 
goals: create foundational language and regional expertise within the 
Department; create surge capacity; establish a cadre of highly 
proficient language professionals; and oversee career management of 
members with language skills. I understand that six major tasks are 
completed and the remaining tasks are on track for completion within 
the specified timelines.
    Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to identify 
foreign language requirements, and to design military and civilian 
personnel policies and programs to fill those gaps?
    Answer. The current roadmap is still quite new. I will maintain a 
sharp focus on the Roadmap to ensure we maintain momentum, evaluate 
results, and capitalize on the progress already achieved.
    Question. What is your assessment of an appropriate timeframe 
within which results can be realized in this critical area?
    Answer. While considerable progress has been made, I believe this 
will be a long-term effort. Language acquisition, particularly at 
advanced levels, takes a long time. This is particularly true in the 
more difficult languages such as Arabic and Chinese. To improve 
language proficiency and regional expertise in our officer corps, we 
need to start early in their careers and grow capability over time. I 
also expect that our language needs will change with world events and 
new ones will need to be addressed. Finally, a real key to success 
rests with a change to our educational system that graduates students, 
both at high school and college level, with language proficiency. The 
National Security Language Initiative, announced by President Bush, 
begins to mobilize the Nation's educational systems toward greater 
emphasis on foreign languages and culture.
                     intelligence community growth
    Question. The Intelligence Community is in the midst of a period of 
rapid growth and reorganization. The number of flag and general officer 
billets that must be filled and senior leader positions in the Defense 
Intelligence Senior Executive Service can be expected to increase. The 
Department has asked to increase the size of the Defense Intelligence 
Senior Executive Service (DISES) by 150 employees by the end of fiscal 
year 2007 and has been given authority to appoint its own Defense 
Intelligence Senior Leaders.
    If confirmed, what role would you play, in coordination with the 
Services and the Combat Support Agencies, in the management of this 
growth?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Under Secretary 
of Defense (Intelligence), who has the responsibility for exercising 
overall supervision and policy oversight of all defense intelligence 
human capital (to include DISES) to ensure that the defense 
intelligence components are manned, trained, equipped, and structured 
to support the missions of the Department and fully satisfy the needs 
of the combatant commands, the military departments, and the Office of 
the Director of National Intelligence as appropriate.
    Question. In your view, should Defense Intelligence Senior 
Executive Service personnel and general and flag officers of the 
Intelligence Community be managed as a single entity more in line with 
the Air Force model?
    Answer. An effective senior leader management system requires 
selection and assignment of the best candidate for each position in an 
organization. Thus, it is essential to consider knowledge, skills, and 
abilities of all senior leaders available to an organization. Moreover, 
it is imperative that we, as leaders, take measures to ensure that a 
deep ``bench'' of superbly qualified candidates is available for each 
potential vacancy. There are, however, many paths to that goal. If 
confirmed, I will work closely with the leaders of the Intelligence 
Community to ensure they have the information, tools, and support 
necessary to effectively manage this cadre of executives.
                      armed forces retirement home
    Question. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, hundreds of 
elderly residents of the Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) in 
Gulfport, Mississippi, were evacuated and now reside at the Armed 
Forces Retirement Home facility in Washington, DC.
    What is your understanding of the official relationship between the 
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
(PDUSD(P&R)) and the Chief Operating Officer of the AFRH?
    Answer. The AFRH is an independent establishment in the executive 
branch. Chapter 10 of title 24, U.S.C., requires the Secretary of 
Defense to appoint the AFRH Chief Operating Officer, who serves at the 
pleasure and is under the authority, direction and control of the 
Secretary of Defense; appoint the Home Directors, Deputy Directors, 
Associate Directors and members of the Local Boards of each Home; 
evaluate the performance of the Chief Operating Officer; prescribe pay 
for the Chief Operating Officer within limits of the Executive 
Schedule; acquire and dispose of AFRH property and facilities; make 
available DOD support necessary for the Retirement Home to carry out 
its functions on a nonreimbursable basis; and transmit a report to 
Congress on an annual basis on financial and other affairs of the Home. 
The Secretary of Defense delegated these responsibilities to the 
USD(P&R) and the PDUSD(P&R) in a memorandum dated March 20, 2003.
    Question. If confirmed what steps would you anticipate taking with 
respect to restoring and improving the AFRH facility in Gulfport, 
ensuring the financial stability of AFRH funding, and responding to 
concerns by residents about the conditions at the AFRH facilities?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure AFRH carries out its 
responsibilities. I will establish regular contact with the AFRH Chief 
Operating Officer to ensure care and services meet or exceed those 
established in law. I will ensure health care accreditation is 
maintained and support continued efforts to build the trust fund and 
seek efficiencies that do not diminish the high quality of care the 
Home's residents expect and deserve. I will require periodic resident 
and staff climate assessments and be responsive to complaints and 
concerns and ensure appropriate corrective actions are taken.
                        military quality of life
    Question. In May 2004 the Department published its first 
Quadrennial Quality of Life Review, which articulated a compact with 
military families on the importance of key quality of life factors, 
such as family support, child care, education, health care and morale, 
welfare and recreation services.
    How do you perceive the relationship between quality of life 
improvements and your own top priorities for military recruitment and 
retention?
    Answer. The Department implemented very successful programs to 
support OEF/OIF troops and families. I believe these programs have 
contributed to DOD's impressive retention rates. We should continue to 
conduct analyses and assessments of these programs, individually and in 
aggregate, to ensure they are meeting the needs of our servicemembers 
and are contributing positively to recruiting, retention, and 
readiness.
    Question. If confirmed, what further enhancements to military 
quality of life would you make a priority, and how do you envision 
working with the Services, combatant commanders, family advocacy 
groups, and Congress to achieve them?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will aggressively pursue the President's 
``Managing for Results'' agenda, developing the clearest possible 
understanding of the needs of our force, how our individual and 
collective programmatic response meets those needs, and how those 
programs contribute, individually and collectively, to recruiting, 
retention, and readiness. Gaps or shortfalls will be filled rapidly 
with the most cost-effective program possible. Results--measured in 
satisfied, healthy families and combat ready servicemembers--will drive 
our efforts.
                commissary and military exchange systems
    Question. Commissary and military exchange systems are critical 
quality of life components for members of the Active and Reserve Forces 
and their families.
    What is your view of the need for modernization of business 
policies and practices in the commissary and exchange systems, and what 
do you view as the most promising avenues for change to achieve 
modernization goals?
    Answer. Commissary System: The Department's strategy remains to 
sustain the value of the commissary benefit without increasing its 
cost. The Defense Commissary Agency's (DeCA) re-engineering efforts are 
aimed at reducing overhead by centralizing support and streamlining 
store operations. Although still in the early stages of re-engineering, 
DeCA has demonstrated successes.
    Exchange System: All three of the exchange systems are continually 
trying to modernize their policies and practices in order to remain 
competitive in a challenging retail market. Force repositioning, BRAC 
and the global war on terror, with its attendant increased costs to 
provide the exchange benefit, will continue to challenge Exchange 
profitability. As the Department has reported to you over the past 2-
plus years, we have embarked on a process to cut operational costs 
within our exchange system by combining backroom functions from all 
three exchanges into a common provider. We currently estimate a $2-plus 
billion reduction over 15 years in total operational costs for our 
three Exchange Services by streamlining process delivery combined with 
elimination of redundancy. By taking an approach focused on backroom 
processes only, the service member's relationship to the Exchange is 
preserved while the total costs he pays to the Exchange are reduced.
    Question. In the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Congress required the Secretary of Defense to 
establish an executive governing body for the commissary and exchange 
systems to ensure the complementary operation of the two systems.
    What is your understanding of the purpose and composition of the 
executive governing body?
    Answer. The Department established the DOD Executive Resale Board 
as the governing body to provide advice to the USD (P&R) regarding the 
complementary operation of resale activities. The Board works to 
resolve issues within the elements of the military resale system. The 
Board is chaired by the PDUSD (P&R), and members include both the 
senior military officers and civilians who oversee and manage the 
commissary and exchanges systems.
    Question. If confirmed, what would your role be with respect to the 
governing body, and what would your expectations be for its role?
    Answer. The Secretary designated the PDUSD(P&R) as the chairman of 
the Executive Resale Board. I envision the Board would continue to meet 
regularly to review operational areas of mutual interest to the 
commissary and exchange systems. Matters reviewed by the board include 
both cooperative efforts and areas of disagreement. The Board should 
not duplicate the roles of the Commissary Operating Board or the 
Exchange Boards or Directors. Thus far, the Board has proved to be an 
effective mechanism to vet operational matters of mutual interest to 
the exchanges and commissary. The Board provides a forum for seeing 
that operating decisions are made in the best interests of the patron 
and of the total resale community.
                     legislative fellowship program
    Question. Each year, the Services assign mid-career officers to the 
offices of Members of Congress under the Legislative Fellows Program. 
Upon completion of their legislative fellowships, officers are supposed 
to be assigned to follow-on positions in their services in which they 
effectively use the experience and knowledge they gained during their 
fellowships.
    What is your assessment of the value of the Legislative Fellows 
program to the Department and the utilization of officers who have 
served as legislative fellows?
    Answer. I support this important training and career development 
program and believe it has great value to the Department and Congress. 
The Department's Legislative Fellows program provides an annual 
opportunity for 22 officers and 5 civilians to broaden their education, 
experience, and knowledge in operations and organization of Congress. 
Senior civilian leadership of the Military Departments validate the 
selection; and in my capacity as Principal Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, if confirmed, I would approve them 
on behalf of the Secretary. We place these fellows with members who are 
in committees with significant relevance to the Department. The 
Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs ensures the right officers 
are detailed to the right congressional leadership, defense or 
intelligence oversight committee. Such high-level oversight for this 
program is entirely appropriate as we seek to develop people capable of 
sustaining strong and effective dialogue with the legislative branch.
    The Legislative Fellows program is now a highly-competitive 
program, sought after by some of our most promising mid-career leaders. 
The knowledge they gain from this program will contribute to their 
personal and professional growth, as well as to the Department's 
effectiveness, throughout their careers. We should consider, therefore, 
whether some limited flexibility in the follow-on assignments might be 
warranted. It would be unfortunate, for example, if a rising star 
missed an opportunity to command because he or she was selected while a 
Legislative Fellow and constrained, therefore, in the follow-on 
assignment. If confirmed, I will look closely at this important area.
                        congressional oversight
    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information.
    Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before 
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as the Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Personnel and Readiness?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
               Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
    1. Senator Warner. Mr. Dominguez, in fiscal year 2005, the Army 
Reserve achieved less than half of its goal in recruiting physicians, 
and a quarter of its goal in recruiting dentists. For an Army that 
relies so heavily on its Reserves for medical support in war, this is a 
troubling and dangerous situation. Are you aware of the critical 
shortages in medical personnel?
    Mr. Dominguez. I am aware that we are experiencing shortages in 
certain critical wartime medical skills in the Reserve components of 
the Army. Shortages that are especially troubling are found in 
emergency services medicine and orthopedics. The Assistant Secretary 
for Health Affairs is working closely with the military Services to 
address incentives and policies that may be required to help overcome 
these shortfalls and avoid such shortages in the future.

    2. Senator Warner. Mr. Dominguez, what authorities or initiatives 
are needed to remedy this situation?
    Mr. Dominguez. The Department is examining a number of incentive 
enhancements that may help overcome current trends and avoid shortages 
in the future. Among them are an increase in the amount we can offer in 
the health professional loan repayment program and an increase in the 
Health Professions Scholarship Program student stipend. In the 
Department's Omnibus program for 2007, we are seeing an increase in the 
amount of special pay for health professionals in critical skills from 
$10,000 annually to $25,000. Additionally, we are looking at the 
Critical Skills Retention Bonus that Congress authorized for the 
Reserve components in last year's National Defense Authorization Act 
for ways in which that bonus, with a $100,000 career limit, can be used 
to assist in meeting our health care professional requirements. As we 
identify other incentives that may assist us, we will include 
appropriate legislative proposals in the Department's annual 
legislative program.

                        required joint training
    3. Senator Warner. Mr. Dominguez, DOD, as part of its Training 
Transformation, is moving toward the establishment of a joint national 
training capability, to enhance the ability of the different Services 
to function in a joint environment. At the moment, this is being 
implemented, as you mentioned in your responses to the advance policy 
questions, in a ``spirit of cooperation and collaboration'' among the 
Services, the various combatant commands, and the Joint Staff. Under 
title 10, however, the Services retain their responsibility to train 
forces. Do you foresee a need to make any changes to those 
responsibilities in title 10 to support the implementation of the 
Department's Training Transformation?
    Mr. Dominguez. The Secretary of a military department is 
responsible for and is tasked to recruit, organize, train and equip the 
forces assigned to the combatant commanders (title 10, U.S.C., sections 
3013(b) and 8013(b)). Training Transformation extends a joint context 
to the world class training already provided by the Services. We can 
accomplish everything we need to within the existing authorities of the 
Secretary of Defense.

             promoting jointness in the civilian workforce
    4. Senator Warner. Mr. Dominguez, in your answers to the advance 
policy questions you stated: ``I will champion the Department's efforts 
to do for the Senior Executive Service Corps what Goldwater-Nichols did 
for the Department's officer corps--create a power imperative for 
knowing, thinking, and acting joint.'' If confirmed, what changes in 
the professional development, training, and assignment of civilians do 
you think are necessary to achieve your vision for the DOD civilian 
workforce?
    Mr. Dominguez. Today, our senior executives require extraordinary 
skills to meet the challenges of the Global War on Terror, a tough and 
uncertain environment. I envision a senior executive cadre that has an 
enterprise-wide perspective; is prepared to lead in a joint 
environment; has strong leadership and management skills; is mobile and 
ready to assume leadership responsibilities where needed; has 
substantive knowledge of the national security mission; and has a 
shared understanding, trust, and sense of mission with military 
leaders.
    The 21st century operating environment and knowledge requirements 
are changing rapidly and constantly evolving. Thus, continuous learning 
and professional development are essential imperatives to maintaining a 
state of constant readiness and building a bench of senior leaders to 
meet current and future DOD requirements.
    To this end, the Department is currently examining ways to improve 
the identification, development, assignment, and management of the 
Senior Executive Service. The Department intends to rebuild a 
professional development framework that is purposeful, focused, and 
experiential. To develop broader senior executive leadership 
competencies, our approach will consider cross-functional development, 
lateral movement across fields and parts of the DOD organization, 
national security education and training, mentoring, coaching, expanded 
intergovernmental exchanges, executive fellowships, and other 
opportunities that build a relevant portfolio of career experiences.
    We intend to strengthen the current organizational structure to 
provide a central focus and DOD-level responsibility for policy and 
accountability of the management and development of senior executives. 
We envision that the Department will own a top level cadre of executive 
positions whose senior executives are deliberately identified, 
developed, assigned, and managed. Finally, through our pay for 
performance system, we will be able to link bonuses, pay increases, and 
advancements to demonstrated proficiency in needed competencies and 
skills.

                         dod civilian workforce
    5. Senator Warner. Mr. Dominguez, the Quadrennial Defense Review 
(QDR) envisions the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) as a 
critical tool in the Department's human capital strategy. What are your 
NSPS goals for the DOD civilian workforce?
    Mr. Dominguez. NSPS is essential to the Department's efforts to 
create an environment in which Total Force, uniformed personnel and 
civilians, thinks and operates as one cohesive unit. It is a results-
driven, mission-focused system that emphasizes employee results that 
contribute to the accomplishment of the Department's national security 
mission. We understand that in order for NSPS to be successful, we must 
take care of our most valuable asset--our people. ``Mission First'' and 
support of our national security goals and strategic objectives have 
been and remain paramount, but while also respecting the individual and 
protecting workers' rights guaranteed by law, including laws pertaining 
to veterans in the civil service.
    NSPS will put a modern, flexible personnel system in place that is 
also credible, transparent, and fair to our employees. DOD will be able 
to hire the right people in a more timely manner, and to pay and reward 
our employees properly, adequately recognizing their contribution to 
the mission. Pay increases will be based on performance rather than 
longevity. The Department will become more competitive in setting 
salaries and able to adjust salaries based on various factors, 
including labor market conditions, performance, and change in duties. 
Managers will be held accountable for making the right decisions and 
for managing their employees--all of their employees.
    These are significant changes and are necessary for the Department 
to carry out its mission and to create a 21st century system that is 
flexible and contemporary while protecting fundamental employee rights.

    6. Senator Warner. Mr. Dominguez, if confirmed, how will you 
leverage NSPS to achieve your goals for the DOD civilian workforce?
    Mr. Dominguez. The NSPS has tremendous potential to greatly enhance 
the way DOD manages its civilian workforce. It is a performance-based 
system that links employee objectives to organizational goals. It 
emphasizes and rewards employees based on results that contribute to 
the accomplishment of the Department's national security mission. The 
NSPS human resources management system is the foundation for a leaner, 
more flexible support structure and will help attract skilled, 
talented, and motivated people, while also retaining and improving the 
skills of the existing workforce. The new system provides a simplified 
pay banding structure that includes performance-based pay. This allows 
managers flexibility in assigning work and it provides greater 
opportunities for career growth for the Department's civilian 
workforce. As the Department moves away from the General Schedule 
system, it will become more competitive in setting salaries and it will 
be able to adjust salaries based on various factors, including labor 
market conditions, performance, and changes in duties. The system will 
retain the core values of the civil service and allow employees to be 
paid and rewarded based on performance, innovation, and results. A more 
flexible, mission-driven human resources system will provide a more 
cohesive Total Force.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
                         acquisition work force
    7. Senator McCain. Mr. Dominguez, according to the Air Force 
Inspector General (IG), after your meeting with Senator McCain and 
General Jumper on April 13, 2005, you directed General John Corley and 
Timothy Bayland to ``go convert the contract.'' Is this true?
    Mr. Dominguez. Yes.

    8. Senator McCain. Mr. Dominguez, the Air Force IG also said that 
your direction ``was never interpreted as requiring a full Part 15 
contract.'' In particular, the IG notes, ``The Acquisition Work Force's 
use of the word `convert' was, from the beginning, shorthand for making 
the C-130J `Part 15-like.' '' No one in the Army's Acquisition Work 
Force had a similar understanding regarding the conversion of the 
Future Combat System (FCS) other transaction agreement (OTA) to a Part 
15 acquisition. To exactly whom at the ``Acquisition Work Force'' is 
the IG referring?
    Mr. Dominguez. ``Acquisition Work Force'' meant the entire Air 
Force AQ team, from the top leadership on down. At the time I gave the 
orders to ``convert'' the contract, then Lt. Gen. John Corley was the 
Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition. The ``Part 
15-like'' comment in the IG report came from Timothy Beyland, who at 
the time was the Special Adviser for Acquisition to the Secretary of 
the Air Force. Generals William Looney and Ted Bowlds served at various 
times during this period as Program Executive Officer, driving the day-
to-day conversion work.

    9. Senator McCain. Mr. Dominguez, is Major General Hoffman, the 
head of the Acquisition Work Force, responsible for not following your 
direction on this contract?
    Mr. Dominguez. Sir, as you are aware my role as the Acting 
Secretary of the Air Force and the Service Acquisition Executive ended 
on 28 July 2005. During the time I served as the Acting Secretary, 
Lieutenant General (Major General at the time) Hoffman was the Director 
of Requirements for Air Combat Command and as a result we did not have 
any discussions involving the C-130J contract conversion. Lt. Gen. 
Hoffman assumed duties as Military Deputy for Acquisition in August 
2005--after I was replaced as Acting Secretary of the Air Force.
    As documented in Air Force Inspector General (IG) Report of Inquiry 
(ROI) (S6649P), which has been provided to this committee, ``The AQ 
community did its best to follow the guidance Secretary Dominguez 
provided.'' The report also makes clear that these Air Force 
acquisition officials ``. . . understood that no plan would become 
final without an indication from he Senate Armed Services Committee, 
and Senator McCain in particular, that it was acceptable.'' The Air 
Force IG ROI ``determined that no one knowingly acted to undermine 
Senator McCain's intent with regard to the C-130J contract.''

    10. Senator McCain. Mr. Dominguez, what communications, if any, did 
you have with Major General Hoffman or any other Air Force officials 
about the conversion of the Part 12 contract?
    Mr. Dominguez. Sir, as you are aware my role as the Acting 
Secretary of the Air Force and the Service Acquisition Executive ended 
on 28 July 2005. During the time I served as the Acting Secretary, 
Lieutenant General (Major General at the time) Hoffman had not assumed 
his current position. As a result, we did not have any discussions 
involving the C-130J contract conversion.
    I did meet with Lt. Gen. John Corley, who at that time was the 
Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, and Mr. Tim 
Beyland, who was then serving as my Special Assistant for Acquisition. 
I gave these two officials the order to convert the contract. 
Subsequently, I may have received progress updates from either or both 
of these officials at scheduled staff meetings, but these would not 
have been detailed discussions. While serving as Acting Secretary of 
the Air Force, I received no communication from anyone that gave me 
reason to believe we were not making good progress converting the C-
130J contract.

                             cost overruns
    11. Senator McCain. Mr. Dominguez, in the 2006 National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA), Congress instructed the Pentagon to report on 
every program that costs at least 50 percent more than initial 
projections. The provision was designed to tie programs to their 
original cost estimates, rather than updated cost and schedule 
baselines. The Pentagon has been allowed to change its baseline without 
invoking the penalty. For example, you testified in April of last year 
that the C-130J originally cost $33 million a copy but it now costs 
over $66 million a copy. How do you plan to implement this new 
amendment with regard to Nunn-McCurdy violations?
    Mr. Dominguez. In my current position, I have no authority over any 
DOD acquisition program and will have none if confirmed as Principal 
Deputy Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness. However, the 
Department's acquisition professionals advise us that implementation of 
this new reporting regime over the long-term is straightforward. For 
every Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP), we currently compare 
the Program Manager's Current Estimate each quarter to the Acquisition 
Program Baseline (APB) to determine if the program has breached the 
Nunn-McCurdy unit cost thresholds. We will add a comparison against the 
``Original Baseline Estimate'' to this analysis. We will be analyzing 
MDAPs each quarter to determine if there is significant or critical 
cost growth against both the APB and the ``Original Baseline Estimate'' 
using essentially the same procedures we have used in the past to 
evaluate Unit Cost against the APB.
    In the near-term, we are determining the status of programs against 
their ``Original Baseline Estimate'' based on the fiscal year 2007 
President's budget (fiscal year 2007 PB) submission. The fiscal year 
2007 PB was essentially complete on January 6, 2006, when the changes 
to Nunn-McCurdy were enacted. Programs exceeding the ``Original 
Baseline Estimate'' by more than 50 percent will reset their ``Original 
Baseline Estimate'' to the cost baseline in their current APB, and the 
Secretary of Defense will provide a report to Congress on these 
programs. The Secretary of the Air Force will submit a notification to 
Congress on programs with cost growth between 30 and 50 percent.

                          casualty assistance
    12. Senator McCain. Mr. Dominguez, in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 
2006, Congress tasked the Secretary of Defense with developing a 
comprehensive policy and procedure for casualty assistance to be 
followed by all branches of the armed services. The deadline for 
setting the policy is August 1, 2007. The greatest sacrifice that a 
family can make for its Nation necessarily deserves the best service 
possible for the surviving family. In this time of war, there is a 
great urgency for the right policy. The DOD should be working with the 
Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) to find the right way to develop a 
policy of ``seamless transition'' for survivors. The Gold Star Wives, 
The Armed Forces Services Organizations, and Tragedy Assistance 
Programs for Survivors all have first-hand experience in dealing with 
the needs of survivors. Can you ensure the DOD meets the prescribed 
timeline and advise once you have coordinated with the aforementioned 
groups?
    Mr. Dominguez. The Department's policy on casualty assistance, 
Department of Defense Instruction 1300.18 ``Military Personnel Casualty 
Matters, Policies, and Procedures'' is currently under revision. This 
revision will, among other things, incorporate all the applicable 
provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006. Since August 2005, the Departments of Defense and 
Veterans' Affairs have jointly chaired a Survivors Working Group that 
reviews and addresses survivor issues. The group consists of 
representatives from each of the Military Services, Service Relief 
Agencies, non-governmental agencies (e.g., Gold Star Wives, Tragedy 
Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS), National Military Family 
Association, Veterans Service Organizations), and surviving family 
members. Each has provided input into the revised instruction and will 
be part of the formal coordination process. The revised Instruction 
will be published by August 1, 2006.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions
                          defense laboratories
    13. Senator Sessions. Mr. Dominguez, the DOD laboratories play a 
critical role in developing technologies that support warfighters, as 
has been clearly demonstrated in their efforts to support operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. If confirmed, how do you propose to utilize the 
authorities of the laboratory personnel demonstration programs to 
enhance the effectiveness of the defense laboratories and ensure that 
they are technically competitive with their foreign and industrial 
counterparts?
    Mr. Dominguez. The DOD Science and Technology Laboratories (STRLs) 
personnel demonstration project authorities were modeled after the 
first Navy Demonstration Project in ``China Lake'' and San Diego 
started back in 1980. The Department's more than 25 year history with 
the personnel demonstration projects has proven the value of a more 
flexible, responsive human resources system. Certainly, design of the 
new NSPS has benefited from these experiences.
    These demonstration projects were initiated to facilitate 
competitiveness in attracting, recruiting, retaining and rewarding a 
highly skilled workforce. The personnel management authorities granted 
to the Secretary for use in STRLs have been, and continue to be, 
successfully used with encouraging results. When the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) evaluated the STRLs in 2002 (Summative 
Evaluation 2002), it found many promising results despite the 
demonstration projects' less than 5 year implementation. For example, 
OPM found that the flexibility to pay higher starter salaries was 
helpful and the laboratories were retaining more of their top 
performers. They also noted that there was a positive effect on 
motivation and willingness to work harder since the implementation of 
pay for performance. Research productivity increased significantly in 
one of the Army laboratories.
    The use of flexible personnel management authorities has clearly 
helped create an environment for technological success and led to 
bolstered international and industrial competitiveness in the DOD labs. 
The Department will consider the best long-term human resources 
management option for the STRLs in a couple of years. Section 9902(c) 
of title 5, U.S.C., provides that NSPS Human Resources System will 
apply to the STRLs on or after October 1, 2008, only to the extent that 
the Secretary of Defense determines that the flexibilities provided by 
NSPS are greater than those under the STRL demonstration project 
authority. The Department's report under section 1107 of the 2005 NDAA 
includes a plan for a fair and thorough comparison of the flexibilities 
between NSPS and the STRL personnel management demonstration authority. 
The evaluation is planned for 2008, when NSPS reaches a sufficient 
level of maturity to make a meaningful comparison. Until then, the 
STRLs will be able to continue to add, refine, and evolve their 
demonstration projects.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
                   national security personnel system
    14. Senator Kennedy. Mr. Dominguez, on October 7, 2005 United 
States District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that the Department 
of Homeland Security's (DHS) new personnel system was unlawful because 
it did not provide meaningful collective bargaining rights. The Judge 
specifically faulted the system because it allowed management 
unilaterally to nullify a contract term or take an issue off the 
bargaining table. The NSPS, like the Department of Homeland Security 
personnel system, allows management unilaterally to declare contract 
terms null and void or remove issues from the scope of collective 
bargaining. In preparing the final NSPS regulations, did the Department 
consider this ruling by Judge Collyer? If not, why not? The lack of 
advance notice clearly was not the focus of Judge Collyer's 
determination that the DHS system was illegal.
    Mr. Dominguez. Yes, we were certainly aware of, and informed by, 
Judge Collyer's decision. However, the statutory authority for NSPS is 
different than the statutory authority provided to DHS. Ultimately, 
changes that were made to the final regulations were a result of the 
many public comments received, as well as input from the unions during 
the meet and confer process.

    15. Senator Kennedy. Mr. Dominguez, have you done anything to 
correct the more fundamental problem that the NSPS does not provide 
enforceable collective bargaining rights because one party is really 
not bound by the contract? If so, why have you not revised your 
regulations to comply with the ruling?
    Mr. Dominguez. Collective bargaining agreements will continue to 
exist under the NSPS and will continue to be important contracts 
between management and labor. Although those agreements will have to 
conform to the NSPS regulations and implementing issuances, the 
Department will not issue a directive simply to override an agreement. 
The employee representatives have a voice in planning, development, and 
implementation of implementing issuances through the continuing 
collaboration process. Also, the Department's authority to override 
union contracts is not unfettered. The Department's authority for the 
labor relations provisions will expire in November 2009--unless the 
Secretary certifies the system. This is a strong incentive to work with 
employee representatives.
    In reference to your questions as to whether any revisions were 
made to comply with the DHS ruling by Judge Collyer, we were aware of 
and informed by her decision; however, the statutory authority for NSPS 
is different than the statutory authority provided to DHS. Ultimately, 
any changes we made were a result of public comments we received as 
well as input from the unions during the meet and confer process.

    16. Senator Kennedy. Mr. Dominguez, please explain to me how a 
system where two parties contract, but one party is not bound by the 
contract, provides meaningful collective bargaining rights as Congress 
intended?
    Mr. Dominguez. Employees will continue to have a voice in resolving 
workplace disputes under the NSPS. The regulation preserves collective 
bargaining, but restricts the scope of bargaining on certain matters, 
including implementing issuances. Implementing issuances apply only to 
policy or procedures implementing NSPS, primarily in the area of human 
resources management. The regulation concerning collective bargaining 
attempts to strike a balance between employee interests and DOD's need 
to accomplish its mission effectively and expeditiously. For example, 
while the regulation eliminates all bargaining on procedures regarding 
operational management rights, it does not eliminate all bargaining on 
procedures. The regulation provides for collective bargaining on 
certain operational matters that are based on the Secretary's 
determination that bargaining is necessary to advance the Department's 
mission or promote organizational effectiveness. The Department bears 
full accountability for national security; therefore, the Secretary is 
in the best position to determine when it is appropriate to permit 
bargaining under these circumstances. The regulation continues to 
provide for bargaining on procedures for personnel management rights. 
The regulation also continues to provide for bargaining on impact and 
appropriate arrangements for all management rights. While the scope of 
bargaining is restricted compared to what occurs today, the regulation 
continues to provide many opportunities for the unions to have a voice 
in workplace issues. Finally, the regulation provides for consultation 
on procedures regarding the operational management rights, which lie at 
the very core of how DOD carries out its mission.
                                 ______
                                 
                Question Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
           utilization of laboratory personnel flexibilities
    17. Senator Reed. Mr. Dominguez, section 1107 of the 2005 NDAA 
required that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics and the Under Secretary of Defense of 
Personnel and Readiness jointly conduct a study to determine how best 
to utilize the laboratory demonstration authorities to increase the 
effectiveness of the defense laboratories. This study was supposed to 
be presented to Congress no later than December 1, 2005 but has not 
been received by the committee yet. Have you reviewed the findings of 
this study and if confirmed, how do you propose to implement these 
findings?
    Mr. Dominguez. The section 1107 report, jointly developed by the 
Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) and 
the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), is in 
coordination within the Department, and it is expected to be released 
shortly. As a matter of background, section 9902(c) of title 5, U.S.C., 
provides that the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) will apply 
to the designated DOD Science, Technology, and Reinvention Laboratories 
(STRLs) on or after October 1, 2008, only to the extent that the 
Secretary of Defense determines that the flexibilities provided by NSPS 
are greater than those under the STRL demonstration project authority. 
The Department's report under section 1107 of the 2005 NDAA includes a 
plan for conducting a fair and thorough comparative evaluation of the 
flexibilities between NSPS and the demonstration authority. The 
evaluation is planned for 2008, when NSPS reaches a sufficient level of 
maturity to make a meaningful comparison. Until then, the STRLs will be 
able to continue to refine and evolve as needed.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of Michael L. Dominguez follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                 December 13, 2005.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    Michael L. Dominguez of Virginia, to be Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, vice Charles S. Abell, resigned.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The biographical sketch of Michael L. Dominguez, which was 
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was 
referred, follows:]
              Biographical Sketch of Michael L. Dominguez
    Michael L. Dominguez is Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Washington, DC. A political appointee 
confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Dominguez heads a four division department 
that deals at the policy level with Air Force manpower and Reserve 
affairs issues. His areas of responsibility include force management 
and personnel, equal opportunity and diversity, Reserve affairs and Air 
Force review boards.
    As an Air Force dependent, Mr. Dominguez grew up on bases around 
the world. After graduating in 1975 from the U.S. Military Academy at 
West Point, NY, he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. 
Army, reported to Vicenza, Italy, then worked varied assignments with 
the 1st Battalion, 509th Infantry (Airborne) and the Southern European 
Task Force. After leaving the military in 1980, Mr. Dominguez went into 
private business and attended Stanford University's Graduate School of 
Business. In 1983 he joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense as 
an analyst for Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E).
    Mr. Dominguez entered the Senior Executive Service in 1991 as 
PA&E's Director for Planning and Analytical Support. In this position 
he oversaw production of DOD's long-range planning forecast and its $12 
billion in annual information technology investments. He also directed 
the PA&E modernization of computing, communications, and modeling 
infrastructure. He joined the Chief of Naval Operations staff in 1994 
and assisted in the Navy's development of multiyear programs and annual 
budgets. Mr. Dominguez left the Federal Government in 1997 to join a 
technology service organization. In 1999 he began work at the Center 
for Naval Analyses where he organized and directed studies of complex 
public policy and program issues. In 2001 he rejoined the staff of the 
Chief of Naval Operations where he worked until his appointment.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals 
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a 
form that details the biographical, financial, and other 
information of the nominee. The form executed by Michael L. 
Dominguez in connection with his nomination follows:]
                          UNITED STATES SENATE
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              Room SR-228
                       Washington, DC 20510-6050
                             (202) 224-3871
                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
      BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
    Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If 
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the 
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation 
of your answer applies.
                    Part A--Biographical Information
    Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in 
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for 
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in 
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.

    1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
    Michael Luis Dominguez.

    2. Position to which nominated:
    Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness).

    3. Date of nomination:
    December 12, 2005.

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

    5. Date and place of birth:
    September 4, 1953; Austin, Texas.

    6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
    Married to the former Sheila Janet MacNamee.

    7. Names and ages of children:
    Michelle, 24; Michael, 22.

    8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
    1975 - Bachelor of Science degree, U.S. Military Academy, West 
Point, NY.
    1983 - Master's degree in business administration, Stanford 
University, Stanford, CA.
    1989 - Program for Senior Officials in National Security 
(certificate), Harvard University MA.

    9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the 
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of 
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
    June 1983-September 1988, program analyst, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense, Secretary for Program Analysis and Evaluation, 
Washington, DC.
    October 1988-September 1991, executive assistant to the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Program Analysis and Evaluation, Washington, 
DC.
    October 1991-September 1994, Director for Planning and Analytical 
Support, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Program 
Analysis and Evaluation, Washington, DC.
    October 1994-April 1997, Associate Director for Programming, Office 
of the Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, DC.
    April 1997-September 1999, General Manager, Tech 2000 Inc., 
Herndon, VA.
    September 1999-January 2001, Research Project Director, Center for 
Naval Anaylses, Alexandria, VA.
    January 2001-August 2001, Assistant Director for Space, Information 
Warfare, and Command and Control, Office of the Chief of Naval 
Operations, Washington, DC.
    August 2001-present, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Washington, DC, including serving as 
Acting Secretary of the Air Force from March 2005 to August 2005.

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

    11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an 
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, 
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other 
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
    Civil Air Patrol Board of Governors, November 2001 to June 2005 
including service as chairman of the Audit Committee.

    12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in 
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and 
other organizations.
    U.S. Military Academy Alumni Association, June 1975-present.
    Stanford Business School Alumni Association, June 1983-present.
    Troop 1570, Boy Scouts of America, Registered Adult Leader, 
September 1995-September 2001.
    Herndon High School Parent Teacher's Association, Member: September 
1995-September 2002.
    Herndon High School Sports Booster's Club, Member: September 1995-
September 2002.
    College of William and Mary Track and Field Parent's Association, 
Member: September 2002-present.

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

    14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions 
for outstanding service or achievements.
    1980, Army Commendation Medal.
    1988 and 1994, Defense Meritorious Civilian Service Medal.
    1993, Defense medal for Civilian Service.
    1997, Medal for Superior Civilian Service, Department of the Navy.
    1998, Meritorious Executive Presidential Rank Award.
    2005, Exceptional Civilian Service Award.

    15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of 
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have 
written.
    [Nominee responded and the information is contained in the 
committee's executive files.]

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

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

                           Signature and Date
    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete.
                                              Michael L. Dominguez.
    This 22nd day of December, 2005.

    [The nomination of Michael L. Dominguez was reported to the 
Senate by Chairman Warner on June 27, 2006, with the 
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination 
was confirmed by the Senate on June 29, 2006.]
                              ----------                              

    [Prepared questions submitted to James I. Finley by 
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied 
follow:]
                        Questions and Responses
                            defense reforms
    Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense 
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have 
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have 
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain 
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant 
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
They have also clarified the responsibility of the military departments 
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment 
to the combatant commanders.
    Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act 
provisions?
    Answer. I believe the Goldwater-Nichols Act is one of the most 
significant pieces of legislation passed by Congress regarding DOD 
operations and organization and I'm presently unaware of any need to 
modify its provisions. However, with the passage of time and an ever 
changing landscape of threats, I believe it is prudent for the DOD to 
continuously review and innovatively improve our acquisition and 
technology management systems, including recommending legislation to 
improve organization, command and control and equipping our military 
with a decisive advantage.
    Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to 
address in these modifications?
    Answer. I am not prepared now to recommend any modifications. If 
confirmed, I will review this closely.
                                 duties
    Question. Section 133a of title 10, U.S.C., describes the role of 
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology 
(DUSD(AT)).
    Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect that 
Secretary Krieg will prescribe for you?
    Answer. Mr. Krieg and I have not discussed any additional 
responsibilities other than those defined in section 133a of title 10. 
In that respect, if confirmed, my responsibilities would be the 
principal advisor to Mr. Krieg and Secretary Rumsfeld for matters 
relating to acquisition and the integration and protection of 
technology. In addition I would assist Mr. Krieg in the performance of 
his duties relating to Acquisition and Technology. The DUSD(A&T) 
responsibilities, functions and authorities are further defined in DOD 
Directive 5134.13 dated October 5, 2005.
    Question. What background and experience do you possess that you 
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
    Answer. I have extensive background and experience in the aerospace 
industry with over 30 years of multi-national business leadership and 
executive management experience in programs that span air, land, sea, 
and space for the DOD including joint programs. I also have background 
and experience with the FAA Automatic Surface Detection Radar systems 
and the NASA Space Shuttle Program. I bring systems and subsystems 
management experience that includes mission analysis, design, 
development, and deployment of weapon delivery, flight control, 
navigation, communications, information management, (C\4\ISR), 
battlespace management and chem/bio defense systems. My background and 
experience also includes marketing, finance, program management, 
engineering and manufacturing.
    I also have a broad experience base of technology management 
including international technology transfer, outsourcing, product 
development, multi-plant operations management, lean manufacturing 
implementation, demand flow technology programs, six sigma/black belt 
systems, information technology systems, purchasing, logistics, 
facilities, security, product support and total quality management. I 
have participated in many acquisitions and divestitures providing 
business analysis including strategic fit, organizational alignment, 
marketing assessments, project evaluations and manufacturing audits.
    My education includes a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) 
and Bachelors of Science in Electrical Engineering (BSEE).
    Question. Do you believe that there are any additional steps that 
you need to take to enhance your expertise to perform these duties?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Do you believe that any significant changes should be 
made in the structure and decisionmaking procedures of the Department 
of Defense with respect to acquisition matters?
    Answer. I am aware that several other recent and ongoing reviews 
address questions such as this. If confirmed, I intend to study the 
recommendations , keep an open mind, assess historical changes, and 
work within the DOD and with Congress in an open and transparent 
manner. My leadership experience indicates that continuous improvement 
causes effective and efficient change for structure and decisionmaking 
procedures.
                             relationships
    Question. In carrying out your duties, what would be your 
relationship with:
    The Secretary of Defense.
    Answer. In working with Mr. Krieg I would support Secretary 
Rumsfeld's priorities in acquisition and technology.
    Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
    Answer. If confirmed I would work with Mr. Krieg to support Deputy 
Secretary England and DOD priorities in matters within the purview of 
acquisition and technology.
    Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics.
    Answer. Mr. Krieg would be my boss and I would support him to the 
best of my ability.
    Question. The other Under Secretaries of Defense.
    Answer. There are many actions that require coordination among the 
offices of the Under Secretaries of Defense. If confirmed, I would 
support Mr. Krieg in working with the other Under Secretaries of 
Defense to best serve the priorities of the Department of Defense.
    Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.
    Answer. If confirmed I would work with Mr. Krieg to cooperate with 
the Assistant Secretaries of Defense to best equip the Services and 
serve Department of Defense priorities.
    Question. The DOD General Counsel.
    Answer. If confirmed I would work with the General Counsel's office 
to ensure that our actions are within the bounds of law and 
regulations.
    Question. The Acquisition Executives in the Military Departments.
    Answer. There are many issues of mutual concern where communication 
and coordination are essential for effective and efficient management. 
If confirmed, I will make communication and coordination a top priority 
in daily management.
    Question. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    Answer. If confirmed I would support Admiral Giambastiani both as 
the Vice Chairman and in his role as co-chair to the Defense 
Acquisition Board (DAB).
                     major challenges and problems
    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will 
confront the DUSD(AT)?
    Answer. I believe the major challenges and problems include 
regaining the confidence of our DOD and congressional leadership the 
acquisition system and reshaping the business enterprise associated 
with the acquisition and technology community.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for 
addressing these challenges?
    Answer. I am aware that several recent and ongoing reviews propose 
ways to address these challenges. If confirmed, I intend to study the 
recommendations, keep an open mind, assess historical changes, and work 
within the DOD and with Congress in an open and transparent manner.
    Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in 
the management of acquisition functions in the Department of Defense?
    Answer. I believe the top three issues are: (1) oversight, (2) 
acquisition strategy, and (3) requirements. I believe resolving those 
issues will serve to put us on the right path to achieve credibility 
and efficiency in the acquisition community.
    Question. What management action and timetables would you establish 
to address these problems?
    Answer. If confirmed, I plan to develop actions that will support 
achievement of Mr. Krieg's goals. As for timelines, I need to become 
better acquainted with all the issues before committing to a timetable.
                    major weapon system acquisition
    Question. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported 
that private sector acquisition programs are more successful than DOD 
acquisition programs, in large part because they consistently require a 
high level of maturity for new technologies before such technologies 
are incorporated into product development programs. Section 801 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 requires the 
Milestone Decision Authority for a major defense acquisition program to 
certify to the technological maturity of key technologies before 
approving an acquisition program.
    In your view, would DOD's major acquisition programs be more 
successful if the Department were to follow the commercial model and 
mature its technologies with research and development funds before 
these technologies are incorporated into product development programs?
    Answer. I believe a commercial model has already been implemented 
to a certain extent and is useful. It offers leverage and lessons 
learned to improve major weapons systems acquisition. We need to 
continuously learn from all available sectors to maintain technical and 
operational superiority. DOD must be at the technological forefront. 
Research and development funds should be used to incubate and mature 
products to a level where risk is considered manageable.
    Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to implement 
section 801 and ensure that the key components and technologies to be 
incorporated into major acquisition programs meet the Department's 
technological maturity goals?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work to implement section 801 to 
ensure incorporation of the key components and technologies into major 
acquisition programs is consistent with maturity goals. I will also 
consult with the Service Acquisition Executives and others as 
appropriate to ensure that the necessary actions and certifications are 
in place.
    Question. DOD weapon systems have generally taken significantly 
longer and cost more money than promised when they are first developed. 
GAO has reported that it is not unusual for estimates of time and money 
to be off by 20 to 50 percent. Section 802 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 attempts to instill more 
discipline into the acquisition process by tightening the Nunn-McCurdy 
provisions in section 2433 of title 10, U.S.C.
    What is your view of the changes made by section 802?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will review section 802 with particular 
emphasis on the changes made in an effort to reduce cost and schedule 
overruns.
    Question. What additional steps do you believe the Department can 
and should take to avoid costly overruns on major defense acquisition 
programs?
    Answer. I believe that enforcing discipline can help minimize 
requirements ``creep'' and capabilities ``growth'' such that cost and 
schedule increases to major defense programs can be avoided. I also 
believe that funding stabilization and maintaining baseline funding 
levels is important to sustaining program performance. An early 
identification of program critical technologies would enable earlier 
risk mitigation to allow lead time to accelerate technology maturation, 
avoid cost, and schedule risk.
            impact of the budget and requirements processes
    Question. A recent report by the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies (CSIS) concludes that ``many of the ills 
attributed to the defense acquisition system are really caused by [the 
requirements and resource allocation] processes. Instability in the 
definition of requirements, often referred to as `requirements creep,' 
creates a moving target for acquirers as they struggle to make trade-
offs among performance, cost, and schedule. Similarly, much, if not 
most, of the instability in acquisition programs is caused by lack of 
discipline in the resource allocation process--that is, funding more 
acquisition programs than the procurement budgets can support and the 
chronic tendency . . . to take procurement dollars to meet operations 
and maintenance (O&M) bills.''
    Do you agree with this assessment?
    Answer. I agree that more discipline and integration among all the 
key decision processes of the DOD would increase stability with 
outcomes matching expectations.
    Question. What steps do you believe the Department should take to 
address this problem?
    Answer. If confirmed, I believe the steps we should take are to 
understand the drivers and root cause of the problems in the 
requirements and resource allocation processes.
    Question. The Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment (DAPA) 
recently recommended that the Department address instability in funding 
for major defense acquisition programs by creating a new ``Acquisition 
Stabilization Account'' and establishing a Management Reserve in this 
account by holding termination liability as a pool at the Service 
level.
    What is your view of these recommendations?
    Answer. I have read the DAPA Executive Summary but have not seen 
the Report. If confirmed, I will read the complete report with 
particular emphasis on the recommended ``Acquisition Stabilization 
Account.'' I believe it is important to understand the recommendation 
in the context of the full report.
    Question. The DAPA report also recommends that the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics adjust program 
estimates for major defense acquisition programs to reflect ``high 
confidence''--defined as an 80 percent chance of a program completing 
development at or below the estimated cost.
    What is your view of this recommendation?
    Answer. I have read the DAPA Executive Summary but have not seen 
the Report. If confirmed, I will read the complete report with 
particular emphasis on the adjustment of program estimates for ``high 
confidence'' recommendation. I believe it is important to fully 
understand the recommendation in the context of the full report.
    Question. If confirmed, what steps, if any, would you take to 
implement this recommendation?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will first read the full report to 
understand the recommendation. Any implementation will be done within 
the DOD and with Congress in an open and transparent manner.
                         acquisition cycle time
    Question. The Department of Defense has attempted to reduce cycle 
time for major acquisition programs through the use of spiral 
development and incremental acquisition strategies.
    To what extent have these strategies been implemented throughout 
the Department?
    Answer. I do not know the extent to which cycle time reduction has 
been attempted using spiral development and incremental acquisition 
strategies throughout the DOD.
    Question. How successful do you believe these strategies have been?
    Answer. My experience reflects that there is significant value in 
cycle time reduction utilizing spiral development and incremental 
acquisition strategies.
    Question. What additional steps do you believe the Department can 
and should take to reduce cycle time?
    Answer. My perspective is that there are a lot of success stories 
in the Department on cycle time reduction. Taking those lessons 
learned, finding a methodology to institutionalize their respective 
processes and utilizing lean sigma practices are examples of steps that 
may help to facilitate an environment of continuous learning resulting 
in cycle time reduction.
    Question. The DAPA report recommends a new approach to acquisition, 
described as ``time certain development,'' under which ``useful 
military capability'' would be delivered to operational forces within 
approximately 6 years of the Milestone A decision, even if all 
performance requirements could not be met in that timeframe.
    What is your view of this recommendation?
    Answer. I have read the DAPA Executive Summary but have not seen 
the Report. If confirmed, I will read the complete report with 
particular emphasis on the ``time certain development'' and ``useful 
military capability'' recommendation. I believe it is important to 
understand the recommendation in the context of the full report .
                       commercial item strategies
    Question. Section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 requires a determination by the Secretary of Defense 
and notification to Congress before a major weapon system may be 
treated as a commercial item. Similarly, section 823 requires a 
determination by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics, and notification to Congress before the 
Department may use ``other transaction authority'' for a prototype 
project in excess of $100 million.
    Under what circumstances, if any, would it be appropriate, in your 
view, to treat a major weapon system as a commercial item?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will read section 803 and section 823 to 
fully understand the respective statutory language. I believe there may 
be certain major defense systems, such as communications satellites or 
cargo aircraft, that are offered in the commercial market, either off-
the-shelf or with minor modifications, that fit the definition of 
commercial items and could be treated as such.
    Question. Under what circumstances, if any, would it be 
appropriate, in your view, to use ``other transaction authority'' for a 
prototype project in excess of $100 million?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will read section 823 with regard to 
``other transaction authority'' to fully understand the respective 
statutory language.
                        acquisition organization
    Question. The DAPA report recommends a number of organizational 
changes in the acquisition structure of the Department, including: (1) 
reestablishment of systems commands headed by four-star officers in 
each of the military departments; (2) elevation of the positions of the 
Service Acquisition Executives and Service Under Secretaries to 
Executive Level III; (3) designation of the Service Acquisition 
Executives as 5-year, fixed Presidential appointees; (4) creation of a 
pool of non-career senior executives and political appointees to 
provide leadership stability in the acquisition process; (5) 
designation of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics as a full member of the Joint Requirements 
Oversight Council; and (6) disestablishment of the Acquisition 
Integrated Product Teams and replacement with a small staff focused on 
decisionmaking to support joint programs.
    What is your view of these recommendations?
    Answer. I have read the DAPA Executive Summary but have not seen 
the full report. If confirmed, I will read the complete report with 
particular emphasis on the organizational changes recommendations. I 
believe it is important to understand the recommendation in the context 
of the full report.
    Question. The CSIS report recommends that ``the service chiefs 
should have primary responsibility for acquisition execution.''
    What is your view of this recommendation?
    Answer. I believe that Goldwater-Nichols has it right in providing 
for civilian authority in the military departments and acquisition 
oversight reporting chain. It's my sense that this has worked well. 
However, I am willing to consider the recommendations from CSIS and 
other studies and if confirmed, will seek to understand them fully.
                     lead system integrators (lsi)
    Question. In May 2003, the Department approved the transition of 
the Army's Future Combat Systems program into System Development and 
Demonstration. The Army has hired a lead system integrator to set 
requirements, evaluate proposals, and determine which systems will be 
incorporated into future weapon systems. Section 805 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 requires the Department 
of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees on 
concerns arising out of the use of lead system integrators for the 
acquisition by the Department of Defense of major weapon systems.
    What are your views on the current role and responsibilities of 
lead system integrators?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will research the role of LSIs for the FCS 
Program as well as other programs to further refine my perspectives. My 
experience is that the LSI role has evolved from the system-of-systems 
role that delivers capabilities for joint and combined forces vs. the 
traditional prime contractor, platform centric role delivering 
capabilities for a single service.
    Question. How would you define the line between those acquisition 
responsibilities that are inherently governmental and those that may be 
performed by contractors?
    Answer. I believe the line is unchanged. The rules regarding the 
performance of inherently governmental functions do not vary. The 
Government retains responsibility for the execution of the program, 
makes all requirements, budgeting and policy decisions, and does source 
selections at the prime level.
    Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that 
contracting mechanisms which maintain adequate safeguards are put in 
place to ensure that lead system integrator access to sensitive and 
proprietary information is not compromised?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will look to ensure that contracting 
mechanisms are in place for LSIs as they are for Prime Contractors to 
maintain adequate safeguards to protect sensitive and proprietary 
information from compromise.
    Question. What specific steps have--or will--the Department take to 
monitor the progress of the key technologies for the Future Combat 
Systems?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will investigate the steps taken and 
planned for monitoring the progress of key technologies for FCS.
    Question. What policies are in place to ensure that lead system 
integrators do not misuse sensitive and proprietary information owned 
by other contractors and do not unnecessarily limit competition in a 
manner that would disadvantage the government?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will investigate this in detail to ensure 
polices are in place for the proper use of sensitive and proprietary 
information as well as for open competition.
    Question. What additional steps, if any, do you believe are needed 
to address this issue?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will thoroughly review this issue to 
determine what additional steps are appropriate. In addition, I 
understand the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 
requires DOD to do a study on LSIs, which should provide additional 
perspectives on this subject.
                        award and incentive fees
    Question. The GAO recently reported that the Department of Defense 
has failed to link award fees to acquisition outcomes. As a result, GAO 
says, ``DOD has paid out an estimated $8 billion in award fees to date 
on the contracts in our study population, regardless of outcomes.'' 
According to GAO, this practice has undermined the effectiveness of 
fees as a motivational tool, marginalized their use in holding 
contractors accountable for acquisition outcomes, and wasted taxpayer 
funds.
    What is your view of the GAO findings?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would read the report and thoroughly 
investigate the GAO findings.
    Question. What steps, if any, do you believe the Department should 
take to better link the payment of award fees to acquisition outcomes?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would take immediate steps to understand 
the situation with corrective actions where appropriate.
    Question. Do you believe that it would be helpful to hold award 
fees as a pool at the Service level (rather than budgeting them to 
specific programs) to ensure that contractors have to compete for award 
fees rather than expecting them as a matter of entitlement?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will investigate and thoroughly analyze our 
business practices on this matter.
                          test and evaluation
    Question. The Department has, on occasion, been criticized for 
failing to adequately test its major weapon systems before these 
systems are put into production.
    What are your views about the degree of independence needed by the 
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) in ensuring the 
success of the Department's acquisition programs?
    Answer. As an independent voice, the Director of Operational Test 
and Evaluation provides operational test and evaluation results to the 
Secretary of Defense, other decision makers in the Department, and 
Congress before programs proceed beyond Low Rate Initial Production. I 
believe that the independence of the DOT&E is necessary for the 
Operational Test and Evaluation of major weapon systems, and serves to 
ensure that such systems are operationally effective and operationally 
suitable.
    Question. What initiatives in this regard would you take, if 
confirmed?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would encourage a more integrated approach 
to T&E, including developmental testing and systems engineering. 
Developmental and operational testers should be involved as early as 
possible to ensure an adequate test and evaluation program is defined, 
addressed, and maintained in both program budget and schedule. This 
integrated approach will improve the quality of the development phase, 
and shorten the demonstration phase to meet warfighter requirements.
    Question. The Department has used low rate production lots to buy, 
and in some cases to field, significant quantities of some systems 
while continuing development to fix performance problems.
    What steps do you believe the Department should take to ensure that 
milestone decision authorities do not field systems before system 
performance has been adequately demonstrated?
    Answer. Where it makes sense, the DOD could take this incremental 
approach while recognizing the need for future capability improvements. 
I believe it is possible to have an incremental approach to system 
development which allows for rapid fielding of mature technology to the 
warfighter in fully tested increments. Additional development can 
continue to pursue increased system functionality and performance.
    To prevent the fielding of immature systems, we need to increase 
discipline to assure systems have passed exit criteria and demonstrated 
a fundamental core capability before fielding.
    Question. The GAO recently reported that the DOD acquisition system 
incentivizes delayed operational testing ``because that will keep `bad 
news' at bay.'' According to GAO, program managers have an incentive to 
suppress bad news and continually produce optimistic estimates, because 
doing otherwise could result in a loss of support and funding and 
further damage their programs.
    What is your view of the GAO finding?
    Answer. I am not familiar with this specific finding. If confirmed, 
I will fully review this GAO finding to better understand the details 
and basis of the report. I believe program mergers strive to deliver 
systems on-time, at cost, and meeting all desired capabilities. I 
believe that providing sufficient resources, involving testers early, 
utilizing performance metrics, having proper checks and balances, 
defining clear exit criteria via the systems engineering process prior 
to entering Initial Operational Test and Evaluation will help to 
develop systems that are ready for operational testing.
    Question. What steps, if any, do you believe the Department should 
take to ensure that testing takes place early in enough in the program 
cycle to identify and fix problems before it becomes prohibitively 
time-consuming and expensive to do so?
    Answer. I believe an emphasis on rigorous systems engineering 
principles and processes will help to identify and correct problems in 
a timely manner in the program cycle and provide the foundation for a 
solid program. These plans and strategies should include the 
identification of realistic planning, technology maturity verification, 
and early test and evaluation to include Modeling and Simulation, to 
allow for the discovery of problems early enough to correct them in the 
program cycle.
    Early involvement of developmental and operational test personnel 
is essential to ensure the program is defined and identified 
requirements are meaningful and ``testable.'' It also allows for 
required resources and test infrastructure to be identified and 
documented within realistic cost and schedule.
    Question. What is your view of these recommendations?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will review fully the GAO's findings and 
recommendations.
                          services contracting
    Question. DOD spends over $70 billion a year on services. Concerns 
raised by the GAO and the DOD Inspector General about the Department's 
management of these contracts led to a requirement in section 801 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 for DOD to 
establish a management structure to oversee services contracting. 
Because the Department was slow to implement this provision, Congress 
tightened the requirement for a management structure in section 812 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
    What steps will you take, if confirmed, to implement section 812 
and ensure that the Department has an effective management structure in 
place for the acquisition of contract services?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will review the policies DOD implemented in 
April 2002 in response to section 801 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, and our progress in 
implementing section 812 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006.
    Question. What specific steps, if any, do you believe the 
Department should take in this regard in calendar years 2006 and 2007?
    Answer. I believe the Department plans to issue updated policies, 
procedures and best practices for the acquisition of contract services 
by the end of 2006. With that foundation in place before the end of 
this year, if confirmed, I anticipate working with our Service 
Acquisition Executives to ensure that appropriate training for the 
workforce and other details are in place in 2007 to complete phased 
implementation of the targets in section 812.
    Question. At the request of the committee, the GAO has performed 
best practices work on how the private sector manages services. GAO's 
conclusion is that leading companies have greater visibility and 
management over their services contracts and conduct so called 
``spend'' analyses to find more efficient ways to manage their service 
contractors. This recommendation was incorporated into sections 801 and 
802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 and 
has been reinforced by subsequent legislation.
    What is the status of the Department's efforts to conduct a 
``spend'' analysis, as recommended by GAO and required by statute?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will assess the Department's progress in 
responding to the GAO recommendations and sections 801 and 802 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2002, and ensure that 
appropriate ``next steps'' are taken.
    Question. What specific improvements in the management of service 
contracts have been made as a result of the Department's efforts to 
date?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will review specific improvements that DOD 
has made in this area. I believe that the management of service 
contracts and contracting for services is receiving extremely high 
level management attention within the Department. If confirmed, I will 
ensure that the Department develops a coordinated approach to managing 
service contracts.
    Question. What additional steps, if any, do you believe the 
Department should take to implement the requirement to conduct periodic 
``spend'' analyses for its service contracts?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will assess the Department's progress to 
date in this area and ensure that appropriate ``next steps'' are taken 
to attain the goal of efficient, effective management of service 
contracts.
    Question. Section 805 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2003 established specific goals for the increased use of 
performance-based service contracts and competitive awards of task 
orders under service contracts by the Department of Defense.
    What is your view of the utility of performance-based services 
contracting and the competitive award of task orders?
    Answer. I am not yet in a position to express a view on this 
subject. If confirmed, I will assess the utility of these techniques to 
the Department.
    Question. What is the status of the Department's efforts to achieve 
the goals established in section 805?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will assess the Department's progress in 
achieving these goals.
    Question. What additional steps, if any, do you believe the 
Department should take to meet the goals established in section 805?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will assess the Department's progress in 
achieving these goals, and ensure that appropriate ``next steps'' are 
taken.
                      time and materials contracts
    Question. Recent press reports indicate that some contractors may 
have charged the government one rate under so-called ``time and 
materials'' contracts, while paying subcontractors another, 
substantially lower rate. DOD and other Federal agencies have proposed 
a change to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to address this 
practice.
    What is your view on this issue and the proposed change to the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation?
    Answer. It is my understanding that the clauses in certain time and 
materials contracts provide for payment at the single rate or composite 
rate rather than separate rates for the prime and subcontractors. I 
believe it is therefore important that the contract clauses clearly 
delineate the payment terms. If confirmed, I will assess the proposed 
change to the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
                         contract surveillance
    Question. The GAO and the DOD Inspector General have reported that 
the Department of Defense has failed to provide adequate resources to 
monitor contractors' performance of service contracts. As a result, the 
Department has no assurance that contractors have complied with the 
terms of their contracts and that the Department has received the best 
value when contracting for services.
    What steps, if any, do you believe the Department should take to 
address this problem?
    Answer. If confirmed, I intend to review the Department's current 
guidance on quality assurance oversight and the training currently 
provided to Contracting Officers' Representatives.
                         interagency contracts
    Question. The last decade has seen a proliferation of new types of 
government-wide contracts and multi-agency contracts. These contracts, 
which permit officials of one agency to make purchases under contracts 
entered by other agencies, have provided Federal agencies rapid access 
to high-tech commercial products and related services. In too many 
cases, however, it appears that neither agency takes responsibility for 
making sure that procurement rules are followed and good management 
sense is applied. As a result, the DOD Inspector General, the GSA 
Inspector General, and the GAO have identified a long series of 
problems with interagency contracts, including lack of acquisition 
planning, inadequate competition, excessive use of time and materials 
contracts, improper use of expired funds, inappropriate expenditures, 
and failure to monitor contractor performance.
    What steps has the Department taken to address the abuse of 
interagency contracts and how effective do you believe these steps have 
been?
    Answer. I am not familiar with details of the Department's actions 
in this area. If confirmed, I will assess and take appropriate action 
on the problems identified by the DOD IG, the GSA IG and the GAO. I 
also will assess the progress the Department has made to ensure 
interagency contracts are properly used and are compliant with 
statutory requirements.
    Question. What additional steps, if any, do you believe are needed?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will assess what additional steps are 
needed.
                         acquisition workforce
    Question. What is your assessment of the adequacy of the current 
defense acquisition workforce?
    Answer. This is an area that I am very interested to learn about. 
My understanding is that the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, has directed a comprehensive 
review of the acquisition workforce. I believe this is a very important 
initiative. If confirmed, I plan to be intimately involved and look 
forward to coming back and working with you.
    Question. Should the workforce be increased or decreased, and are 
there specific categories of the workforce such as systems engineers 
that in your view need to be increased?
    Answer. I am aware that the DOD did experience a workforce drawdown 
after the Cold War, that included the acquisition workforce. I have not 
had an opportunity to make specific judgments regarding workforce 
adjustments. However, I am aware, based on my positions in industry, of 
the challenges with the scientific and technical workforce. If 
confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to best achieve the 
right shaping of the acquisition workforce.
    Question. Does DOD's acquisition workforce possess the quality and 
training needed to adapt to new acquisition reforms, as well as to the 
increased workload and responsibility for managing privatization 
efforts?
    Answer. I believe that I will find a very high caliber and 
dedicated acquisition workforce. Based on recent exposure, it appears 
that they have world class training and performance support resources. 
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics, recently established his number one goal as ensuring a 
``High-Performing, Agile, and Ethical Workforce.'' If confirmed, I look 
forward to supporting him and working with the DOD and Congress on this 
most important strategic goal.
    Question. What are your views regarding assertions that the 
acquisition workforce is losing its technical and management expertise 
and is beginning to rely too much on support contractors, FFRDCs, and, 
in some cases, lead systems integrators and prime contractors for this 
expertise?
    Answer. I am not familiar with the details of these assertions. I 
believe the technical and management expertise in our workforce is 
vital to our national security. If confirmed, I will investigate this 
area in detail and personally champion initiatives that address our 
skill gaps and improve our competencies.
                              buy america
    Question. ``Buy America'' issues have been the source of 
considerable controversy in recent years.
    What benefits does the Department obtain from international 
participation in the defense industrial base and under what conditions, 
if any, would you consider it necessary to impose domestic source 
restrictions for a particular product?
    Answer. I am not familiar with the specific details of the recent 
issues related to ``Buy America.'' I consider this an important area. 
If confirmed, I will investigate and formulate my perspectives. I 
believe international participation promotes defense cooperation among 
allies and contributes to operational interoperability, an essential 
ingredient in today's coalition warfare. However, we also need to 
preserve our options for domestic source considerations.
                      the defense industrial base
    Question. What is your view of the current state of the U.S. 
defense industry?
    Answer. I believe the current state of the U.S. defense industry is 
healthy, innovative and competitive from the perspective of traditional 
business metrics. If confirmed, I would work within the DOD and 
Congress to support our strategic direction with industry.
    Question. Over the last decade, numerous mergers and other business 
consolidations have substantially reduced the number of major defense 
contractors.
    Do you believe that consolidation in the defense sector has had an 
adverse impact on competition for defense contracts? If so, what steps 
should be taken to mitigate those effects?
    Answer. I do not believe that consolidation has had an adverse 
impact on competition for U.S. defense contractors as much as it has 
had an adverse impact on the U.S. industry workforce.
    I believe the Department has worked and should continue to work 
closely with the antitrust agencies to evaluate defense-related mergers 
and mitigate potential competitive impacts and to ensure a healthy, 
innovative, and competitive defense industry.
    Question. Do you support further consolidation of the defense 
industry?
    Answer. I neither encourage nor discourage further consolidation. 
Each proposed transaction must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In 
some cases, consolidation can result in the elimination of excess 
capacity, reduce costs, strengthen capabilities, and provide better 
value for DOD and the U.S. taxpayer. At the same time, the Department 
should not support transactions where consolidation benefits do not 
outweigh the benefits associated with maintaining effective competition 
for DOD programs. Competition is healthy.
    Question. What is your position on foreign investment in the U.S. 
defense sector?
    Answer. In general, I favor foreign investment in the U.S. defense 
sector so long as the investment does not pose a threat to national 
security.
                             leasing policy
    Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that it 
is appropriate for the Department to use leases to obtain new capital 
equipment?
    Answer. I believe leasing is an appropriate option to consider. The 
proper analyses need to be conducted and determination made as to the 
cost effectiveness of leasing compared to traditional acquisition 
approaches. I believe both the taxpayer and warfighter can benefit in 
certain circumstances.
    Question. What criteria would you use, if confirmed, in determining 
whether to support a major lease of capital equipment by the Department 
of Defense?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will investigate our procedures for leasing 
capital equipment to assure that the process includes proper analyses 
and a solid business case.
                           procurement ethics
    Question. The Air Force tanker lease proposal raised a number of 
issues related to contractor ethics and the revolving door between 
industry and the Federal Government. At an April 14, 2005, hearing of 
the Subcommittee on Airland, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District 
of Virginia testified that it has been difficult for him to identify 
potential ethics violations by former Department officials who go to 
work for defense contractors, because the Department's records in this 
area are inadequate. An April 2005 report of the GAO also concluded 
that monitoring of former Department employees who go to work for 
defense contractors is limited.
    What is your view of the need to provide greater transparency and 
monitoring of former DOD employees who go to work for the defense 
industry?
    Answer. I am not familiar with the above findings from the 
Subcommittee on Airland nor the GAO report. If confirmed, I will read 
those reports and formulate my view with respect to providing greater 
transparency. I support openness and transparency in our everyday life. 
I believe and support high ethical standards of conduct and behavior 
and will do all I can to promote these standards in DOD. I understand 
this is one of the subjects DOD is considering in the ongoing 
comprehensive ethics review. If confirmed, I will read the reports and 
look at this issue in that context as well.
    Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the tools and 
authorities available to DOD to ensure that its contractors are 
responsible and have a satisfactory record of integrity and business 
ethics?
    Answer. I understand that the current tools and authorities is one 
of the issues under review. If confirmed, I will review this issue in 
that context.
                      shipbuilding industrial base
    Question. In view of the current low rate of ship construction, how 
do we ensure a healthy, viable U.S. shipbuilding industrial base, 
including shipbuilders and second- and third-order supply chains, to 
meet our national security needs?
    Answer. I do not have direct experience in this area. However, I 
understand the importance and challenges of the Navy shipbuilding 
programs. If confirmed, I would work with the Navy and Congress to 
improve the health and viability of the U.S. shipbuilding industrial 
base, and stabilize the shipbuilding programs as much as possible. In 
addition, I believe the Department should seek less expensive 
shipbuilding options. I also believe the Department should contract for 
ships in a manner that provides incentive for better cost performance 
and investment in labor-saving technology, and enables our shipbuilders 
to be more competitive in the global shipbuilding marketplace.
                        shipbuilding acquisition
    Question. In view of the limited competition for shipbuilding 
contracts, which often reduces to sole source procurement or allocation 
following the initial down-select, what incentives would you propose to 
improve contract performance?
    Answer. I believe full and open competition is the preferred 
shipbuilding procurement strategy. I also believe it is in the best 
interest of the government to achieve fixed price type contracts in a 
competitive pricing environment as quickly as possible in our 
shipbuilding programs.
    If confirmed, I will investigate improvement in contract 
performance. For shipbuilding programs where competitive environments 
no longer effectively exist, the Department needs to consider 
reasonable profit incentives on all contract types and appropriate 
share lines on cost type contracts to improve contract performance.
    For example, the performance incentives could be event-based. The 
incentives and share lines need to motivate the shipbuilder to perform, 
and provide some measure of protection to the government if program 
costs rise too much.
    Question. One of the greatest challenges the Navy faces in its 
shipbuilding program is the lengthy timeline that commences with 
defining the requirement for a new ship class and effectively ends with 
deploying the first ship of the class--a timeline that has historically 
run as long as 15 years. This lengthy timeline tends to increase cost, 
introduces obsolescence issues, and causes lost opportunities while 
older ship classes remain ``on the line'' awaiting arrival of their 
more capable replacements.
    What insights can you offer on effective methods to reduce this 
timeline and accordingly reduce cost while increasing capability of the 
Fleet?
    Answer. I believe the Department should continue to leverage 
commercial standards and gather the lessons learned and consider ways 
to provide global shipbuilding with innovation and modernization.
               joint unmanned combat air system (j-ucas)
    Question. This committee established a goal for DOD that by 2010, 
one-third of U.S. military operational deep strike aircraft would be 
unmanned, and by 2015, one-third of all U.S. military ground combat 
vehicles would be unmanned.
    What is your assessment of the Department's commitment to the 
unmanned deep strike mission? What role will you play, if confirmed, in 
the oversight of this effort?
    Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing and being an 
active participant in the Department's commitment to unmanned deep 
strike mission. It is my understanding that the Department is committed 
to unmanned systems in a variety of roles.
    Question. Over the past year, the Air Force has identified a need 
for an ``interim'' or ``mid-term'' bomber to satisfy deep strike 
mission requirements in the 2015 to 2018 timeframe.
    What is your assessment of the Department's ability and commitment 
to satisfy the deep strike mission in the 2015 to 2018 timeframe with 
an unmanned aircraft system?
    Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review the programs that 
would provide this capability.
                         science and technology
    Question. What, in your view, is the role and value of science and 
technology programs in meeting the Department's transformation goals 
and in confronting irregular, catastrophic, traditional, and disruptive 
threats?
    Answer. I believe that the DOD S&T program has a long history of 
developing superior technologies and capabilities to address the 
current and future security threats. The Department's investment in S&T 
has historically given our forces the technological superiority to 
prevail over predicted threats and the agility to adapt quickly to 
unanticipated threats. I believe this role is still valid in today's 
strategic environment. As the pace of global technology availability 
increases, with a commensurate increase in the pace of threat 
evolution, the role of a well balanced S&T program is more important 
than ever.
    Question. If confirmed, what direction would you provide regarding 
funding targets and priorities for the Department's long-term research 
efforts?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with Mr. Young as the DDR&E to 
ensure our S&T investment is balanced. I believe S&T funding is 
important to our future capabilities, and I would be concerned if 
funding levels ever became seriously out of balance with the rest of 
our Defense program.
                          technology strategy
    Question. The Nation is confronted with a dispersed enemy expert at 
using relatively simple, inexpensive technology to achieve destructive 
and disruptive results. Creative prediction and adaptation to 
continuously changing threats is a focus for this Committee. Past 
investments in long-term research have resulted in the Department's 
ability to rapidly pull technologies and solutions from the laboratory 
to confront emerging threats.
    If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure the 
Department's continued ability to rapidly respond to unexpected 
threats?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would support close collaboration between 
the acquisition, technology, and operational communities to identify 
current needs and to anticipate future operational needs arising from a 
changing national and world security environment.
    Question. How would you direct efforts of the defense research 
community to develop a responsive research strategy capable of quick 
reaction but which is also designed to include sustained investments in 
the development of a set of capabilities based on threat predictions 
and identification of related technology gaps?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will support Mr. Young in his role as the 
DDR&E to ensure our DOD S&T Program investment is balanced to meet 
near-term and long-term needs.
                         technology transition
    Question. The Department's efforts to quickly transition 
technologies to the warfighter have yielded important results in the 
last few years. Challenges remain to institutionalizing the transition 
of new technologies into existing programs of record and major weapons 
systems and platforms. The Department's fiscal year 2006 budget 
includes increases across a spectrum of technology transition programs.
    What challenges to transition do you see within the Department?
    Answer. One of the principal challenges to transition is the lack 
of funding flexibility and the extended timelines of our requirements 
and budget processes. Successful transition requires an appropriately 
mature technology, a user need, an insertion window in the program of 
record and budgeted resources for implementation.
    Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to enhance the 
effectiveness of technology transition efforts?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with Mr. Krieg and Mr. Young as 
the DDR&E to identify impediments or process improvements to ensure the 
Department can effectively and efficiently transition technology to the 
warfighter.
    Question. What is your assessment of the effectiveness of the rapid 
reaction and quick reaction special projects funds?
    Answer. I am not familiar with these funds; however, programs that 
allow flexibility to fund emergent programs to accelerate technology to 
the warfighter are important tools. If confirmed, I will work with Mr. 
Young as the DDR&E to enhance our rapid reaction program and other 
similar programs to meet warfighter needs.
    Question. Are there lessons learned through rapid reaction programs 
that are applicable to the Department's broader acquisition processes?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with Mr. Krieg and Mr. Young as 
the DDR&E to identify lessons learned to ensure our rapid reaction 
programs continue to be flexible and enhance our acquisition process.
                         small business issues
    Question. The Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program 
accounts for approximately $1 billion in defense research grants 
annually.
    What emphasis will you place on participation by the acquisition 
community in setting research priorities for the SBIR and in accepting 
new solutions into existing programs of record?
    Answer. I believe the SBIR program is an important source of 
technology for the Department. If confirmed, I will continue to 
actively involve the acquisition community in identifying its research 
needs and transition opportunities for all research including SBIR.
                        congressional oversight
    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information.
    Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before 
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as the Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition and Technology?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
               Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
                             incentive fees
    1. Senator McCain. Mr. Finley, per the DOD Award Fee Guide, ``. . . 
an award fee is an amount of money which is added to a contract and 
which a contractor may earn in whole or in part during performance and 
that is sufficient to provide motivation for excellence in such areas 
as quality, timeliness, technical ingenuity, and cost-effective 
management.'' A contractor starts with 0 percent of an award fee works 
for the evaluated fee for each evaluation period. The contractor does 
not start with 100 percent and get portions deducted along the way. A 
Fee Determining Officer (FDO) ensures the amount and percentage of an 
award fee earned accurately reflects the contractor's performance. The 
award fee guide clearly delineates the roles and responsibilities of 
the FDO and defines how an award fee plan can be developed to map out 
the process of how a contractor should be evaluated. The GAO has shown 
through a recent study that from their sample of 597 contracts the 
median percentage of available award fees paid was 90 percent. This 
study clearly demonstrates that not only is the award fee guide not 
being followed but in some cases it is being blatantly disregarded. Why 
are our FDOs not using their training and the published guidance when 
determining award fees and what do you plan to do to rectify this 
situation?
    Mr. Finley. FDOs review the performance of the contractor and 
determine independently the amount of award fee the contractor should 
receive. The amount of award fee paid on any particular contract is 
dependent upon the award fee criteria established for that contract and 
the judgment of the FDO with regard to how the contractor performed 
against the stated award fee criteria.
    In general, I believe the FDOs are using their training and 
following their Award Fee Guides. Too much subjectivity could be at the 
root of the guides and requirements which can make performance 
measurement less than optimum.
    Guidance is planned to be provided in support of the GAO Report. 
This guidance should include the need for award fee plans containing 
objective measurable criteria when possible, which when combined with 
the subjective judgment of the FDO should improve the correlation 
between contractor performance and award fee earned.

    2. Senator McCain. Mr. Finley, please clarify how incentive fees 
are awarded. Do we first, sign a cost-plus contract that puts most of 
the risk for these major development programs on the government; then 
offer the contractor the chance to earn an award fee on top of having 
their costs reimbursed; then, when a program experiences problems, the 
contractor can still earn millions of dollars in award fees for helping 
to correct the issues which they are partially responsible for 
creating?
    Mr. Finley. Incentive Fee awards are generally tied directly to a 
contractor's cost performance on a particular contract. Incentive fee 
contracts can be based upon a single incentive (usually cost) or upon 
multiple incentives (cost, schedule, and/or technical performance). The 
range of incentive fee is established at contract award as part of the 
basic contract. Incentive fees can be used on either cost reimbursement 
contracts or fixed-price contracts.
    A cost-plus-incentive-fee contract is a cost reimbursement contract 
that provides for an initially negotiated target fee to be adjusted 
later by a formula based on the relationship of the total allowable 
cost to the total target cost. A fixed-price incentive contract is a 
fixed-price contract that provides for adjusting profit and 
establishing a final contract price by a formula based on the 
relationship of the final negotiated total cost to total target cost. A 
fixed-price incentive contract also has an established ceiling price 
whereby any contract costs in excess of the ceiling price are fully 
absorbed by the contractor.
    ``Award Fee'' provisions are used, usually, to supplement a ``base 
fee'' under a cost-plus award fee contract. The base fee on a cost-plus 
award fee contract cannot exceed 3 percent of the estimated cost of the 
contract exclusive of the fee.
    The assignment of risk is a matter of negotiation between the 
Contracting Officer and the contractor. In determining the Government's 
position with regard to the assumption of risk, the Contracting Officer 
considers a number of factors which include, but are not limited to: 1) 
the nature of the work to be performed; 2) the degree of technical 
uncertainty; and 3) the certainty of contract cost and schedule 
performance.
    When a program experiences problems that are ultimately corrected, 
or not corrected, as the case may be, the FDO must ascertain what role 
the contractor played and whether, and to what level, the contractor 
should be held responsible. It is the responsibility of the FDO to 
properly reward, or not to reward, a contractor's performance based on 
the facts and circumstances of each acquisition.

    3. Senator McCain. Mr. Finley, what strategies does the private 
sector use as incentive for their business partners?
    Mr. Finley. Strategies for business partnership incentives in the 
private sector start with relationships. Typically, relationships are 
built, for example, through market opportunities, program experience, 
and competency gaps. From my experience, we build business cases for 
partnerships, for example, that identify incentives to provide 
compelling market entry opportunities, to enhance contract performance 
or to bridge respective competencies such that there is a multiplier 
effect of having vs. not having the business partnership.
    Business incentives become a part of a business case. Examples of 
business incentives are summarize as follows:

        1. Higher profit
        2. Reduced quality control oversight.
        3. Share best practices

    These incentives, for example, are realized as a result of 
demonstrating consistent on-time product delivery, lower deliverable 
defects and best practice implementation over periods of time. Business 
incentives can be structured for different levels of performance 
resulting in the motivation to maximize performance. Measurement 
periods are typically utilized on a continuous basis, with the downside 
for loss of incentives, if/when there is an interruption of the 
performance.
    Sharing and implementing best practices in the private sector 
provided significant payoff due to having a horizontal impact for the 
company vs. any singular program or functional area. Use of Lean Six-
Sigma practices that are fully endorsed by executive leadership can 
provide a culture of continuous learning and proactive process 
improvement. Although the terminology characterizing performance may 
change from time to time, the fundamentals of private sector 
performance (shareholder value, cash flow, earnings, and market share) 
will improve.

    4. Senator McCain. Mr. Finley, what changes do you propose with 
regard to acquisition reform?
    Mr. Finley. Deputy Secretary England and Under Secretary Krieg have 
conducted a comprehensive review of department business practices as 
part of the recently completed Quadrennial Defense Review. As a result, 
a number of actions have been initiated that should improve the 
strategic and tactical acquisition management of the DOD.
    I plan to be part of the leadership team for implementation of the 
above actions and propose that we improve our technology maturity and 
harden our requirements sooner in the acquisition process.

    5. Senator McCain. Mr. Finley, fixed-price contracts shift the risk 
to the contractor and incentivize the contractor to increase the 
reliability of the system components. How can DOD return to a more 
common use of fixed-price contracts?
    Mr. Finley. The preponderance of DOD contract actions in fiscal 
year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 were fixed price. In fiscal year 2004, 
DOD awarded 73 percent of its contract actions and 60 percent of its 
dollar obligations under fixed-price contracts. In fiscal year 2005, 
DOD awarded 93 percent of its contract actions and 61 percent of its 
dollar obligations under fixed-price contracts.
    Fixed price-type contracting is the Department's preferred method 
of contracting. However, the Federal Acquisition Regulation provides 
for a wide spectrum of contract types in order to provide the needed 
flexibility in acquiring the variety of goods and services that the DOD 
acquires.
    Risk needs to be managed and drives the choice of contract 
vehicles. I believe we can do more in the area of fixed-price 
contracting as we bring more mature technology and requirements 
stability reducing the risk to the marketplace faster.

    6. Senator McCain. Mr. Finley, please provide your thoughts on FAR 
Part 12 versus FAR Part 15 contracts for major weapon system 
procurement.
    Mr. Finley. My thoughts are that FAR Part 15 is the appropriate 
statute for major weapon systems procurement. It provides an 
appropriate level of rigor to manage and deliver complex products and 
services such as major weapon systems.
    FAR Part 12 can only be considered by DOD for major weapon systems 
procurement when certain conditions have been satisfied in accordance 
with section 2379 of title 10, U.S.C. Section 2379 was added by section 
803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. 
Section 2379 provides that a major weapon system may be treated as a 
commercial item, or purchased under procedures established for the 
procurement of a commercial item, only if the Secretary of Defense 
determines that the major weapon system is a commercial item, as 
defined in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act; such treatment 
is necessary to meet national security objectives; and the 
congressional defense committees are notified at least 30 days before 
such treatment or purchase occurs. Section 2379 also provides that the 
authority to make the required determination may be delegated only to 
the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of James I. Finley follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                 December 20, 2005.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    James I. Finley of Minnesota, to be Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition and Technology, vice Michael W. Wynne.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The biographical sketch of James I. Finley, which was 
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was 
referred, follows:]
                 Biographical Sketch of James I. Finley
    Jim has over 30 years of multi-national business leadership and 
management experience. Programs span air, land, sea, and space for the 
DOD (all Services and DARPA) and include the FAA Automatic Surface 
Detection Radar systems and the NASA Space Shuttle Program. Systems and 
subsystems experience includes mission analysis, design, development 
and deployment of weapon delivery, flight control, navigation, 
information management, C\4\ISR, battle space management, chem/bio 
defense systems. His education includes a Masters of Business 
Administration (MBA) and Bachelors of Science in Electrical Engineering 
(BSEE).
    With a background that includes marketing, finance, program 
management, engineering and manufacturing, he brings a broad experience 
base of technology including international technology transfer, 
outsourcing, product development, multi-plant operations management, 
lean manufacturing implementation, demand flow technology programs, six 
sigma/black belt systems, information technology systems, purchasing, 
logistics, facilities, security, product support and total quality 
management.
    His leadership and strategic planning abilities have led many 
companies, including large and small operations, to achieve double-
digit financial growth. Jim has also participated in many acquisitions 
and divestitures providing business analysis including strategic fit, 
organizational alignment, marketing assessments, project evaluations 
and manufacturing audits.
    Jim has achieved significant operational recognition and success 
through progressive, increasing management responsibilities at General 
Electric, Singer, Lear Siegler, United Technologies and General 
Dynamics, where he was a Corporate Officer, President of Information 
Systems and Chair of the Business Development Council. In 2002, Jim 
formed his own consulting company, The Finley Group, LLC, that provides 
business assistance and advice for all facets of the business cycle 
including start-up, growth, acquisition and divestiture.
    He resides in Chanhassen, Minnesota, and enjoys golf, cycling, 
fishing, reading, and volunteer's work.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals 
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a 
form that details the biographical, financial, and other 
information of the nominee. The form executed by James I. 
Finley in connection with his nomination follows:]
                          UNITED STATES SENATE
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              Room SR-228
                       Washington, DC 20510-6050
                             (202) 224-3871
                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
      BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
    Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If 
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the 
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation 
of your answer applies.
                    Part A--Biographical Information
    Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in 
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for 
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in 
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.

    1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
    James I. Finley.

    2. Position to which nominated:
    Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.

    3. Date of nomination:
    December 20, 2005.

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

    5. Date and place of birth:
    August 25, 1946; Rockford, IL.

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

    7. Names and ages of children:
    Kathleen O'Malley, 37.
    James D. Wood, 35.
    Benjamin J. Finley, 34.
    Daniel J. Finley, 31.
    Christopher J. Finley, 26.
    Alexander J. Finley, 23.

    8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
    California State University, Fresno - MBA, 1974, 1972 to 1974, 
Masters of Business Administration.
    Milwaukee School of Engineering - BSEE, 1968, 1964 to 1968, 
Bachelor of Science, Electrical Engineering.

    9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the 
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of 
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
    President - The Finley Group LLC - Chanhassen, MN, 2002 to Present.
    President & CEO - Smartskin Inc. - Chaska, MN - 2000 to 2001.
    Corporate Vice President and President - General Dynamics, 
Information Systems - Bloomington, MN, 1998 to 2000.
    Vice President - Computing Devices International, Bloomington, MN - 
1996 to 1998.
    Vice President - United Technologies, Norden Systems, Norwalk, CT - 
1990 to 1996.

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

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

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

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

    14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions 
for outstanding service or achievements.
    Examples of performance awards under my leadership:
      Boeing Gold Certification Award,
      Honeywell Preferred Supplier Award,
      Northrop Grumman Blue Achievement,
      Lockheed Martin Best In Class Rating,
      Defense Security Service ``Outstanding'' Assessment,
      George Westinghouse Award.

    15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of 
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have 
written.
    Many articles were authored by me which focused on company 
newspapers. I have also authored an article for the World Radio 
Communications (WRC) Conference as well as the International Society 
for Optical Engineering (SPIE).
    Examples when President at General Dynamics Information Systems and 
Vice President at United Technologies Norden Systems Include:

          1. General Dynamics Interlink in April 1998 featured the 
        launch of ``Bold Prudence.'' ``Bold Prudence'' was an across 
        the board cost competitive program in the company that resulted 
        in higher productivity improvements and substantial cost 
        savings.
          2. United Technologies Engineering Coordination Activities 
        (UTECA) News featured articles from me as Chairman of UTECA 
        addressing future directions.
          3. WRC 2000 in Istanbul, Turkey, had an article by me 
        addressing ``Information Management and E-Business with Little 
        LEO (Low Earth Orbit) Systems.''
          4. SPIE Proceedings in 1998 had an article by me about ``An 
        Industry Perspective on Battlespace Digitization.''

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

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

                           Signature and Date
    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete.
                                                   James I. Finley.
    This 6th day of January, 2006.

    [The nomination of James I. Finley was reported to the 
Senate by Chairman Warner on February 16, 2006, with the 
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination 
was confirmed by the Senate on February 17, 2006.]
                              ----------                              

    [Prepared questions submitted to Thomas P. D'Agostino by 
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied 
follow:]
                        Questions and Responses
                                 duties
    Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of 
the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs?
    Answer. There are a number of duties and responsibilities for the 
Deputy Administrator position. These duties and responsibilities all 
come together and are focused on the nuclear weapons stockpile and the 
nuclear weapons complex. This principal duty will be to lead the 
Defense Programs staff and the senior managers across the nuclear 
weapons complex to maintain a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear 
weapons stockpile, to ensure the safe and efficient operations of the 
nuclear weapons complex, and ensure that capabilities required for 
future national security needs are maintained.
    Question. What background and experience do you possess that you 
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
    Answer. My background and experience is well suited for these 
duties. As an officer in the U.S. Navy, I was selected by Admiral 
Rickover and trained as a nuclear submarine officer. In this capacity I 
managed technically complex, high-hazard operations on nuclear 
submarines. This training instilled a commitment to quality, 
discipline, and integrity that are so important when dealing with 
nuclear operations. After over 8 years on Active-Duty in the submarine 
force I continued to serve in the national security arena as a Naval 
Reserve Officer and as a propulsion systems program manager for the 
Seawolf (SSN21) submarine. I then moved to the Department of Energy and 
worked in a wide variety of both technical and management positions, in 
the areas of tritium reactor restart, as Deputy Director in the Office 
of Stockpile Computing, as the Deputy Director for Nuclear Weapons 
Research, Development and Simulation, and most recently, as the 
Assistant Deputy Administrator for Program Integration. In that 
capacity, I reported directly to the Deputy Administrator for Defense 
Programs to integrate the stockpile stewardship program and budget 
across four production sites, three national laboratories, and a test 
site. I have earned a Masters in Business-Finance from John Hopkins 
University and a Masters in National Security Studies from the Naval 
War College. I have over 29 years of service as an Active-Duty Naval 
Officer, a career civil servant, and as an Officer in the Naval Reserve 
where I have attained the rank of captain. All of my professional 
experience has been focused on service (military and civilian) in 
support of our national security. I am privileged to have been able to 
serve my country and am confident that this combination of service and 
education qualifies me very well to perform the duties of the Deputy 
Administrator for Defense Programs.
    Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to 
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Deputy Administrator 
for Defense Programs?
    Answer. I would focus my action on communications. Clear and 
effective communications are paramount to success in any organization, 
and even more important with an organization that is large, 
geographically dispersed and with high-hazard and technical operations. 
I would look to increase the amount of time I spend talking to the all 
levels of management, technical and support staff, in headquarters and 
the field. My approach has always been to treat everyone with dignity 
and respect and I never fail to learn something when I take the time to 
interact directly with the people in the program.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do 
you expect that the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) would prescribe for you?
    Answer. If confirmed, I expect the Administrator would have me 
focus on the primary duties of the Deputy Administrator as I have 
described above with a focus on leading the transformation of the 
nuclear weapons complex (people, places, processes, and capabilities) 
to ensure that a responsive infrastructure--as described in the 
administration's 2001 Nuclear Posture Review--is fully implemented. 
Additionally I expect that the Administrator will ask me to help him 
make the NNSA an organization that is known for excellence, encourages 
innovation, and fosters dedication by its employees.
    Question. If confirmed, how would you work with the following 
program officials?
    Other deputies in the NNSA.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the other Deputy 
Administrators and the supporting Associate Administrators. In NNSA, 
the Administrator has provided expectations for the management team, 
but we rely on each other and constant communication to achieve the 
mission. We meet at least weekly as a group in staff meetings, 
Management Council, or Leadership Council meetings. I will also carry 
forward a technique that I used as Assistant Deputy Administrator for 
Program Integration. In that position I established a periodic set of 
informal one-on-one meetings with some Associate Administrators within 
the NNSA. I found that one-on-one meetings were very useful in quickly 
getting to central issues that need attention and resolution.
    Question. The Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Assistant 
Secretary for Environmental Management. The Secretary has made it clear 
that he is interested in a Department that works together and not as a 
group of disparate organizations. If confirmed, I will focus my work 
with in the area of nuclear materials disposition and consolidation.
    Question. Other Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Energy 
(DOE).
    Answer. Within the context of the NNSA Act I believe it is 
important to have a proactive working relationship with DOE Assistant 
Secretaries. If confirmed, other DOE Assistant Secretaries I would 
expect to work with most are in the areas of Management and 
Administration; Environment, Safety and Health; and Nuclear Energy. I 
already have an established working relationship with all of these 
individuals as a result of my current position as Assistant Deputy 
Administrator for Program Integration. My approach has been to maintain 
the principles of honesty and integrity in all matters. As a result of 
this approach, I have earned a high level of trust and support from 
others within the Department. It is this level of trust that I feel 
will assist me if I am confirmed as Deputy Administrator for Defense 
Programs.
                     major challenges and problems
    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will 
confront the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs?
    Answer. There are a number of challenges that will need to be 
addressed in the upcoming years. In effect they all roll together into 
the most significant challenge of transforming the nuclear weapons 
stockpile and infrastructure while continuing to support near-term 
deliverables to the Department of Defense (DOD). Within this challenge 
is the need to establish the viability of the Reliable Replacement 
Warhead concept as a means of providing a sustainable nuclear 
deterrent, driving integration within the nuclear weapons complex, 
implementing an appropriate level of interdependence across our 
contractors to maximize efficiency of operations, and continuing on the 
path of developing a responsive infrastructure. This involves also 
keeping a focus on meeting near-term DOD requirements such as the B61 
and W76 Life Extension Program schedules. The Responsive Infrastructure 
initiative and work authorized for the Reliable Replacement Warhead are 
in their early stages but hold promise to set the nuclear weapons 
program on the right course to confidently maintain the Nation's 
nuclear deterrent well into the future.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for 
addressing these challenges?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will focus on working closely with the 
Department of Defense to ensure that changes considered for the 
stockpile consider the effects on the nuclear complex infrastructure 
that supports the stockpile. Where possible we would move away from 
hard to manufacture items, exotic materials and manufacturing 
processes, to a stockpile that is easier to manufacture, uses materials 
that are safer for the environment and our workers, and considers full 
life-cycle costs in the design, manufacture, maintenance, and 
disassembly. Focus will be maintained on near-term DOD requirements by 
providing clear contractor expectations in program plans and in 
performance evaluation plans. This can be best accomplished by looking 
at the nuclear weapons program as an integrated whole vice activities 
being performed across eight different sites. My Navy and program 
management experience has taught me to approach work in a systematic 
way. This involves identifying the problem, writing down and agreeing 
to plans with clear milestones, assigning qualified people, and 
tracking performance.
    Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in 
the performance of the functions of the Deputy Administrator for 
Defense Programs?
    Answer. A problem that I am concerned with deals with the risks 
inherent in the position of being the Deputy Administrator for Defense 
Programs. The work in the nuclear weapons complex involves dealing with 
nuclear weapons, hazardous materials, and complex operations on a daily 
basis. Dealing with nuclear weapons operations is serious business that 
involves accepting and managing risk. The Deputy Administrator, similar 
to the Commanding Officer of a Navy ship, is ultimately responsible for 
the actions of the program and how those actions affect worker and 
public health, safety, and security, including managing risk.
    Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines 
would you establish to address these problems?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will commit my personal involvement and 
that of Defense Programs management to aggressively work with the 
national laboratories, production sites, and other interested parties 
such as Congress and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to 
deal with the issue of managing risk in the nuclear weapons complex. I 
expect to see a plan in this year to focus attention across the entire 
nuclear weapons complex that will enable Defense Programs to authorize 
and continue the work necessary to meet our mission requirements on 
time, in a safe and secure manner. Additionally, I will work hard to 
communicate the message that line management must take responsibility 
for safety and mission performance and not pass this responsibility to 
the variety of boards, panels, teams, and assessment groups that are 
charged with assessing performance and safety.
    Question. The previous Deputy Administrator, in his confirmation 
hearing on October 11, 2001, testified that a major challenge 
confronting the NNSA was ``a general view that NNSA presently has too 
many overlapping functions and assigned personnel at headquarters and 
field levels, leading to reduced efficiency in the labs and plants. . . 
. The program planning and management tasks are critically tied to 
knowing what to do, when to do it, and to making clear assignments for 
the work. That planning function will be centered at headquarters, with 
execution in the field. There appears to be a major challenge in 
clarifying roles and responsibilities for both the planning function 
and the execution function, with far too much overlap in 
responsibilities (either assigned or assumed) at the present.''
    In your view, what progress has been made in addressing this 
challenge and what progress, if any, remains to be made?
    Answer. Significant progress has been made since Dr. Everet Beckner 
made these remarks. In the past 4 years Defense Programs has 
established and implemented a new program architecture, an improved 
planning and programming process, and a revised budget structure for 
the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Previously, this program was 
organized around 32 program elements, each independently managed. 
Program plans that existed for these program elements were inconsistent 
and did not include milestones that could be tracked over time. 
Consequently there was little linkage between resources and program 
output, and it was difficult to measure performance. This was a 
systematic problem that could only be fixed through significant 
changes. Planning and program management principles were applied that 
developed a planning structure, defined a program milestone structure, 
and identified a change control processes. The end result is program 
and implementation plans that are consistent, as well as a set of level 
1 and level 2 milestones that describe the program over a 5-year 
period. One of the key attributes of changing the programmatic 
structure was to more closely align the budget to the work being 
performed in the program.
    However, despite these improvements much more can be done. More 
time and attention should be given towards identifying expectations for 
the contractor and clearly articulating these expectations into clear, 
coherent, and challenging contractor performance evaluation plans. I 
will focus on the theme of ``being a demanding customer'' in my 
direction and discussion with Defense Programs managers. The selection 
of a new management and operating contractor at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory (LANL) gives us an immediate opportunity to work on being a 
demanding customer in the operations of the laboratory and the 
completion of program deliverables.
                               priorities
    Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish 
in terms of issues, which must be addressed by the Deputy Administrator 
for Defense Programs?
    Answer. My highest priority revolves around the people in the 
nuclear weapons program. It does not matter whether these are Federal, 
contractor, headquarters or field personnel, the program is successful 
because we have dedicated and qualified people addressing the needs of 
our Nation's security. It is important to take care of these people and 
make sure that decisions that are made are balanced with the impact on 
the workforce. If confirmed, broad priorities I plan to establish 
include transforming the nuclear weapons stockpile and the nuclear 
weapons complex while supporting near-term deliverables to the 
Department of Defense (DOD). The DOD observes our ability to deliver on 
commitments through the lens of the production complex. We must focus 
on continually improving our delivery on commitments to the DOD.
    Question. In your view, should cost containment and cost control be 
a high priority for the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs?
    Answer. Yes, cost containment and control is a high priority for 
Defense Programs. As the Assistant Deputy Administrator for Program 
Integration I have been working on this very complex issue for NNSA. 
For example, I have been concerned with the different methods that are 
being used by our contractors on managing the costs in the Operations 
of Facilities program. These different methods make it very difficult 
for the Federal program manager to be able to compare costs and develop 
meaningful trends and analysis. To address this, I had directed the 
review of the Operations of Facilities program to drive cost 
efficiencies and consistency across the nuclear weapons sites. As a 
result of that review, Defense Programs will be implementing activity 
based costing principles for selected key mission critical facilities 
and standardized accounting using a common work breakdown structure.
                             relationships
    Question. Please describe your understanding of the relationship of 
the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs with the following 
officials:
    The Administrator of the NNSA.
    The Secretary of Energy.
    The Deputy Secretary of Energy.
    The Under Secretary of Energy for Energy and Environment.
    The Under Secretary of Energy for Science.
    The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
    The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, 
and Biological Matters.
    The Commander, U.S. Strategic Command.
    The Deputy Under Secretary of Energy for Counter-Terrorism.
    The Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
    Answer. My understanding of the relationship of the Deputy 
Administrator for Defense Programs with other officials is as follows:
    1. NNSA Administrator: The Deputy Administrator for Defense 
Programs reports directly to the NNSA Administrator. The Administrator 
entrusts the Deputy Administrator with the responsibility of managing 
the nuclear weapons program.
    2. Secretary of Energy: The Deputy Administrator for Defense 
Programs may also report to the Secretary of Energy, through the NNSA 
Administrator. The Administrator will likely trust the Deputy 
Administrator to deal directly with the Secretary on issues in his area 
of responsibility, with knowledge of the Administrator.
    3. Deputy Secretary of Energy: The Deputy Administrator for Defense 
Programs may also report to the Deputy Secretary of Energy, through the 
NNSA Administrator. The Administrator will likely trust the Deputy 
Administrator to deal directly with the Deputy Secretary on issues in 
his area of responsibility, with knowledge of the Administrator.
    4. The Under Secretary of Energy for Energy and the Environment: 
The Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs would deal with the Under 
Secretary of Energy and the Environment through the NNSA Administrator. 
As with the Deputy Secretary and Secretary, the Administrator will 
likely trust the Deputy Administrator to deal with the Under Secretary 
for Energy and Environment with knowledge of the Administrator. I do 
not expect the Deputy Administrator would have much direct dealing with 
the Under Secretary, but would deal with a number of the Under 
Secretary's direct reports (Environment, Safety and Health and Nuclear 
Energy, for example).
    5. The Under Secretary of Energy for Science: When the position of 
Under Secretary of Energy for Science is formalized and filled, I 
expect that Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs will deal with 
the Under Secretary on a variety of issues. With the Department's 
emphasis on science, NNSA will seek to leverage work in the area in the 
areas of supercomputing, high energy density physics and materials 
sciences. As with the Deputy Secretary and Secretary, the Administrator 
will likely trust the Deputy Administrator to deal with the Under 
Secretary for Science with knowledge of the Administrator.
    6. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology: 
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics and 
Technology is also the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC), 
which is the focal point for Department of Energy (DOE) and Department 
of Defense relations. While the NNSA Administrator is DOE's NWC member 
and would most likely deal directly with the Under Secretary of 
Defense, the Deputy Administrator generally attends NWC meetings and is 
heavily involved in NWC matters.
    7. The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical 
and Biological Matters: The Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs 
deals with the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and 
Chemical and Biological Defense Programs on a regular basis. The 
Assistant to the Secretary is the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons 
Council (NWC) Standing and Safety Committee, the flag officer or Senior 
Executive Service ``working level'' group in the Nuclear Weapons 
Council system. In this capacity, even though the formal communications 
path to the Assistant to the Secretary position is through the 
Principal Deputy Administrator for Military Application in Defense 
Programs, I expect the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs will 
spend a significant amount of time working with the Assistant to the 
Secretary, particularly during this period of stockpile transformation.
    8. The Commander, U.S. Strategic Command: The NNSA Administrator 
generally deals directly with the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command; 
however, the Deputy Administrator has significant interaction as well. 
One of the Commander's most important duties related to NNSA is 
providing the annual assessment of the safety, reliability and 
performance of the nuclear weapons stockpile, based on input from 
advisors and the national laboratories. As the Commander is responsible 
for deploying the nuclear weapons stockpile, Defense Programs and 
Strategic Command have a close relationship at many levels. I expect 
the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs will spend a significant 
amount of time working with the Commander, particularly during this 
period of stockpile transformation.
    9. The Deputy Under Secretary of Energy for Counterterrorism: The 
Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs works closely with the Deputy 
Under Secretary, especially since the counterterrorism assets--people 
and equipment and expertise--are supported by Defense Programs.
    10. The Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation: 
The Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs works closely on both 
programmatic and management issues with the Deputy Administrator for 
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. A common example of cooperation 
involves arms control and nonproliferation considerations, where 
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation may coordinate the NNSA's policy 
position but Defense Programs is heavily involved due to potential 
facility or nuclear material implications.
                           management issues
    Question. The Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs is 
responsible for activities occurring at NNSA laboratories and 
production sites across the country.
    What are your views on the roles and responsibilities of field 
managers relative to those of Defense Programs Headquarters managers?
    Answer. Headquarters managers, to include the Deputy Administrator, 
Assistant Deputy Administrators, and Program Managers work with the 
management and operating contractor managers and site office staff to 
plan the programs and set expectations (via Program Plans, 
Implementation Plans, and contractor performance evaluation plans). 
This is both necessary and appropriate since this brings a 
``corporate'' perspective to prioritization, and the necessary 
balancing among programs and sites. Program Managers at Headquarters 
are typically designated by the field contracting officers as 
Contracting Officers Representatives. These representatives provide 
direction to the contractor for the performance of programmatic work 
through the authority of the contracting officers through the Work 
Authorization Process. If confirmed, I will use the Site Office 
Managers to help me understand what is happening in the field since 
they are the closest to the work being performed and should have a 
better understanding of the local site conditions.
    Question. What is your view of Defense Programs' organizational 
structure?
    Answer. Is there a well-delineated and consistent chain of command 
and reporting structure from the field staff to headquarters staff and 
from the contractors to Federal officials? The Defense Programs 
organizational structure works yet I believe that it can be improved. 
One area for improvement is in the area of management of the Readiness 
in Technical Base and Facilities program. These responsibilities are 
now managed in two different Defense Programs organizations. To help 
meet the goal of having a more responsive and efficient nuclear weapons 
complex, these two offices should be consolidated. This combined office 
will be the driving force for transforming the three weapons 
laboratories, the Nevada Test Site and the four production plants into 
more agile and cost effective entities in terms of their physical plant 
and operations. This office will provide integrated program guidance, 
resources and execution oversight to the site offices and management 
and operating contractors. This office will develop a more common work 
breakdown structure for all of the eight contractors, reduce 
unnecessary and costly variations in tasking, and enable the common 
monitoring of program and financial performance among the eight sites.
    There is a well-delineated and consistent chain of command and 
reporting structure in place but the implementation of this chain of 
command needs more attention and discipline. Interaction with the site 
offices is critical to the organizational structure of Defense 
Programs. Discipline in using the chain of command is paramount in 
achieving an organization that is efficient and effective. I will 
emphasize that communication across the program is important. However, 
direction to the contractor can only be exercised using the chain of 
command. During my tenure at DOE and NNSA I have worked within the 
chain of command as well as serving as one of its leaders. Thus, I have 
developed a great understanding and appreciation for this 
responsibility if confirmed.
    Question. In your opinion, do the Federal managers in the field at 
NNSA facilities have enough autonomy and flexibility to work with the 
contractors at those sites to get work accomplished in a safe and 
efficient manner?
    Answer. Yes, Federal managers in the field at NNSA facilities do 
have the authority accomplish work in a safe and efficient manner and 
to stop unsafe operations. These managers can also help identify and 
resolve issues affecting program work and competing priorities within 
the site. However, it does require a close working relationship with 
Headquarters Program Managers. The interdependent nature of our 
programs, between sites and among the technical programs, drives the 
need for communication between site office and Headquarters managers.
    Question. If you are confirmed, what improvements, if any, would 
you undertake to strengthen the project management skills of your 
Federal workforce?
    Answer. Defense Programs is working to implement a strong program 
and project management culture. This resulted in the development and 
implementation of a Defense Programs Management Manual to guide 
expectations and actions of Program Managers. The goal is to create a 
program management organizational culture that values program and 
project management as a discipline based on qualification, technical 
competence, and consistent operating policies and procedures. Each 
program element in the Defense Programs portfolio has a designated 
Program Manager. These program managers are now recognized across the 
nuclear weapons complex as the single Federal individual responsible 
for that particular program area. Defense Programs is completing the 
definition of Program Manager qualification requirements. This 
qualification activity is aimed at both existing program managers and 
staff. All Defense Programs line item projects have qualified Federal 
Project Directors. If confirmed, I would continue the changes underway.
    Question. Does the Office of Defense Programs require its project 
managers to be credentialed through an accredited project management 
training program? If not, do you believe such a credentialing 
requirement should be established?
    Answer. I support the existing rigorous credentialing program. 
Federal Project Directors (project managers) for capital acquisition 
projects do require credentialing under the DOE Project Manager Career 
Development Program. This program identifies levels of qualification 
based on successful completion of a variety of project management 
related courses and acquisition of experience managing different sizes 
of projects.
                         stockpile stewardship
    Question. Congress established the Stockpile Stewardship Program 
with the aim of creating the suite of computational capabilities and 
experimental tools which--when coupled with the necessary human 
capital--would allow for the continued certification of the nuclear 
weapons stockpile as safe, secure, and reliable without the need for 
full scale, underground nuclear weapons testing. The United States has 
observed a nuclear weapons testing moratorium since 1992.
    As the stockpile continues to age, what do you view as the greatest 
challenges with respect to assuring the safety, reliability and 
security of the stockpile?
    Answer. One challenge will be keeping the right set of skilled 
workers at the laboratories, production sites, and in the Federal 
workforce. Keeping the workforce engaged and exercised will be 
essential in developing a sustaining nuclear deterrent without 
underground testing. Another challenge is gathering enough of the right 
data to maintain confidence in our assessments of the safety, 
reliability, and security of the stockpile. While I am personally 
satisfied with the rigor of the surveillance program, continued 
vigilance is required especially as the average age of warheads in the 
stockpile grows. The Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program may 
address both of these areas of concern. If, with the agreement of 
Congress, we proceed beyond the current feasibility study, we intend to 
more easily assure the safety, reliability, and security of the 
stockpile without the need for underground nuclear testing.
    Question. Most of the experimental and computational facilities and 
tools originally identified in 1994 as required for the science-based 
Stockpile Stewardship program are, or will soon be, in place and fully 
operational.
    In the decade spanning the years 2010 to 2020, what additional 
tools or facilities will be needed to continue to support the Stockpile 
Stewardship program and the goal of assuring a safe, secure, and 
reliable stockpile without a resumption of underground nuclear weapons 
testing?
    Answer. Additional advances in the areas of computation, 
simulation, materials science, and radiography will be needed to 
support the Stockpile Stewardship Program. In the upcoming decade the 
focus will be to fully utilize the tools that we have been developing 
during this decade. An example would be getting the National Ignition 
Facility operational and ready to conduct Stockpile Stewardship 
experiments. Experiments on the National Ignition Facility will allow 
us to probe the extreme conditions of temperature and density found in 
exploding nuclear weapons. It is also important in the upcoming decade 
to pursue a robust experimental program on the Dual Axis Radiographic 
Hydrodynamic Test facility to observe the geometries of imploding 
materials. Additionally, I expect that as material models become more 
refined and as code applications become more complex, that modeling and 
simulation will continue to be a dominant tool as we continue forward 
with Stockpile Stewardship. Also, NNSA plans to increase the Los Alamos 
National Laboratory pit manufacturing capacity to at least 30-40 pits 
per year by the end of fiscal year 2012.
    Question. Have there been any instances in which these new tools 
have successfully resolved a technical issue or uncertainty that in the 
past would have required testing to resolve?
    Answer. Yes, there have been some inherently three-dimensional 
issues in the primary that we could not have resolved without the new 
computational tools that could have required a test for resolution.
                      reliable replacement warhead
    Question. The NNSA is working on a feasibility study for a reliable 
replacement warhead program (RRW), which, if successful could alter or 
replace the need for life extension programs in the future.
    In your view, what benefits could the RRW bring to the Stockpile 
Stewardship program?
    Answer. RRW could bring significant benefit to the Stockpile 
Stewardship Program. The basic principle of the RRW program is to take 
advantage of relaxing legacy stockpile design constraints that were 
based on maximizing the yield of the warhead to the weight of the 
warhead. This should lead us to be able to design replacement 
components that are easier to produce, are safer, more secure and 
environmentally friendly. These replacement components will also be 
designed to increase the design margins of the components that will 
both increase the system reliability and reduce the likelihood that the 
U.S. will need to conduct a nuclear test.
    Question. In your view, would changes be needed to the NNSA complex 
to implement the RRW program?
    Answer. It is too early to tell what types of changes will need to 
be made, if any, to the NNSA complex to implement the RRW program 
because we are in the midst of the RRW study competition. However, 
design parameter priorities for the RRW emphasizes reduced hazardous 
material, ease of manufacture, enhanced safety, increased security, and 
life-cycle costs among others. Specific changes to the complex may, if 
necessary, become more apparent later this year following completion of 
the RRW study.
          progress towards a responsive nuclear infrastructure
    Question. The Nuclear Posture Review issued in the year 2001 called 
for the establishment of a ``responsive'' nuclear weapons 
infrastructure.
    In your view, how should progress towards the establishment of the 
responsive infrastructure be measured?
    Answer. Defense Programs has been jointly developing responsive 
infrastructure mission objectives (e.g., being able to identify, 
understand, and fix a stockpile problem within a specified period of 
time) with the DOD. Our progress towards establishment of a responsive 
nuclear weapons complex infrastructure should be measured on how well 
we are achieving these objectives as judged by DOD. We are also 
evaluating the inclusion of leading indicators of complex 
responsiveness in contracts for our labs and plants. Similar to leading 
economic indicators as forward-looking predictors of future economic 
activity, these responsive indicators, or responsiveness metrics, would 
provide a view on whether we are becoming more or less responsive.
    As the Assistant Deputy Administrator for Program Integration, I 
have been working on leading Defense Programs' current effort to 
developing a responsive infrastructure. I will continue to lead this 
important effort, if confirmed, as the Deputy Administrator for Defense 
Programs.
    Question. Is sufficiently timely progress being made towards the 
goal of a responsive infrastructure?
    Answer. The concept of responsive infrastructure as part of the New 
Triad was first announced in December 2001 with the release of the 
Nuclear Posture Review. Initially, progress was slow as we worked with 
the DOD and others to agree on what a responsive infrastructure really 
is. The pace of progress picked up as the details of a much smaller 
future stockpile and the concept of a Reliable Replacement Warhead was 
developed. The 2012 stockpile plan provided details of a smaller 
stockpile to Congress in June 2004. In the early spring of 2005, we 
established a Responsive Infrastructure Steering Committee and a 
position within Defense Programs to drive actions needed to achieve 
responsive infrastructure goals. Actions have been accelerating since 
that time. I made moving towards a more responsive nuclear weapons 
complex infrastructure one of my key personal goals.
    Question. If confirmed, what would you do to either maintain or 
accelerate this progress?
    Answer. I am committed to accelerating the transformation of the 
nuclear weapons complex into a more responsive infrastructure. 
Infrastructure is defined as the people, business practices, technical 
processes, science and technology base, equipment, and facilities 
required to complete our mission. There are a number of things that we 
can do now (e.g., (1) improve risk management and technical business 
practices and (2) eliminate redundant capabilities) at an affordable 
cost, before any newer, more modern facility would need to be brought 
online.
    Question. The Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Task Force of 
the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) recently issued a report 
titled, ``Recommendations for the Nuclear Weapons Complex of the 
Future.''
    What is your general view of the report and its recommendations? 
The SEAB Task Force report was well done by a group of professionals 
who are sincerely interested in improving the nuclear weapons complex. 
I thank them for their work and acknowledge their contribution in 
helping frame the debate on the future of the complex. They did not, 
nor could not, fully address all details for a complicated system, such 
as the nuclear weapons complex. The Task Force acknowledges this up 
front in their report. For example, their recommendation on timing for 
a consolidated nuclear production center (CNPC) does not recognize the 
challenge of meeting near-term requirements of the current stockpile 
and transforming the nuclear weapons complex infrastructure at the same 
time. It may be decades before all existing legacy weapons, and the 
constraints they impose (e.g., conventional high explosives), are fully 
removed from the stockpile and dismantled.
    Question. Are efforts underway within Defense Programs to analyze, 
respond to, or implement the recommendations of the task force?
    Answer. In my current capacity, I am taking recommendations of the 
SEAB Task Force, as well as other recent reviews (e.g., Defense Science 
Board, Foster Panel, etc.) very seriously. Over the past 6 months, the 
NNSA has been analyzing these recommendations. In addition, I have held 
two strategic retreats (November and January) of senior nuclear weapons 
complex leadership and a concentrated 3-week session (the ``January 
Process'') with about 50 key middle management personnel throughout the 
weapons complex, to establish our preferred long-term planning scenario 
for the future. I have personally met with Secretary on our plan and 
will meet again with him to determine how we will implement our vision 
of the future. I anticipate that our selected path forward will be 
reflected in discussions with Congress later this spring.
    Question. If you are confirmed, what actions would you take, if 
any, to respond to the task force recommendations?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will keep on the current path. We will 
communicate our preferred long-term, infrastructure-planning scenario 
to stakeholders soon and begin implementation. Some actions may be 
consistent with the Task Force recommendations and some may be 
different. I intend to take some actions within the next 18 months to 
demonstrate that I am serious about transforming the complex into a 
more responsive and cost-effective infrastructure.
                addressing legacy and surplus facilities
    Question. The NNSA continues to maintain programmatic 
responsibility for many legacy nuclear weapons facilities that are 
surplus to current mission needs or have exceeded their design lives to 
such an extent that it is not economic to raise them to current 
standards for continued occupancy and use. Many of these facilities are 
mothballed in a safe shutdown mode while awaiting the funds for 
dismantlement. In some cases, NNSA is using scarce infrastructure 
recapitalization funds for the purpose of dismantling these facilities 
instead of transferring this work to the Office of Environmental 
Management, which is the office within the DOE responsible for cleaning 
up the environmental legacy of the nuclear weapons program.
    If confirmed, would you propose any changes or improvements to the 
process by which these legacy facilities are currently being addressed?
    Answer. I support the work within the Office of Environmental 
Management to ensure that the dismantlement and disposal of excess 
legacy facilities are adequately addressed. The question of legacy 
facility disposition is an issue of concern that cannot be solved by 
any one organization within the Department but will require a DOE 
corporate approach to address since this concern exists across a number 
of both NNSA and DOE organizations.
    Question. In your view, should the dismantlement and disposal of 
these excess legacy facilities be budgeted for and executed by the 
Office of Environmental Management, rather than Defense Programs?
    Answer. At this point in time it is not clear to me that assigning 
all Defense Programs dismantlement and disposal to the Office of 
Environmental Management is the right thing to do. Since these excess 
legacy facilities exist across many Departmental elements, a corporate 
DOE approach that looks at the complete picture of the Department's 
legacy sites is more appropriate.
                      maintenance of the stockpile
    Question. How confident are you of the ability of the nuclear 
weapons complex as currently constituted to identify and fix potential 
problems in all weapons expected to be included in the enduring nuclear 
weapons stockpile?
    Answer. I am very confident of the ability of the nuclear weapons 
complex to identify and fix potential problems in the enduring nuclear 
weapons stockpile. This is fundamental to our core mission--nothing 
else matters if we cannot adequately support the enduring stockpile.
    Question. What do you believe to be the biggest challenges in 
maintaining the nuclear weapons expected to be in the enduring 
stockpile?
    Answer. One of the biggest challenges in maintaining the nuclear 
weapons expected to be in the enduring stockpile will be maintaining 
and exercising the highly skilled workforce across the nuclear weapons 
complex to ensure that appropriate skills and capabilities are 
developed and improved. Additionally, maintaining an appropriate level 
of focus and management attention on the variety of surveillance 
activities for the enduring stockpile will be very important.
    Question. In your view, how would the reliable replacement warhead 
program, if successful, change the approach to stockpile stewardship?
    Answer. I do not expect success in the Reliable Replacement Warhead 
program to fundamentally change the approach to Stockpile Stewardship. 
A successful Reliable Replacement Warhead program is a validation of 
the success of Stockpile Stewardship. The program should result in 
replacement of components and will reduce further the likelihood that 
we would ever need to carry out another underground nuclear test. This 
program should drive performance margins higher and reduce 
uncertainties in design. In order to be able to ascertain progress in 
increasing design margins and reducing uncertainties, stewardship of 
the stockpile will continue to play an important role in being able to 
measure and evaluate these parameters.
    Question. With respect to the nuclear weapons production complex as 
currently constituted, are you confident in the continued ability to 
manufacture or otherwise acquire limited life components for the 
enduring stockpile?
    Answer. Yes. Defense Programs has an excellent record in producing 
and delivering limited life components.
                       warhead pit manufacturing
    Question. A significant challenge facing the nuclear weapons 
complex is reconstituting the ability to manufacture and certify 
nuclear weapons pits, and then ramping this capability up to an 
appropriate production rate, which will permit the timely 
replenishment, or replacement of pits in the stockpile.
    What is your view of the current level of progress in 
reconstituting pit production capability?
    Answer. Reconstituting pit production at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory (LANL) has been quite successful as evidenced by the recent 
manufacture of ``Qual 14,'' the last qualification pit. The next pits 
being manufactured in fiscal year 2006 will be of war reserve quality. 
Six war reserve pits will be manufactured in fiscal year 2006 and 10 
pits are planned for fiscal year 2007. The NNSA considers an 
appropriate pit production capacity to be essential to its long-term 
evolution to a more responsive nuclear weapons infrastructure. Congress 
declined to fund planning for a Modern Pit Facility in fiscal year 2006 
citing concerns that pit aging experiments and a thorough analysis of 
the Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure report are not yet complete. 
As a result, NNSA did not seek funding for the Modern Pit Facility in 
fiscal year 2007. As these concerns will be addressed in the coming 
months, NNSA will work with Congress to identify an approach to a long-
term pit production capacity. In the meantime, NNSA plans to increase 
the LANL pit manufacturing capacity to at least 30-40 pits per year by 
the end of fiscal year 2012. I will be working closely with LANL to 
ensure that we have a good understanding of the real capability and 
capacity of the TA-55 facilities.
    Question. What are the most significant near-term and long-term 
challenges?
    Answer. The most significant near-term challenge is the final 
certification of a newly manufactured W88 pit by the end of fiscal year 
2007. The most significant long-term challenge will be to develop a 
plutonium manufacturing capability that is appropriately sized for the 
future stockpile, reflects our best understanding of weapons specific 
pit aging, and is integrated with our needs to support current 
Department of Defense requirements.
    Question. In your view, is this effort on track to meet program 
requirements?
    Answer. Defense Programs is on track to meet the near-term program 
requirements of final certification of a newly manufactured W88 pit by 
the end of 2007 and to manufacture planned pits in 2006 and 2007. Pit 
production is a key element of a responsive nuclear weapons 
infrastructure. Within the next year I expect to have weapons specific 
pit lifetime estimates, a better understanding of the long-term 
requirements for the Stockpile, and a better understanding of the 
outcomes from the Reliable Replacement Warhead study. These elements 
will help inform a decision to address the appropriate plutonium 
capability for the nuclear weapons complex. I will continue to work 
with the Department of Defense to define the size and composition of 
the stockpile. If confirmed as Deputy Administrator for Defense 
Programs, getting this right will be a high priority for me.
                         test readiness posture
    Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2004 requires DOE to achieve and maintain thereafter a test readiness 
posture of not more than 18 months. In other words, DOE would be able 
to resume underground nuclear testing within 18 months of a 
presidential decision to conduct a test. DOE is to achieve this 
readiness no later than October 1, 2006.
    Has sufficient funding been appropriated by Congress to allow DOE 
to meet this requirement? If so, how confident are you that this 
statutory requirement will be met by the end of the current fiscal 
year?
    Answer. Sufficient funding has not been appropriated by Congress to 
allow DOE to meet the requirement to achieve and maintain an 18 month 
test readiness posture.
    Question. In your view, is this posture appropriate to support the 
stockpile?
    Answer. The NNSA has made considerable progress in improving its 
test readiness posture to 24 months by a number of actions including 
production of a set of field-test neutron generators, training nuclear 
test diagnosticians, and completing some of the safety basis 
authorization work. Given that proceeding to 18 months would likely 
result in just more progress in the safety authorization basis work, 
the 24 month test readiness posture is appropriate to support the 
stockpile, especially considering more pressing needs within the 
Stockpile Stewardship Program.
                defense nuclear facilities safety board
    Question. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) has a 
statutorily-directed independent oversight role over nuclear safety 
issues arising within NNSA nuclear weapons facilities.
    What is your view of the current relationship between NNSA and the 
DNFSB?
    Answer. The current relationship between the DNSFB and the NNSA is 
good. In my current position as Assistant Deputy Administrator for 
Program Integration, I brief the Board on a regular basis to discuss 
items of mutual concern and interest. This forum provides an 
opportunity to discuss areas of agreement and disagreement in a manner 
to keep communication lines open.
    Question. Does the current relationship allow for effective 
execution by the DNFSB of its oversight role?
    Answer. Yes, this relationship allows the DNSFB to execute its 
oversight role.
    Question. If confirmed, what actions, if any, would you take to 
improve communication and transparency between the DNFSB and the NNSA 
facilities under the purview of Defense Programs?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would continue to brief the Board on a 
regular basis on areas of mutual concern and interest. This forum has 
worked well.
                        life extension programs
    Question. If confirmed, you will be responsible for managing the 
life extension programs for existing nuclear warheads.
    What is your general assessment of the effectiveness of the life 
extension programs?
    Answer. I believe the Life Extension Programs are highly effective 
for extending the life of warheads in the nuclear weapons stockpile. 
The W87 (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile warhead) program was 
recently completed, and efforts are well underway on the B61-7/11 
(strategic bombs), W76 (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile warhead) 
and W80 (cruise missile warhead).
    Question. How well, in your view, does the nuclear weapons 
complex--encompassing the laboratories and the production sites--
function as an integrated complex and, externally, with the Department 
of Defense in executing the life extension programs?
    Answer. The success of highly integrated activities such as the 
Life Extension Programs testifies that the nuclear weapons complex is 
working relatively well together and with the Department of Defense. 
Every one of the nuclear weapons complex sites is involved with the 
Life Extension Programs in some way, and they have served as specific 
focal points with tangible milestones and deliverables. Activities such 
as Defense Programs Quarterly Program Reviews bring the entire complex 
together on a regular basis, to bring high-level NNSA, laboratory, 
plant, and test site attention to issues that are continually addressed 
at the working level. Regular meetings such as the Nuclear Weapons 
Council serve a similar purpose with the Department of Defense. This 
level of integration has been effective in large part because of active 
involvement of the Federal Program Managers to bring the laboratory and 
plant contractor organizations together.
    Question. Do you believe the efficiency with which NNSA manages the 
execution of the life extension programs be improved, and if so, how?
    Answer. Yes, I always believe we can find efficiencies in any 
process. For an effort as comprehensive and far-reaching as the LEPs, 
communication and execution of a common vision are often difficult. 
When dealing with multiple contractors on a single area of emphasis, 
the LEPs for example, a concerted effort has to be made to ensure that 
contractors do not optimize their performance and sub-optimize the 
overall effort. To address this problem, Defense Programs should 
implement a common multi-site incentive that will bind all contractors 
involved in an activity to a common performance measure. This will help 
ensure that contractors work together for the success of the overall 
objective.
                          design basis threat
    Question. Secretary Bodman testified before the Senate Armed 
Services Committee in February 2005 that DOE and NNSA sites will not 
achieve compliance with the current design basis threat until the year 
2008.
    Given the seriousness of the need to secure nuclear materials, both 
abroad and at home, do you believe that this is a sufficiently rapid 
response to the threats currently outlined by the Intelligence 
Community, and against which DOE and NNSA must defend at its nuclear 
sites?
    Answer. I believe that DOE and NNSA are working diligently to 
address security threats appropriately, considering program execution 
needs and fiscal constraints. As the Deputy Administrator for Defense 
Programs, if confirmed, I would work very closely with the Associate 
Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Security to ensure that NNSA's 
sites are safe and secure.
    Question. If confirmed, would you seek ways to accelerate the 
hardening and compliance of facilities under your purview against the 
current design basis threat?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would continue to seek ways to accelerate 
the hardening and compliance of facilities under my purview against the 
current design basis threat. I work closely with the Associate 
Administrator for Defense Nuclear Security on a wide range of issues, 
including facility design and compliance. The design of the Highly 
Enriched Uranium Materials Facility at the Y-12 National Security 
Complex is a good example of a recent facility with modern security 
features. Any future facilities and strengthening of existing 
facilities will consider the current and any future design basis 
threats.
    Question. If confirmed, would you pledge to work expeditiously to 
identify any special nuclear material which is excess to mission need, 
and to develop a plan to consolidate and secure this material against 
current threats?
    Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I will work to identify any special 
nuclear material that is excess to mission need, and to consolidate and 
more heavily secure this material against current threats. Defense 
Programs has a number of related successes (e.g., removal of security 
category I/II special nuclear material from TA-18 at Los Alamos 
National Laboratory) and we are an active participant in the DOE's 
Nuclear Materials Disposition and Consolidation Coordination Committee, 
which is looking at a comprehensive path forward for the entire 
Department.
                                nnsa act
    Question. The NNSA has now been in existence for over five years, 
since it was established by Congress in the NNSA Act of 2000.
    In your view, is the relationship between the NNSA and the 
Department of Energy functioning in an effective and efficient manner?
    Answer. The relationship between the Department and the NNSA 
functions is effective. However, there can always be more improvement 
in driving efficiency in how we work together. Attention and 
improvement in this area can be reflected in existing Department of 
Energy Orders.
    Question. If confirmed, would you propose any statutory changes to 
the NNSA Act?
    Answer. No, I would not propose any statutory changes to the NNSA 
Act.
    Question. Do you believe any organizational changes are needed to 
implement the NNSA Act?
    Answer. No, I do not believe any organizational changes are needed. 
However, work should continue on clarifying relationships between NNSA 
and Department of Energy offices.
                        congressional oversight
    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information.
    Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before 
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. If confirmed, I agree to appear before the Senate Armed 
Services Committee and other appropriate committees of Congress.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as the Deputy Administrator for 
Defense Programs?
    Answer. If confirmed, I agree to appear before the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, or designated members of the committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to my responsibilities as the Deputy Administrator for 
Defense Programs.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees in a timely manner?
    Answer. If confirmed I agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, 
and other communications of information are provided to the Senate 
Armed Service Committee and its staff and other appropriate committees 
in a timely manner.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
              Question Submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions
                         cost controls for doe
    1. Senator Sessions. Mr. D'Agostino, in the questions you received 
earlier from the committee, you were asked whether--in your view--cost 
containment and cost control should be a high priority for someone who 
leads the DOE nuclear weapons program. This question was submitted to 
you at my request because I believe that we need to do much better--and 
can do much better--when it comes to running government programs more 
cost effectively. While it is appropriate to feel the imperative to 
maintain our nuclear deterrent, we simply must get more for the 
investment we are making. What are your perspectives on the issue of 
cost control and, if confirmed, what actions would you take to drive 
down program costs?
    Mr. D'Agostino. Cost control and getting the absolute most value 
for the taxpayers' dollars are extremely important for Defense Programs 
and for me personally. We are in the midst of a number of aggressive 
cost-control measures and are always looking for ways to improve. As 
noted in my answers to the Advance Policy Questions, we are doing a 
comprehensive review of the Operations of Facilities program due to 
inconsistent practices across the nuclear weapons complex. We are 
looking to standardize systems that work across the complex for 
accounting.
    On a broader scale, as Ambassador Brooks noted during his March 7, 
2006, hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee Strategic 
Forces Subcommittee, today's nuclear weapons complex is not the same 
one that helped win the Cold War. The U.S. nuclear weapons complex has 
seen dramatic reductions, not only in size but also in terms of 
funding. In 1990, our nuclear weapons complex employed nearly 60,000 
people. Today we employ about half that number and the footprint of our 
facilities has shrunk from 70 million square feet to less than 40 
million. This includes closing down four facilities, including, for 
example, the Rocky Flats plant in Colorado, and the Pinellas plant in 
Florida. We are close to finalizing a preferred infrastructure planning 
scenario for the future nuclear weapons complex and will share our 
plans soon with Congress and other stakeholders.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of Thomas P. D'Agostino follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                  January 27, 2006.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    Thomas P. D'Agostino of Maryland, to be Deputy Administrator for 
Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration, vice Everet 
Beckner, resigned.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The biographical sketch of Thomas P. D'Agostino, which was 
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was 
referred, follows:]
             Biographical Sketch of Thomas Paul D'Agostino
    Thomas Paul D'Agostino is the Assistant Deputy Administrator for 
Program Integration and leads the Office of Defense Programs at the 
Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). 
Mr. D'Agostino directs the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), which 
is responsible for maintaining the safety, security, and reliability of 
the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. The NNSA's nuclear weapons 
complex includes three national research laboratories, the Nevada Test 
Site, and four production plants.
    Defense Programs oversees the SSP, which employs over 30,000 people 
around the country. This approximately $5.2 billion program encompasses 
operations associated with manufacturing, maintaining, refurbishing, 
and dismantling the nuclear weapons stockpile. Defense Programs also 
provides oversight and direction of the research, development, and 
engineering support to maintain the safety and reliability of the 
nuclear weapons stockpile in the absence of underground testing, and 
assures the capability for maintaining the readiness to test and 
develop new warheads, if required.
    In other previous assignments, Mr. D'Agostino served as the Deputy 
Director for the Nuclear Weapons Research, Development, and Simulation 
Program where he directed the formulation of the programs and budget 
for the research and development program that supports the SSP. From 
1989 to 1996, Mr. D'Agostino worked in numerous assignments within the 
Federal Government in the startup of the Department's tritium 
production reactors and at the Naval Sea Systems Command as a program 
manager for the SEA WOLF submarine propulsion system.
    Mr. D'Agostino is currently a Captain in the U.S. Naval Reserves 
where he has served with the Navy Inspector General and with the Deputy 
Chief of Naval Operations for Submarine Warfare in developing concepts 
for new attack submarine propulsion systems. He also served with the 
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Plans, Policy, and Operations (N3/
5) in the Navy Command Center in the Pentagon. In this capacity, he was 
the French Desk Officer for the Chief of Naval Operations responsible 
for all Politico-Military interactions with the French Navy and served 
as the Duty Captain at the Navy Command Center.
    He spent over 8 years on Active-Duty in the Navy as a submarine 
officer to include assignments onboard the U.S.S. Skipjack (SSN 585) 
and with the Board of Inspection and Survey where he was the Main 
Propulsion and Nuclear Reactor Inspector. In this position, he 
performed nuclear reactor and propulsion engineering inspections for 
over 65 submarines and nuclear-powered ships in the Atlantic and 
Pacific Fleets.
    Mr. D'Agostino's awards include the Navy Commendation Medal with 
Gold Stars, Navy Achievement Medal, Navy Expeditionary Medal, 
Meritorious Unit Commendation, National Defense Service Medal, 
Presidential Rank Meritorious Executive Award, and numerous other 
awards. Mr. D'Agostino is married to Beth Ann Alemany of Manchester, 
CT, and has two children. Mr. D'Agostino is a member of the Senior 
Executive Service.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals 
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a 
form that details the biographical, financial, and other 
information of the nominee. The form executed by Thomas P. 
D'Agostino in connection with his nomination follows:]
                          UNITED STATES SENATE
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              Room SR-228
                       Washington, DC 20510-6050
                             (202) 224-3871
                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
      BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
    Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If 
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the 
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation 
of your answer applies.
                    Part A--Biographical Information
    Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in 
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for 
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in 
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.

    1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
    Thomas Paul D'Agostino.

    2. Position to which nominated:
    Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, National Nuclear 
Security Administration, Department of Energy.

    3. Date of nomination:
    January 27, 2006.

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

    5. Date and place of birth:
    January 17, 1959; Washington, DC.

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

    7. Names and ages of children:
    Anne Elizabeth D'Agostino, 19; Thomas Scott D'Agostino, 16.

    8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
    U.S. Naval War College, August 1996-June 1997, MA, National 
Security Studies.
    Johns Hopkins University, September 1992-May 1995, MS, Business 
Finance.
    U.S. Naval Academy, July 1976-May 1980, BS, Physical Science.

    9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the 
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of 
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
    October 1990-present, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Defense 
Programs, Washington, DC.
      Jobs:

        - Acting Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs
        - Assistant Deputy Administrator for Program Integration
        - Deputy Director for Nuclear Weapons Research, Development and 
        Simulation
        - Deputy Director, Office of Stockpile Computing
        - Engineer, Office of Economic Competitiveness
        - Engineer, Savannah River Restart Office

    January 1988-present, U.S. Naval Reserves (current rank of 
Captain), Washington, DC.
      Served with:
        - Navy Inspector General
        - Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Submarine Warfare
        - Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Plans, Policy, and 
        Operations

    May 1998-October 2005, Uniformed Services Benefit Association (life 
insurance company), Kansas City, Kansas
      Member, Board of Directors and Board of Advisors

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

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

    12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in 
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and 
other organizations.
    U.S. Naval War College Foundation.
    U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association.

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

    14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions 
for outstanding service or achievements.
    Navy Commendation Medal with Gold Stars
    Navy Achievement Medal
    Navy Expeditionary Medal
    Meritorious Unit Commendation (Navy)
    National Defense Service Medal
    Presidential Rank Meritorious Executive Award

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

    16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal 
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have 
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have 
been nominated.
    My speaking style is such that I typically use talking points and 
do not use a completely written speech. As such, one example provided 
was transcribed from a presentation that I gave at the Kansas City 
Plant Leadership Forum in August 2005. The second example is from a 
ground-breaking ceremony for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research 
Building Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory in 
January 2006.

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

                           Signature and Date
    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete.
                                              Thomas P. D'Agostino.
    This 8th day of February, 2006.

    [The nomination of Thomas P. D'Agostino was reported to the 
Senate by Chairman Warner on February 16, 2006, with the 
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination 
was confirmed by the Senate on February 17, 2006.]


 NOMINATIONS OF CHARLES E. McQUEARY TO BE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL TEST 
 AND EVALUATION, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; ANITA K. BLAIR TO BE ASSISTANT 
 SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS; BENEDICT 
S. COHEN TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; FRANK R. 
 JIMENEZ TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; DAVID H. 
 LAUFMAN TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; SUE C. PAYTON 
TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR ACQUISITION; WILLIAM H. 
TOBEY TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION, 
 NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; AND ROBERT L. WILKIE TO BE 
         ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2006

                                       U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:39 a.m. in room 
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner 
(chairman) presiding.
    Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain, Thune, 
Levin, Reed, and Bill Nelson.
    Committee staff members present: Charles S. Abell, staff 
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
    Majority staff members present: Elaine A. McCusker, 
professional staff member; David M. Morriss, counsel; Stanley 
R. O'Connor, Jr., professional staff member; Lynn F. Rusten, 
professional staff member; Diana G. Tabler, professional staff 
member; and Richard F. Walsh, counsel.
    Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, 
Democratic staff director; Madelyn R. Creedon, minority 
counsel; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member; 
Gerald J. Leeling, minority counsel; Peter K. Levine, minority 
counsel; and Arun A. Seraphin, professional staff member.
    Staff assistants present: Jessica L. Kingston and Jill L. 
Simodejka.
    Committee members' assistants present: John A. Bonsell, 
assistant to Senator Inhofe; Arch Galloway II, assistant to 
Senator Sessions; Stuart C. Mallory, assistant to Senator 
Thune; Mieke Y. Eoyang, assistant to Senator Kennedy; and 
Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN

    Chairman Warner. Good morning. The hearing will come to 
order.
    We're going to deviate a little bit. Senator Lott, you have 
an engagement to introduce the Chief Justice of the United 
States at a very important function at which my grandson is 
attending as one of the summer interns in my office. Would you 
please proceed?
    Senator Lott. Thank you very much, Senator Warner and 
Senator Levin.
    I will be introducing the Chief Justice to our interns, so 
it's a very important assignment.

 STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT LOTT, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF 
                          MISSISSIPPI

    Senator Lott. It's a pleasure to appear before this 
distinguished committee. I had the great honor of serving on 
this committee for 6\1/2\ years and enjoyed it very much. I 
appreciate all the good work that this committee does for our 
country, and, for the most part, in a very bipartisan way. So, 
thank you for your service.
    It's also a great honor for me to be here this morning to 
support the nomination for Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Legislative Affairs, Robert Wilkie. This is an outstanding man, 
highly qualified for the position to which he's been nominated. 
He's the son of an Army artillery commander. He spent his youth 
at Fort Sill and Fort Bragg, good qualifications, in 
themselves. He graduated with honors from Wake Forest 
University, received his juris doctor degree from Loyola, of 
the South, in New Orleans, where he received honors in Latin 
American law, international law, and legislation. He also was 
awarded a master of laws in international and comparative law 
from Georgetown University.
    He began his professional career working on the Hill for 
Senator Jesse Helms. He subsequently worked for Congressman 
David Funderburk of North Carolina. Then, in 1997, he joined my 
staff as counsel and advisor on international security affairs 
in the Senate majority leader's office. He did an outstanding 
job there. He also has always been involved, as I know, on a 
personal basis, in his community, in his church, and with his 
family. He has a very lovely wife who is here with us today--I 
know she'll probably be introduced later by Robert--and two 
wonderful children.
    During that time in the leader's office, we had a lot of 
very critical issues we dealt with, and he served the Senate, I 
believe, quite well. He subsequently went to be Special 
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and 
Senior Director of the National Security Council. He worked 
with Dr. Rice and Dr. Hadley--worked on such issues as the 
Moscow Treaty, North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion, 
the Millennium Challenge Account, and Iraq reconstruction.
    He is an officer in the United States Navy Reserve. He's an 
honor graduate of the Reserve Intelligence Officers Basic 
Course. He was the Junior Intelligence Officer Reservist of the 
Year in 2004. He is a graduate of the Joint Forces Staff 
College, written a lot of articles, and I learned, to my 
amazement, when we were in Europe one time, he's quite a 
European history buff. He knows the history of the countries, 
the players, and the great battles that were fought. He became 
our tour guide as we went through a very important part of 
Europe.
    But here's what I really wanted to appear for. He does have 
a great genealogy, roots in Louisiana and in my State. His 
great-grandmother, as a matter of fact, was the first female 
member of the State's legislature, and one of the founders of 
Delta State University. It's a great military family. It's a 
great family of leadership that has served their country for 
years and years. He has deep roots in my State. I hope that 
will be considered an asset, not a burden for him, because 
we're very proud of him.
    Here's the main reason I am here, and that is, I think this 
is a really important position at the Pentagon. We need to make 
sure we have a person in this position that understands 
Congress, that's worked for Congress, understands Senators, 
understands Congressmen, understands the legislative process--
that's a unique kind of training that's needed to really 
understand that--that can be the liaison and the go-between 
from the Department of Defense (DOD), from the Secretary, if 
you will, and to Congress. I think it's a critical role, and 
one that I know that Robert Wilkie has the qualifications for. 
I think he has the demeanor for it. I think he'll be a great 
credit to the Pentagon and to the institutions that he'd 
serve--the House of Representatives and the Senate. I 
wholeheartedly endorse his nomination to be Assistant Secretary 
of Defense for Legislative Affairs, and I thank you for your 
expeditious handling of his nomination.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Lott, there's no Member of the 
Senate today that knows the Senate better than you do and the 
process.
    Senator Lott. Well, thank you, sir.
    Chairman Warner. For this fine man to have trained under 
your tutelage, that makes him well qualified. I think we can 
dismiss this case and go on with the others right away. 
[Laughter.]
    Senator Lott. Thank you very much, Senator Warner and 
Senator Levin. I appreciate you both very much.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you.
    We now are joined by our colleague from the House of 
Representatives. Why don't we proceed with you, and then finish 
up with Senator Allen.

 STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER COX, FORMER REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
                    THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Cox. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, 
and to all of the Members of the Senate who are here.
    It is a privilege to be able to introduce Ben Cohen to this 
committee as you consider his nomination to be General Counsel 
of the Army. I have known Ben for 20 years, since we were both 
lawyers in the White House Counsel's Office. It was clear to me 
then, and has been clear to me every year since, that Ben is 
not only a superb lawyer, with exacting standards of 
professionalism and excellence, but, more importantly, he is a 
man of uncommonly high integrity and independence of judgment, 
and he has a profound respect for the rule of law.
    I am certain that you know his extraordinary background: 
Yale undergraduate, magna cum laude; University of Chicago Law 
School, and editor of the Law Review; clerk for the Honorable 
Laurence Silberman on the United States Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit; private practice with the 
distinguished law firms of Davis Polk and Swidler & Berlin; and 
senior positions in the Federal Government over a period of 2 
decades.
    I mentioned his service in the White House. He also served 
as a senior member of the leadership staff in the House of 
Representatives as executive director of the House Policy 
Committee, and staff director of the Homeland Security 
Committee. He was Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the 
Department of Justice, and, most relevant today, Deputy General 
Counsel at the DOD.
    He is extraordinarily well-qualified for the duties upon 
which he will enter, if you confirm him to this position. I 
know of no one who is more versatile as a lawyer and as a 
manager, certainly no one with whom I have worked who is more 
erudite or a more inspirational leader of other professionals. 
His management skills are truly impressive. Simply put, his 
staff, the men and women who have worked for him, really enjoy 
working for Ben Cohen. He challenges them and helps them to 
succeed, and he has a marvelous sense of humor, which I hope he 
brings back to the DOD.
    He has a wonderful family sitting behind me, and I want to 
let Ben introduce them, but Ben and Julie and the rest of his 
family have been good friends of mine for a very long time. I 
want everyone here to know how much respect I have for the 
Cohen family, and how honored I have been to work with Ben 
Cohen for these many years.
    I am very pleased that the President has put his name 
before this committee, and I hope and expect that you will see 
fit to confirm him.
    Chairman Warner. Congressman Cox, we are grateful that you 
took the time to cross the aisle, so to speak, and come over 
here and join the other body. It's very important that you add 
your views with regard to this distinguished American. I had 
the opportunity to talk at length with him, and he has a very 
impressive record. We, as citizens, are fortunate that people 
like Mr. Cohen, and every one of these nominees this morning, 
have stepped up for another chapter of public service.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Levin. How are they treating you over at the 
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) these days?
    Mr. Cox. Very well. I'm very pleased with my new position 
and the opportunities we have there.
    Senator Levin. You have a major responsibility, and we are 
delighted you are there. You have done some very independent, 
courageous things already, and I know the House misses you. My 
brother misses you. Thanks for coming by.
    Mr. Cox. I will look forward to that opportunity, as well.
    Chairman Warner. It's always a big step, though, when you 
step across to come to the other body, even though you're not 
there now. Thank you very much.
    Senator Allen?

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF 
                            VIRGINIA

    Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, Senator Thune. 
Thank you for allowing me to appear before this committee to 
introduce Anita Blair, who is the nominee for Assistant 
Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
    I have known and benefited from the advice of, and admired, 
Anita Blair for many years. When I was Governor, I had the 
opportunity to appoint her to serve at the Virginia Military 
Institute's (VMI) Board of Visitors in 1995. This was an 
historic period for VMI, in that the Supreme Court had ruled in 
the decision of the United States versus Virginia that it would 
have to be coed. Anita Blair, on the Board of Visitors, helped 
design and implement the plans for admitting women to VMI. In 
addition to working very closely with cadets, faculty, and 
staff, she was the chair of the Board's Assimilation Review 
Task Force that provided continuing high-level oversight of all 
the issues relating to the successful admission of women to 
VMI.
    Anita also was a very important member in fashioning and 
creating, planning, and developing what is called the Virginia 
Women's Institute of Leadership (VWIL) at Mary Baldwin College, 
and served as VMI's liaison to that program at Mary Baldwin. 
VWIL has just celebrated its 10th year of operations, and 
currently has about 125 cadets at Mary Baldwin. Every year, 
about 40 percent of the graduates, who are all women, take 
military commissions, and many others pursue national security-
related civilian careers. These are legacies of Anita Blair's 
outstanding leadership.
    She served for 6 years on the VMI Board, and resigned to 
accept the position, in August 2001, to be Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy for Military Personnel Policy. In that 
role, she has been responsible for policy and oversight related 
to all manpower and personnel matters affecting the Navy and 
the Marine Corps and their families.
    In February 2005, she assumed additional responsibilities 
as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Total Force 
Transformation, leading efforts to improve and modernize the 
management of the Department of the Navy's total force of 
Active-Duty, Reserve, civilian, and other contractor personnel.
    Like you, Mr. Chairman, and me, Ms. Blair is a graduate of 
the University of Virginia's School of Law, where she met her 
husband, Doug Welty, who is here. They even practiced law 
together. He continues to practice law in Arlington. Her 
practice was in areas of antitrust, franchise and trade, and 
regulation law. She's been working with the Department of the 
Navy since just before September 11, and she has energetically 
deployed her considerable experience in the private sector, her 
public advocacy capabilities and public service to support our 
sailors, marines, and their families.
    I know, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that she 
will have the same sort of expertise, dedication, diligence, 
and expert leadership in this new position, and I look forward, 
and hope for, her prompt consideration by this committee, and 
confirmation on the Senate floor. I thank you all for allowing 
me to speak my accolades for one truly outstanding American, 
Anita Blair.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Allen, I share your observations 
about the qualifications and accomplishments of this 
distinguished nominee. It's very important that you, too, found 
time to step over, this morning, and join this committee for 
this very important moment in their public service careers.
    Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Thune, I understand that you wish 
to join in the introductions.
    Senator Thune. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have the honor to 
introduce to you----
    Chairman Warner. Excuse me, I'm just going to interrupt.
    Please, Mr. Cox, Mr. Allen, feel free to leave now, because 
you have to move on with other matters. [Laughter.]
    You're free to go.
    Senator Allen. I have to get to the----
    Chairman Warner. Your nominees are on their own now.
    Yes, Senator?
    Senator Thune. I'm not released yet, Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Warner. Nope. [Laughter.]
    Senator Thune. Mr. Chairman, I have the honor to introduce 
to you and my fellow committee members the President's nominee 
for the position of Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Acquisition, Sue Payton.
    Sue Payton is a distinguished public servant. She's 
eminently qualified to fill the position for which she's been 
nominated. She brings private-sector experience to her duties 
in the DOD that's really invaluable, being able to listen to 
customer needs, integrate solutions, and deliver capability in 
a timely manner. Sue Payton has extensive experience in leading 
government and industry partnerships focused on maturing and 
applying technology, operations concepts, tactics, techniques, 
and procedures to solve national security problems worldwide.
    For the last 5 years, as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
for Advanced Systems and Concepts, Sue Payton has demonstrated 
openness and candor in her efforts to get the best technology 
demonstrated and transitioned to the warfighter. Prior to 
taking her current position, in September, Secretary Payton was 
the Vice President of Applied Technology of ImageLinks, 
Incorporated, and the Director of the National Center for 
Applied Technology, responsible for the assessment, prototype 
development, and insertion of commercial technology for DOD 
agencies and worldwide field users.
    Between 1994 and 1996, Secretary Payton was responsible to 
the Vice President of Business Development, Lockheed Martin, 
for leveraging the latest information systems technology to 
meet the program needs of DOD and Intelligence Community 
customers.
    Between 1989 and 1994, Secretary Payton was the senior site 
systems integration manager for Martin Marietta, responsible 
for resolving complex acquisition and technical issues 
associated with systems analysis and trade studies of competing 
space and ground architectures, operations concepts, 
requirements definition, software test and transition to 
operations.
    Secretary Payton is a member of the Defense Science and 
Technology Advisory Group, Eastern Illinois University Alumni 
Association, and 2004 Alumni Award winner, a Gateway member of 
the Purdue University President's Council, and former board 
member of Women in Aerospace.
    Secretary Payton received a Bachelor of Science Degree from 
Eastern Illinois University, and a Master of Science in systems 
acquisition management/systems technology from the University 
of Southern California. She is a 1998 graduate of the Emory 
University executive business program.
    Mr. Chairman, Secretary Payton is clearly among the best 
and the brightest of this generation of public and private 
servants. I thank the committee for considering her nomination, 
and I look forward to a speedy confirmation process.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Thune. I had 
the opportunity to visit with this distinguished nominee, and 
I'm sure that she appreciates, as I do, your commendation on 
her part.
    We now are joined by our distinguished colleague from 
Florida, Senator Martinez.

STATEMENT OF HON. MEL MARTINEZ, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF 
                            FLORIDA

    Senator Martinez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 
Senator Levin. It's a pleasure to be with you here this 
morning. Thank you very much for recognizing me.
    I have the distinct honor and pleasure to be here today to 
introduce to the committee a good friend and a colleague, a 
Floridian and fellow Cuban-American. These are many things that 
unite us, Frank Jimenez, who has been nominated by the 
President to be the next General Counsel for the United States 
Navy.
    Frank Jimenez graduated with honors in 1987 from the 
University of Miami as a biology major. He received his law 
degree in 1991 from Yale Law School, and also received an MBA 
in 2005 from the Wharton School, at the University of 
Pennsylvania.
    Prior to entering public service, Frank practiced law in 
Miami with the law firm of Steel, Hector & Davis. For 6 years, 
he specialized in commercial litigation and criminal defense, 
including Federal class-action antitrust and product liability 
litigation, and representation of clients under Federal grand 
jury and government agency investigation.
    Previously, Mr. Jimenez served a 1-year clerkship in the 
chamber of Judge Rymer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit, in Pasadena, California.
    Mr. Jimenez was admitted to the bars of Florida and the 
District of Columbia. Additionally, Frank served for nearly 4 
years in the executive office of Florida Governor Jeb Bush, 
beginning with his gubernatorial transition in 1998. For those 
2 years, Mr. Jimenez served as Deputy Chief of Staff, with 
oversight duties at various times for the Department of 
Transportation, business and professional regulation, 
environmental protection, community affairs, elder affairs and 
health, as well as the agency for workforce innovation in the 
Division of Emergency Management. Frank also served as my chief 
of staff at the United States Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) during my tenure as HUD Secretary. As my 
chief of staff, he helped manage more than 9,000 employees and 
an annual budget surpassing $35 billion. Frank also helped 
supervise HUD's many homeownership and affordable housing 
programs for low-income Americans, as well as programs 
supporting the homeless, elderly, people with disabilities, and 
people living with AIDS.
    As legal counsel for the DOD, Frank currently manages key 
litigation matters covering the entire Department, and 
coordinates with the White House Counsel's Office, the 
Department of Justice, and other agencies on pressing legal 
issues.
    Mr. Jimenez was most recently the Principal Deputy General 
Counsel for the Department of the Navy, where he managed over 
600 attorneys worldwide and oversaw the Naval Criminal 
Investigative Service.
    I want to thank Frank for his outstanding public service, 
for his friendship to me, and many accomplishments that I know 
he has had in the past and will continue to have in the future. 
I know that Frank will make an excellent person to serve in 
this very important capacity, Mr. Chairman, at a particularly 
difficult time in our Nation's history, when we face such 
challenges from the global war on terror.
    Frank is accompanied here today by his mother and brother, 
and both are wonderful people and good friends. He comes from a 
terrific family, well-respected folks in the South Florida 
community. His brother also has served this Nation as a U.S. 
attorney for the southern district of Florida for a number of 
years, now in private practice, as well.
    So, I'm just delighted to have the opportunity to present 
to you one of our outstanding Floridians, someone that I know 
will make the Nation proud in his new opportunity for service 
to the committee.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
    I've had the privilege of not only meeting extensively with 
the nominee yesterday, but knowing of his record, and he's 
well-deserving of the commendations that you've provided this 
morning.
    Senator Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you for your participation.
    Senator Martinez. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. It is now time for the committee to speak 
to the nominees. I will submit my opening statement into the 
record, introducing our other nominees. I also submit the 
statement of my colleague, Senator Dole.
    [The prepared statements of Senator Warner and Senator Dole 
follow:]
               Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
    I am pleased to have before the committee this morning eight 
distinguished individuals who have been nominated for the following 
positions of importance and responsibility within the Department of 
Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy:

          Anita Blair to be the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 
        for Manpower and Reserve Affairs;
          Benedict Cohen to be the General Counsel of the Department of 
        the Army;
          Frank Jimenez to be General Counsel of the Department of the 
        Navy;
          David Laufman to be Inspector General of the Department of 
        Defense;
          Charles McQueary to be Director of Operational Test and 
        Evaluation for the Department of Defense;
          Sue Payton to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
        Acquisition;
          William Tobey to be Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear 
        Nonproliferation in the National Nuclear Security 
        Administration; and
          Robert L. Wilkie to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
        Legislative Affairs.

    We are joined today by several colleagues who will introduce 
nominees to the committee.

          Senator Lott will introduce Mr. Wilkie;
          Senator Allen will introduce Ms. Blair;
          Senator Martinez will introduce Mr. Jimenez; and
          Senator Thune will introduce Ms. Payton.

    Additionally, former Congressman Christopher Cox of California, who 
served from 1989 through 2005 in the House of Representatives and 
currently serves as the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, joins us today and will introduce Mr. Cohen.
    Welcome to you all, and thank you for being with us today.
    We welcome all family members and guests, and thank you for the 
important support you provide to our nominees. They cannot succeed in 
these demanding positions without your help, as I'm sure they all 
recognize.
    David Laufman has been nominated to be the Inspector General of the 
Department of Defense. Mr. Laufman has served since March 2003 as 
Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia where he 
has specialized in prosecution of terrorism and other national security 
cases. Mr. Laufman also served in the Department of Justice in the 
Office of Professional Responsibility and as Chief of Staff to Deputy 
Attorney General Larry Thompson from May 2001 through March 2003. Mr. 
Laufman has extensive experience in the legislative and executive 
branches of government, in ethics investigations, and in national 
security affairs.
    William Tobey currently serves as the Director of 
Counterproliferation Strategy on the National Security Council staff 
where his responsibilities include U.S. policy on missile defense and 
nonproliferation issues regarding Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Mr. 
Tobey has been a member of the U.S. Delegation to the Six-Party Talks 
during the last three rounds of negotiations, and has served as 
Director of Defense Policy and Arms Control on the National Security 
Council staff from 1986 to 1993.
    Dr. Charles E. McQueary has been nominated to be the Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation of the Department of Defense. Dr. 
McQueary served as the Under Secretary of Science and Technology of the 
Department of Homeland Security from 2003 through March 2006, leading 
the Department's research and development efforts. Prior to his 
homeland security service, Dr. McQueary was President of General 
Dynamics Advanced Technology Systems and also as a Director for AT&T 
Bell Laboratories. Dr. McQueary, congratulations on your nomination, 
and thank you for your continued willingness to serve in this key DOD 
position.
                                 ______
                                 
              Prepared Statement by Senator Elizabeth Dole
    I would like to express my full support for the nomination of the 
Honorable Charles E. McQueary, of North Carolina, to be Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation for the Department of Defense. As the 
former Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Science and Technology at 
the Department of Homeland Security, Dr. McQueary has the experience 
and qualifications necessary to fulfill this crucial role.
    In 2003, he was nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed 
by the Senate to be Under Secretary for Science and Technology at the 
Department of Homeland Security. Prior to this, Dr. McQueary served as 
President of Lucent Technologies' and General Dynamics Advanced 
Technology Systems, and has held the position of Vice President of the 
Federal Systems Advanced Technology Division at AT&T. While at Bell 
Laboratories, he served as Director of the Undersea Systems Development 
Lab, headed the U.K.-based Field Operations Department, and ran the 
Marshall Islands-based Missile Operations Department for the Safeguard 
Antiballistic Missile Test Program. He earned his bachelor's degree, 
master's degree, and Ph.D. in engineering mechanics from the University 
of Texas, Austin, where he was a distinguished engineering graduate.
    I have been great friends with Dr. McQueary and his wife, Cheryl, 
for many years, and I am confident that he will fulfill this role with 
the utmost integrity. Charles McQueary is a most worthy nominee, and I 
look forward to joining the full Senate in quickly confirming his 
nomination.
    I would also like to express my full support for Robert L. Wilkie, 
of North Carolina, in his nomination to be Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Legislative Affairs. Mr. Wilkie has a remarkable amount of 
experience in both legislative and military affairs that makes him an 
excellent nominee for this position.
    Robert Wilkie is the son of an Army Artillery Commander and grew up 
at Fort Sill and Fort Bragg. After graduating with honors from Wake 
Forest University and earning his Juris Doctor from Loyola University 
of the South, he was awarded a Masters of Law from Georgetown 
University. He is an honor graduate of the Reserve Intelligence 
Officer's Basic Course, a graduate of the College of Naval Command and 
Staff, as well as the Joint Forces Staff College. In 2002, he received 
his Masters in Strategic Studies from the United States Army War 
College.
    In addition to this extraordinary education, Mr. Wilkie has 
extensive legislative experience, having served as counsel and policy 
advisor to Senator Jesse Helms, as legislative director for Congressman 
David Funderburk, and as counsel and advisor on International Security 
Affairs to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. From 2003-2005, Mr. 
Wilkie was special assistant to the President for National Security 
Affairs and a senior director of the National Security Council, serving 
as a senior policy advisor to the President's Assistant for National 
Security Affairs. He developed strategic planning for the 
implementation of the Moscow Treaty, NATO Expansion, the Millennium 
Challenge Account, and Iraqi reconstruction. Mr. Wilkie currently 
serves as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs 
and is the acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative 
Affairs.
    Mr. Wilkie's military training only adds to his already impressive 
resume. He is an intelligence officer in the United States Navy 
Reserve, and was named the Office of Naval Intelligence Junior 
Intelligence Officer (Reserve) of the year in 2004. He previously 
served with Atlantic Intelligence Command, Joint Forces Intelligence 
Command, and Naval Special Warfare Group Two. As a current division 
officer in the Maritime Threat Targeting Department at the Office of 
Naval Intelligence, Mr. Wilkie has the qualifications that make him an 
outstanding candidate for this position. I look forward to the 
confirmation of Robert Wilkie as Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Legislative Affairs.

    Chairman Warner. Do you have a comment or two, Senator?
    Senator Levin. I have no comment, other than to welcome 
them and their families, who are so important to their success. 
I thank the nominees for their commitment to public service, as 
well as their family's commitment to public service.
    Chairman Warner. The committee has asked all of our 
nominees, as we do with each nominee coming before the 
committee, to answer a series of advance policy questions. The 
nominees have responded to those questions. Without objection, 
those responses will be made a part of today's record.
    I also have certain standard questions that the chairman of 
this committee, for as long as I've been on the committee--
Senator Levin and I have been here for 28 years on this 
committee--and we ask these questions of each nominee. If you 
all, as a group, would indicate your responses. If anyone 
wishes to be singled out for recognition, please raise your 
hand, and I'll be glad to recognize you to clarify the question 
or clarify your response.
    First, have each of you adhered to the applicable laws and 
regulations governing conflicts of interest? [A chorus of 
affirmative responses.]
    Let the record show that all responded affirmatively.
    Have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which 
would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation 
process? [No response.]
    No nominee has indicated to the contrary.
    Will you ensure that your staff--if confirmed and placed in 
office, those staff under your supervision comply with the 
deadlines established for requested communications, including 
questions for the record in hearings? [A chorus of affirmative 
responses.]
    Again, all have agreed in the affirmative.
    Will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in 
response to congressional requests? [A chorus of affirmative 
responses.]
    All have indicated affirmatively.
    Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and testify, upon 
request, before this committee? [A chorus of affirmative 
responses.]
    All have indicated in the affirmative.
    Do you agree to provide documents, including copies of 
electronic forms of communication, in a timely manner when 
requested by a duly constituted committee, or to consult with 
the committee regarding the basis for any good-faith delay or 
denial in providing such documents? [A chorus of affirmative 
responses.]
    All, likewise, approved it.
    Now, we will go to each nominee for such opening statements 
as they would like to make. When I recognize you, I would 
appreciate very much if you would introduce the members of the 
family that have come with you today.
    May I say that I look back some 37 years ago, when I sat at 
a table and introduced my family at the time I was nominated to 
join the Navy Secretariat. I recall that my children could not 
reach the floor with their legs. Today, they're in their 40s. 
Time passes, but my children, to this day, remember joining me 
for this very important moment in your public service careers.
    So, according to the roster that's before me for purposes 
of recognition, we'll start with Ms. Blair.

 STATEMENT OF ANITA K. BLAIR, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 
           AIR FORCE FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS

    Ms. Blair. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 
Levin, members of the committee, it is the honor of a lifetime 
to appear before you today as the nominee for Assistant 
Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. It 
is also an honor, and I'm very grateful to Senator Allen, for 
his very kind and gracious introduction this morning. I'm also 
grateful to the President, to the Secretary of Defense, and to 
the Secretary of the Air Force for their support and confidence 
in recommending me for this position. Knowing how many 
difficult and important matters you and they deal with every 
day, I am truly humbled by your consideration.
    If you will permit me, I would like to introduce my 
husband, Doug Welty, whom Senator Allen also recognized. We 
did, indeed, meet at the University of Virginia Law School, and 
did, indeed, practice law together. It's customary, Mr. 
Chairman, to state that your spouse is the true source of all 
your success, but I'm very delighted this morning to have some 
other people who are responsible for my success. A few members 
of my staff were able to come, and I would like to also thank 
them for taking time out of what I know is a busy day.
    Remembering my parents, too, who are not with us anymore, 
but, back in World War II, they were a young Army Air Corps 
family.
    It's been a great privilege to serve in the Department of 
the Navy since shortly before September 11. I've personally 
witnessed the efforts and sacrifices made by our sailors, 
marines, families, and civilian workers, and I would like to 
thank this committee for all you have done to assist them in 
the great struggles they endure. If confirmed, I pledge that 
their example will be my standard in devoting my all to serving 
the people of the Air Force.
    I have felt privileged to be part of the great enterprise 
of transforming the naval services so that they can achieve 
their highest and best purpose for America in the 21st century. 
The members of the Air Force Service family--Active, Reserve, 
Guard, families, and civilians--have impressed me with their 
dedication to integrity, service, and excellence. If confirmed, 
I will be honored to work alongside and for these fine people.
    I look forward to answering your questions, and I hope to 
continue in frequent dialogue and discussion with this 
committee as issues and challenges arise.
    Thank you, again, for your consideration.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you. Would you kindly introduce such 
family members as you have?
    Ms. Blair. Oh.
    Chairman Warner. There he is. What year did you graduate 
from University of Virginia Law School?
    Mr. Welty. 1982, Senator.
    Chairman Warner. 1982. Well, I preceded you, 1953. 
[Laughter.]
    Ms. Blair. Senator, I'd like to remind you that he did 
serve in the Navy during the halcyon years encompassing your 
tenure as Secretary, as well.
    Chairman Warner. Oh. Nomination confirmed. [Laughter.]
    Ms. Blair. Thanks.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much for that opportunity.
    Now we'll have Mr. Cohen.

 STATEMENT OF BENEDICT S. COHEN, TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE 
                     DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and members of the committee, 
it's an honor to appear before you today as the President's 
nominee for General Counsel of the Army.
    I'd like to start, if I could, by introducing my family.
    Chairman Warner. Yes, indeed.
    Mr. Cohen. My wife, Julie, my son, Paul----
    Chairman Warner. Would you kindly stand? We all wish to see 
these folks.
    Mr. Cohen. My wife, Julie; my son, Paul, age 9; my 
daughter, Mary, age 7; and my father-in-law, Bob Gutman, 
veteran of the Somerset Light Infantry and a former Senate 
staffer. Unfortunately, my father, Harold Cohen, who's a 
veteran of the Army Air Corps, couldn't be here today.
    Chairman Warner. We talked about your father yesterday and 
what an interesting career he had in the Army Air Corps. It's 
remarkable.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Warner. So, you've very privileged to have had 
that heritage, and you bring his experience and wisdom to the 
task before you.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you very much, sir.
    I'd like to thank the President for nominating me for this 
position, and the Secretary for his confidence and support. I'd 
like to thank Chairman Cox for his generous remarks, and for 
the opportunity to work for him for all those many years. I'd 
also like to thank this committee for all that you all have 
done over the years for our men and women of our Armed Forces.
    If confirmed, I look forward to working with the committee 
on the many challenges that are confronting the Army. The Army 
continues its historic transformation to address the issues of 
the 21st century while fighting a long war against terrorism in 
multiple theaters. The legal dimensions of these challenges are 
as complex as any that have ever confronted Army lawyers. If 
confirmed, I want to assure the committee that I will devote 
every effort to address these challenges with humility and 
determination, and with the knowledge that the Army's military 
and civilian attorneys are the finest in the world. It would be 
the greatest honor of my career to have the opportunity to 
serve with these magnificent professionals.
    Finally, I'd like to thank my wife and children for their 
support as I pursue a return to DOD, having already completed 
some 20 years of Federal service. I'm more grateful to them 
than I could ever say for their love and support of my career 
in public service.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Mr. Cohen.
    We'll have Mr. Jimenez.

  STATEMENT OF FRANK R. JIMENEZ, TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE 
                     DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

    Mr. Jimenez. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin.
    As Senator Martinez mentioned, with me today are my mother, 
Daisy Jimenez, and my brother, Marcos Jimenez. My father, Frank 
Jimenez, cannot be with us today. He's home in Miami.
    It is a distinct honor to appear before you for possible 
confirmation as the 21st General Counsel of the Department of 
the Navy. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, the members 
of the committee, and staff, for your many courtesies to me and 
for your service to this Nation.
    I would not be here today but for the trust placed in me by 
President Bush and Secretaries Rumsfeld, England, and Winter. I 
have pledged to them--as I now pledge to you--that I will do 
everything in my power, if confirmed, to justify both their 
trust and yours.
    Since the Continental Congress, our Armed Forces have stood 
in the breach to make possible the liberties we enjoy today. 
Their sacrifice is no less indispensable in today's fight 
against tyranny than it was in securing our independence from 
it over 200 years ago. This great sacrifice gives rise to a 
reciprocal moral obligation. But mine is not only a commitment 
to our Nation's finest; above all, it is a pledge to a country 
that has given so generously to my family.
    My parents left the oppression of Castro's Cuba in 1961 so 
that my older brother, then just a year old, could breathe the 
air of freedom. With no college education they came carrying 
all their possessions in hand. Less than a generation later, 
one son has been confirmed by the Senate as a U.S. attorney, 
and the other appears before you now. My grateful family is a 
living embodiment of America's promise.
    Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I pledge to work closely with 
you and this committee to support and promote the outstanding 
men and women of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps.
    Thank you very much.
    Chairman Warner. That's a very moving statement you made, 
in acknowledging what this country has provided for you and 
your family, and the opportunity it gives others. Those remarks 
come on a morning in which the world sees a new and extensive 
chapter of violence, and it's important that we be ever mindful 
of the blessings that our country have while we watch the 
suffering of others.
    Mr. Jimenez. I agree. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you.
    We'll now have Mr. Laufman.

    STATEMENT OF DAVID H. LAUFMAN, TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL, 
                     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

    Mr. Laufman. Thank you, Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, and 
distinguished members of this committee. I'm honored to appear 
before you today as the President's nominee to be Inspector 
General (IG) of DOD. I thank President Bush and Secretary 
Rumsfeld for their confidence in me and their commitment to 
effective oversight of DOD. I also thank members of the 
committee and their staff for the courtesies you have extended 
to me and for the outstanding work that you do on behalf of the 
men and women of the Armed Forces and the taxpayers of our 
Nation.
    With me today are my wife, Judy, also a public servant at 
the Department of the Treasury, and my sons, Adam and Michael. 
Also with me today is my brother, Gary. I'd like to thank them 
for their love and support. Their love and support have been 
essential to my ability to pursue a career in public service, 
and I'm indebted to them for the sacrifices they have made over 
the years. With me, also, Mr. Chairman, is my mother, Nora 
Laufman, of Houston, Texas, my hometown. No one approaches life 
each day with greater vitality or curiosity, and she continues 
to inspire me as she nears her eighth decade.
    Chairman Warner. If I might add a personal note, my mother 
lived to be 94, and while I was here in the Senate I would get 
calls in the course of the day to tell me exactly what I was 
doing right and occasionally what I was doing wrong. 
[Laughter.]
    Thank you, Mother, for joining us. That's very important.
    Please continue.
    Mr. Laufman. Thank you, Senator.
    Finally, Senator, I'd like to recognize my late father, 
Herbert Laufman. Over 60 years ago today, my father flew more 
than 60 combat missions over Nazi-occupied Europe, including 
missions on the morning of D-Day, as the bombadier navigator of 
a Martin Marauder B-26. For his excellence and valor, he was 
awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal, and 
numerous oakleaf clusters. How proud I am to be his son, and 
how proud he would be regarding today's events.
    Today, our country faces global challenges to its security 
that my father's generation could not have anticipated. At the 
forefront of meeting those challenges is DOD. The IG plays an 
essential role in maximizing the effectiveness of the 
Department. The IG is responsible for the oversight of the 
Department's programs and operations, and for preventing and 
detecting fraud, waste, and abuse. If confirmed, I pledge to 
you that the IG's office will demonstrate a commitment to 
excellence befitting the importance of its responsibilities. We 
will conduct rigorous audits to ensure that Department programs 
and operations are carried out efficiently and in full 
compliance with the law. Where investigations are appropriate, 
the IG's office will aggressively pursue the facts, wherever 
they take us, and report our findings and recommendations 
without fear or favor.
    We will pursue our mission with uncompromising independence 
while working together constructively with the leadership of 
this Department and the members of this committee. We will take 
all appropriate measures to ensure that any individuals who 
violate the law or abuse their positions of trust are held 
fully accountable for their actions.
    These are extraordinary times, and we have enormous 
challenges before us. If confirmed, I look forward to working 
with all of you to meet those challenges.
    Thank you very much.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much for that opening 
statement, and particularly the reference to your father. I 
think he was part of what Tom Brokaw said, I think, very ably, 
``The Greatest Generation.''
    Mr. Laufman. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Now, we'll have Ms. Payton.

 STATEMENT OF SUE C. PAYTON, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 
                   AIR FORCE FOR ACQUISITION

    Ms. Payton. Thank you, Chairman Warner, Ranking Member 
Levin, and members of the committee, for the opportunity to be 
here today. Senator Thune, I'd like to thank you very much for 
that very kind introduction.
    I'd also like to thank the members of my family who have 
joined me here today, my husband, Gary, of 34 years, a Space 
Shuttle crew astronaut and an Air Force pilot for 23 years. Our 
daughter, Courtney Callen, has joined us, from Navarre, 
Florida, after 1 week under her belt as a new information 
technology (IT) specialist with Eglin Air Force Base, starting 
her first week in government service. I'm very proud also of my 
son-in-law, Thomas Callen II, a captain in the Air Force, C-5 
pilot, and instructor-in-training at Whiting Naval Air Station. 
My twin brother, Tom Campbell, has joined me, as well, from 
Wheeling, Illinois, a retired third-grade teacher and member of 
the Illinois Army National Guard. When you accumulate all the 
service to our country, we have over 40 years, just in the 
group here, not to mention my father, who served in World War 
II, and a brother who has also served in the Air Force.
    It is the greatest honor of my professional career to 
appear before you as President Bush's nominee to serve as the 
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition. I am 
grateful to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Under Secretary of 
Defense Krieg, and Air Force Secretary Wynne for their support 
and confidence in recommending me for this position.
    I'd like to also sincerely thank the members of this 
committee for the crucial leadership and support provided me 
and my team in Advanced Systems and Concepts since September 
2001 as we accelerated the fielding of much-needed joint and 
coalition military capabilities to fight terrorists worldwide.
    My career has spanned both private and public sectors, 
including 17 years of acquisition experience in the Defense 
industry and almost 5 years as the Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Advanced Systems and Concepts. This has given me a 
very valuable and unique range of experiences. But whether in 
the public sector or the private sector, my guiding principles 
regarding acquisition have always been the same: you must 
mandate the highest integrity in all aspects of the process; 
you must drive acquisition, based on customer need, to achieve 
mission success; you must provide the programmatic structure 
that allows success by linking accountability, responsibility, 
and authority; and you must prioritize your investment based on 
progress toward goals.
    Our customers, the warfighters, taxpayers, the families 
whose loved ones go into harm's way, expect our acquisition 
community to deliver the capabilities needed to defend America 
and protect our national security not only today, but into the 
future. Delivery of these capabilities must be done with 
transparency, due diligence, and taxpayer value as the highest 
priority. To ensure the American people stay informed, we must 
make sure that all their Members of Congress, including this 
committee, are well informed of our efforts.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you, again, for the opportunity to 
appear before you today. I look forward to your questions. If 
confirmed, I look forward to continued close working 
relationships with Congress while leading the outstanding men 
and women of Air Force acquisition.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much and, indeed, all of us 
are deeply touched by the contributions of your families for 
generations in the support of freedom in this country. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Tobey.

 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. TOBEY, TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR 
  DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY 
                         ADMINISTRATION

    Mr. Tobey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I very much appreciate the opportunity to introduce my 
family, because, as Senator Levin observed, their support makes 
my public service possible; therefore, I'm grateful for that.
    With me today are my wife, Elizabeth Tobey, our daughters, 
Emma and Beatrix, and my wife's parents, the Reverend LeRoy 
Ness, who served for 25 years on active duty and retired as an 
Army Chaplain, and his wife, Evelyn Ness, who has been a strong 
supporter of the National Military Family Association.
    Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and members of the committee, 
I'm honored to be considered as the President's nominee for 
Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation in 
the National Nuclear Security Administration. I am grateful to 
the President, Secretary Bodman, and Ambassador Brooks for the 
confidence they have placed in me. I would also like to thank 
the members of this committee for your strong support for U.S. 
nonproliferation efforts.
    I am thrilled by the prospect, if confirmed, of leading 
programs that are among the most critical to U.S. national 
security, and humbled by the importance of the task. I have 
always been drawn to issues at the heart of U.S. national 
security, and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons 
and material is foremost among them. I believe that my service 
on the National Security Council staff in the Reagan, Bush-41, 
and current administrations dealing with international 
negotiations, defense programs, and nonproliferation, as well 
as my private-sector management experience, have prepared me to 
meet the challenges of the position.
    Over the past several months, I have come to know better 
the people working in the Office of Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation and found them to be smart, dedicated, and 
selfless. They work tirelessly to stop proliferation of nuclear 
material and bring to the task unmatched experience and 
expertise. Many spend weeks a year away from their families. 
They work in far-flung places around the world, some where 
conditions are demanding, from Russia's Siberia to Libya's 
desert. They work to secure the materials, expertise, and 
technology that might be used by terrorists against the United 
States and our allies. In short, they prevent threats before 
they reach our shores. They are among those on the front line 
of our global nonproliferation efforts. They implement the 
programs that Congress authorizes and that, if confirmed, I 
will work hard to ensure remain successful.
    If confirmed, I intend to focus on meeting the goals of the 
Bratislava initiative on time, ensuring that effective 
management of nonproliferation programs continues, enabling us 
to secure or dispose of as much material as possible, as soon 
as possible, and ensuring that our strategy keeps pace with the 
evolving proliferation threats, and that our programs reflect 
the most effective strategy we can devise.
    I look forward to working with members of the committee and 
its staff, the National Security Council, and other departments 
and agencies to ensure that we have a well-coordinated plan of 
action. I commit that, if confirmed, I will continue to work 
day and night to ensure that U.S. nonproliferation programs are 
effective and responsive to the urgent threats that we face.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Tobey. Again, as I reviewed 
with you yesterday, your distinguished career, you're eminently 
qualified for this position, and we thank you for bringing your 
family to join us here this morning. I take note that your 
wife, once upon a time, was a member of my staff and 
contributed greatly at that time, as she continues to support 
you as you take on these challenges. We thank you, Chaplain, 
for your long service to our country.
    Mr. Tobey. Thank you, Senator.
    Chairman Warner. Now, Mr. Wilkie.

  STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. WILKIE, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
                DEFENSE FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS

    Mr. Wilkie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 
members of the committee. I do want to thank you for your 
courtesy and kind consideration in the weeks leading up to this 
hearing.
    I would like to introduce, first, my wife, Julie. We've 
known each other since we were high school students back in 
Fayetteville, North Carolina--and she is also a former member 
of the Senate family--and my dearest friend and mother to our 
two little children, Adam and Megan. Also with me is my 
brother, Douglas, and my brother-in-law, Steven Harman.
    I also wish to thank Senator Lott for his courtesy and his 
friendship. I was privileged to be part of Senator Lott's 
family--the Senate family for 6 years, and if anyone questions 
whether people in Washington have an impact on the day-to-day 
lives of Americans, then all that person has to do is go down 
to the Mississippi Gulf Coast and see what Senator Lott means 
to the people recovering from the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina.
    Mr. Chairman, if you would permit me, I would also like to 
acknowledge someone who is not here, that is Senator Jesse 
Helms. I first saw Senator Helms in person back in 1976, when 
he was escorting a former Governor of California around 
southeastern North Carolina prior to the presidential primary 
that year. Ronald Reagan won that primary, due, in large part, 
to Senator Helms. Twelve years later, I was privileged to join 
his staff in this very Dirksen Senate Office building and learn 
many of the lessons that had been passed down to him from his 
mentors, Sam Irvin and Richard Russell. He is one of the great 
gentlemen of this body.
    So, from those remarks, Mr. Chairman, it's pretty clear 
that I am a product of this Senate, having spent 14 of my 18 
years in professional life here. I'm versed in its traditions 
and its histories and the unique responsibilities that this 
committee has for the oversight of DOD.
    There is also a second strain flowing in my life, and that 
is the Armed Forces of the United States. My very first 
childhood memories are of watching the artillery half-section 
roll across the old post parade ground at Fort Sill. My great-
grandfather was a battery commander in the 82nd Infantry 
Division. My grandfather ran convoys in the North Atlantic. I 
grew up watching the 82nd Airborne as a teenager.
    My own military service has been modest compared to those 
of my ancestors, but the constant has been the privilege of 
serving with the men and women who stand vigil for freedom. 
That is why this nomination has particular meaning for me. If 
confirmed, it is another way to serve with and for those who do 
so much for our Nation.
    Again, I thank you very much for your courtesy and look 
forward to your questions, sir.
    Chairman Warner. We thank you, Mr. Wilkie, for first your 
mention of Senator Helms. We knew him well, and I particularly 
recall many moments of working with him in this institution. He 
was a teacher. I may not have always agreed with him, but he 
was a remarkable teacher with a grasp of the rules of the 
Senate. He had a love for the Senate. We wish him well in these 
days.
    Thank you for your family who have joined us here this 
morning, and your reference to your ancestors. Like you, my 
career in the military is very modest compared to that of my 
father and his forefathers, but aren't we fortunate to have, in 
our respective careers and challenges in life, that background 
to live with?
    Now, Dr. McQueary, somehow the papers got mixed up here 
this morning, and there were so many people that jumped in and 
out of that seat in the course of the morning that I failed to 
give you the due recognition that you deserve at the head of 
the line. But now you can take all the time you wish. 
[Laughter.]

   STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. McQUEARY, TO BE DIRECTOR OF 
     OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

    Dr. McQueary. You're very kind, sir. Thank you very much.
    If I may, I would like to introduce first my wife and 
partner of 34 years, Cheryl. She has been my mainstay for that 
time period, and has been, really, a major influence in my 
career in helping me at every step along the way. She, too, is 
engaged in public service, working at the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, currently. So, thank you very much for the 
opportunity to be able to recognize her.
    Chairman Warner. Well, we thank you for joining us.
    Dr. McQueary. Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, other 
distinguished members of the committee, it is an honor and a 
privilege for me to appear before you today as the President's 
nominee to be the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 
(OT&E) in DOD. I thank the President, Secretary Rumsfeld, and 
Deputy Secretary England for their confidence and support in 
nominating me for this position. If confirmed, I look forward 
to serving my country again, after having served 3 years as the 
Under Secretary for Science and Technology in the Department of 
Homeland Security. In fact, Senator McCain was the chair of the 
committee that I appeared before, when I was considered for 
that position previously. Sir, it's good to see you again.
    If confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee 
and other Members of Congress to ensure that the weapons and 
the equipment we deliver to the men and women in the armed 
services are adequately tested, operationally effective, 
suitable for use, and survivable in the operational conditions 
they encounter. The role of the director and the OT&E team is 
to be the strongest of advocates for the men and women in our 
Services through Congress and the Secretary of Defense.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to appear 
before you today. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, and, again, for your 
family joining us.
    Dr. McQueary. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. I'm going to allow Senator Levin to 
initiate the questions, but, before doing so, I'd like to call 
on my colleagues, if they have any opening comments or other 
observations.
    Senator McCain?
    Senator McCain. No, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Senator Reed? Senator Nelson?
    Senator Bill Nelson. I look forward to the questions.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you.
    Senator Levin.
    Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. McQueary, the position that you are being considered 
for was created by Congress to be an independent voice on the 
effectiveness of military systems, and an unbiased judge of the 
results of testing of systems. What are your views about the 
independence of your position and your obligation to speak 
freely to Congress, especially in the face of pressures to 
stifle bad news about acquisition systems, when there is such 
news?
    Dr. McQueary. I believe that's a very essential ingredient 
of the position that was created by Congress in 1983. In fact, 
for it to be effective, I think the reporting relationship 
we've established is appropriate: advisor to the Secretary of 
Defense and direct reporting to Congress. I am prepared to do 
that in the most effective way that I possibly can, based upon 
my skills.
    Senator Levin. Dr. McQueary, the U.S. began deploying a 
Ground-Based Midcourse Ballistic Defense System back in 2004. 
It has not yet had a successful intercept test, and it has had 
no operational testing. So, we have begun to deploy an 
extraordinarily complex multibillion-dollar system without 
being sure that it is going to work. Will you ensure, if 
confirmed, adequate testing of the Ground-Based Midcourse 
Defense System, including operational testing, in order to make 
a determination as to whether the system is operationally-
effective and suitable for combat? Will you convey that 
determination to Congress?
    Dr. McQueary. I certainly will assume the role of oversight 
responsibility. As I understand it--and I have only been 
reading material for about 2 weeks--as I understand it, the 
Missile Defense System was set up separately from the normal 
design and development programs; and, therefore, the director 
of the Missile Defense organization has full responsibility for 
the operational test, up to and to the point of where equipment 
is delivered to the end-user. The role that the Director of 
OT&E has, as I understand it, is to provide oversight and 
provide reports to Congress, and I certainly will do everything 
that is called out statutorily for me to do.
    Senator Levin. Thank you.
    Ms. Blair, back, I guess, 6 or 7 years ago, you served as 
chairman of the Congressional Commission on Military Training 
and Gender-Related Issues. The majority of the commissioners 
voted to recommend that each Service should be allowed to 
conduct basic training in accordance with its current policies. 
You opposed that recommendation, apparently, citing evidence 
that gender-separate training produces superior results. The 
Air Force, as well as the Army and the Navy, have continued to 
use gender-integrated training for military specialties. In 
response to a pre-hearing policy question on this subject, you 
stated only that ``the Services should not stand still, but 
continually re-examine assumptions and seek out better ways to 
accomplish their training mission.''
    If confirmed, is it your intent to reopen the long-resolved 
issue of gender-integrated training in the Air Force?
    Ms. Blair. Thank you for that question, Senator.
    If confirmed, I have no intention to do anything but allow 
the Services to improve training, as they see fit, to meet 
their mission. Currently, in the Department of the Navy, the 
Navy conducts gender-integrated training. The Marine Corps 
conducts gender-separate training. They report that it is 
successful, they're satisfied, and it's meeting the mission. My 
sole interest is in meeting the mission. So, I will be guided 
by the opinions of the experts who are running the training 
programs as to what ways they may want to pursue to attempt to 
improve their training.
    Senator Levin. Now, you're also, I believe, not only a 
member of two organizations that have taken a strong position 
against gender-integrated training, but you also have 
indicated, I believe, in your response to our questionnaire, 
that, if confirmed, you're going to remain a member of those 
organizations, the Independent Women's Forum and the Eagle 
Forum. Are you aware of the positions of those two 
organizations?
    Let me, for instance, read you an issue paper of the Eagle 
Forum. It's titled ``The Feminists Continue Their War Against 
Men.'' It includes a section titled, ``Equality or Feminization 
of our Military,'' and says the following, ``President Bill 
Clinton made clear his disdain for our military, but the 
Clintonista Feminazis were more focused. They were determined 
to give us a gender-neutral military, or, as one of their 
spokespersons put it, an ungendered military.''
    Do you agree with the statements made on the Web sites of 
those two organizations?
    Ms. Blair. Senator, I am not sure what all the statements 
of those organizations are. I would hasten to mention that--
neither one is a membership organization, in the sense that 
anybody who may--one pays dues or is apt to be eliminated if 
one doesn't agree with everything that they say. I think, as 
public policy organizations, they have something to add to the 
mix. In my current position, I seek to be guided by the 
requirements of the law, the established policy. I would not be 
here today, I would not have accepted the job of Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of the Navy, if I had any unwillingness to 
set aside any personal opinions or preferences that I might 
have in favor of executing the law. Part of executing my job 
well, I believe, is soliciting opinions and views from a wide 
range of sources.
    Senator Levin. What about the statement I read? What's your 
reaction to that?
    Ms. Blair. I'm trying to recall it, Senator. I'm sorry----
    Senator Levin. ``President Bill Clinton made clear his 
disdain for our military, but the Clintonista Feminazis were 
more focused. They were determined to give us a gender-neutral 
military, or, as one of their spokespersons put it, an 
ungendered military.''
    Ms. Blair. Yes, it's a pretty rhetorical statement, I 
think. I don't know which individuals they may be referring to 
or anything. I think it's a rhetorical and exaggerated 
statement.
    Senator Levin. How about this other statement, made in that 
same paper of the Eagle Forum, ``Adopting coed basic training 
for all the Services except the Marines lowered the standards 
to the physical capabilities of women. The result is a 
breakdown of military discipline and a dramatic coarsening of 
women, and of men's treatment of women. This has caused a 
critical diversion of time and energy away from the essential 
task of teaching men to be soldiers and to dealing with the 
obvious problems caused by the powerful factor of sex in a 
wartime environment.''
    Ms. Blair. Senator, I suspect that those comments may have 
been made when the gender-integrated training was somewhat 
novel and people were still working through a lot of problems. 
I believe that today the conduct of gender-integrated basic 
training is much improved from the time that they may be 
referring to.
    Senator Levin. Basically, then, you don't have a reaction 
that you disagree or agree with these statements?
    Ms. Blair. It's hard to agree or disagree, because I find 
them, kind of, argumentative and rhetorical. If there were 
facts--it would be easier to say I agree or disagree with a 
fact, but I believe that they were making an argument using 
rhetoric, and I take it for what it is.
    Senator Levin. So do I.
    Ms. Blair. Yes. I do, sir. I emphasize----
    Senator Levin. Offensive.
    Ms. Blair.--well----
    Senator Levin. I take it for what it is, too. Offensive. 
But I'll leave it there. You're the one who is here, not me. I 
don't want to cut you off, though, if you wanted to add 
anything to that.
    Ms. Blair. Sir, that the way I do my job is by putting 
aside any kind of personal opinions or preferences, and, 
instead, looking at what the law is, what the policy is, and 
executing it to the best of my ability.
    Senator Levin. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohen and Mr. Jimenez, last week we had a hearing on 
military commissions with the judge advocates general of each 
of the Services, some active and some retired here as 
witnesses. Each of them testified that we should not authorize, 
through legislation, the military commission process and 
procedures that the administration had previously adopted, and 
that the Supreme Court struck down. Do you agree with the judge 
advocates general on that specific point?
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Senator.
    I reviewed the testimony that the judge advocates general 
offered last week, and it seemed to me to be consistent with 
the approach that the President has outlined of wanting to work 
with Congress to reach a middle ground that would command 
congressional support and enable us to legislate, to authorize, 
a judicially supportable system of military justice for these 
terrorists.
    Senator Levin. On that one point, when I asked each of the 
six of them, very specifically, ``do you believe we should 
simply ratify the procedures that were put in place by the 
military commissions, which the administration had set up and 
which were struck down by the Supreme Court?'' Each one 
answered that question, ``we should not ratify those 
procedures.''
    Chairman Warner. Your question, does that suggest that we 
exclude any reference to the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ)? It would just be that one segment?
    Senator Levin. I'm just asking whether they agree with 
their testimony on that specific point, that we should not 
simply ratify the military commissions as set up by the 
administration, and which were considered by the Supreme Court. 
Each one said we should not simply ratify the commissions and 
their procedures as existed prior to the Supreme Court opinion.
    I'm wondering whether you agree with the position that each 
of the six took.
    Mr. Cohen. Senator, this is not an area of law with which I 
am familiar. I've read the Hamdan decision. I read the 
testimony offered to the Judiciary Committee and the Armed 
Services Committees last week. But it's a complicated area, and 
one in which I confess I haven't formed a final, or in any way, 
definitive view.
    Senator Levin. Okay.
    Mr. Jimenez?
    Mr. Jimenez. Senator Levin, I agree with that testimony. 
The Supreme Court has spoken. They've made it clear that they 
want Congress now to speak. There is a strong role for Congress 
in this process. I think that Congress should bring its 
independent voice to this question. I do think that there is a 
middle ground to be reached here of providing fair process to 
those detained, while taking into account the exigencies of 
warfare and the circumstances under which these individuals 
have been captured and detained.
    Senator Levin. Okay.
    For each of you, do you agree that cruel, inhuman, or 
degrading treatment or punishment of detainees in U.S. custody 
is prohibited in all places and at all times?
    Mr. Cohen.
    Mr. Cohen. Yes, Senator, I believe that that's the 
requirement of the Detainee Treatment Act.
    Senator Levin. All places, all times, no matter who the 
government employee or agent is?
    Mr. Cohen. Senator, I can't claim to be an expert on the 
Detainee Treatment Act, but I believe that's a summary of its 
terms.
    Senator Levin. Mr. Jimenez.
    Mr. Jimenez. Unequivocally, yes.
    Senator Levin. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I know there are others waiting to ask 
questions. I will pick up from there when I have another round.
    Chairman Warner. Senator McCain.
    Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to congratulate the nominees and express my 
appreciation for their willingness to serve our country. I 
believe they're all highly qualified.
    Ms. Payton, right now we have several Air Force programs 
that are over cost and behind schedule. Are you aware of those 
programs?
    Ms. Payton. Senator McCain, yes, I am aware of the 
programs.
    Senator McCain. Do you think that we're going to be able to 
afford this continued cost escalation and reduction in numbers 
which is caused by the cost overruns and delays?
    Ms. Payton. No, sir, I do not believe that we will be able 
to afford this.
    Senator McCain. Are you familiar with the C-130J program? 
This committee uncovered that it was being conducted under a 
provision of the law which applied to small startup companies 
so that they wouldn't have to be burdened with paperwork and 
other obstacles that major corporations have to undergo. Are 
you familiar with that aspect of the C-130J program?
    Ms. Payton. No, sir, I am not intimately familiar. The only 
thing I have done is read, in the paper, instances of this.
    Senator McCain. Well, let me tell you what happened. In 
testimony before this committee, the Air Force testified that 
they would change that contract, because it was never intended 
to apply. Several months later, my staff, examining the 
contract, found out that, indeed, it hadn't been changed. In 
fact, hardly at all.
    I guess my point is, Ms. Payton, I think that the 
acquisition throughout DOD, but particularly in the Air Force, 
is in great disarray. Nine of the 11 major weapons systems last 
year were behind schedule and over cost, and received incentive 
bonuses. Most of my constituents don't quite understand that. 
There's a great question now arising about the affordability of 
both the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter, because of cost 
escalations associated with it.
    Are you concerned about those overruns?
    Ms. Payton. Senator McCain, I'm extremely concerned about 
those overruns, and I do not believe that award fees should be 
granted for anything except above-average performance.
    Senator McCain. What do you think we ought to do, Ms. 
Payton?
    Ms. Payton. The first thing I would like to do is fully 
understand the facts and details. I would like to adopt many of 
the practices that the panel, led by General Kadish, described 
so that we have a uniformity of effort, where the requirements 
community, the budget community, and the acquisition community 
collaborate and not in sequence, so that requirements are well 
defined and are not allowed to creep, budgets can be formulated 
realistically, and the acquisition workforce can influence the 
process in a collaborative effort.
    I believe there were mistakes made early in these 
acquisitions, and I believe now we need to take a look at not 
only how to learn lessons from this, but also what the future 
should hold.
    Senator McCain. Well, good luck.
    Ms. Payton. Thank you, sir.
    Senator McCain. Mr. Jimenez, do you believe that the 
process for disposition of the cases of the Guantanamo 
detainees should be addressed through the framework of the UCMJ 
or through commissions?
    Mr. Jimenez. Senator McCain, I think that there is a role 
for the commission process within the framework of the UCMJ. 
Just like I don't believe, after the Hamdan decision, that 
Congress should simply ratify the existing commission 
procedures. I also don't think that the existing UCMJ, in 
total, is workable under these circumstances. I do think there 
is a middle ground where we can----
    Senator McCain. How can you find a middle ground--I'm 
talking about a framework. You either use the UCMJ as a 
framework, or you use the commissions as a framework. So, I'm 
asking you which should be the starting point.
    Mr. Jimenez. Senator McCain, if we start with the UCMJ, 
there are----
    Senator McCain. I wasn't asking you ``if,'' I was asking 
you whether we should start with the UCMJ as a framework or the 
existing commissions process as a framework.
    Mr. Jimenez. I think it would be reasonable to start with 
the UCMJ and modify all of those rules and provisions that are 
impracticable. I think there are a good many that are 
impracticable, but that would be a reasonable approach.
    Senator McCain. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Cohen, the same question for you.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Senator.
    This is an area of law in which I have not previously 
practiced. I have reviewed the Hamdan decision and the 
testimony offered last week, and I was actually particularly 
impressed by the testimony offered by General Black, the Judge 
Advocate General of the Army. But I haven't formed a definitive 
view on the question, whether one should start with the UCMJ 
and----
    Senator McCain. I'm not sure you have to be an expert to--
if you read the decision as to form an opinion on which should 
be the framework, Mr. Cohen.
    Mr. Cohen. Well, sir, the decision was clear that Congress 
needed to act to----
    Senator McCain. I guess I have to ask you to respond to the 
question. Do you believe that the UCMJ should be the beginning 
point for setting up a process for the adjudication of the 
detainees, or the existing commission process being the 
beginning point?
    Mr. Cohen. Senator, without, as I say, having a definitive 
view on the subject, I----
    Senator McCain. You do not have a definitive view on one of 
the most important issues that is now facing DOD?
    Mr. Cohen. Sir, I'm hopeful that, if I'm confirmed, working 
with this committee----
    Senator McCain. Mr. Cohen, before you're confirmed, I would 
like an answer.
    Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. General----
    Chairman Warner. Were you--excuse me--were you about to 
give an answer there? In the tenor of your voice you were going 
to respond.
    Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. I was.
    Chairman Warner. Why don't you make your full statement, 
then, and respond to this question.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think that General Black, in his testimony, outlined that 
he felt that there would be a need to make adaptations to the 
UCMJ that might be fairly significant, and, in addition, that 
it would be appropriate to take some of the features of the 
commissions that were already extant, but that, again, very 
significant changes to the existing structure would be 
necessary, as well.
    Chairman Warner. I think they used the term ``a mix.''
    Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. Testimony reflects that.
    Mr. Cohen. That seemed to me to be an extremely reasonable 
approach.
    Senator McCain. Mr. Chairman, most of the witnesses didn't 
say ``a mix.'' Most of the witnesses--and I think the record 
will be very clear--said that the UCMJ should be the basic 
framework.
    Chairman Warner. I recall that----
    Senator McCain. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I think 
that this is an important issue, because the role that Mr. 
Cohen is going to play is important as we move forward with 
trying to establish framework. I think it's legitimate to know 
whether he feels that the UCMJ should be--no matter what any 
witness said, I think it's important to know whether he feels 
the UCMJ, as the Supreme Court has basically said that we 
should do, or as some in the administration--there's a split 
within the administration now--whether the commissions should 
be the beginning point. I think it's a very legitimate 
question, and one that I'd like to know the answer before I 
vote on this nominee's nomination.
    Mr. Cohen. Senator, if I could, I think the point that Mr. 
Jimenez made, the approach that he outlined, seems very 
reasonable to me, and I don't disagree with him, sir. I agree 
with him.
    Senator McCain. I thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator McCain. I thank all the witnesses.
    Chairman Warner. Senator McCain, I share your views. I've 
worked with you on this. But I seem to have a recollection--
I'll go back and check the record--that when the question is, 
``do you think there should be a mix,'' we went down--I thought 
each one of the heads acknowledged that to be a logical way. 
I'll have that record checked, because it's important.
    Senator McCain. That's not my recollection, Mr. Chairman. 
We'll have it checked.
    Chairman Warner. That's fine.
    Senator Levin. My recollection, for what it is worth, is 
that four of them said we ought to begin with the UCMJ as the 
starting point. Two said--they didn't directly answer what the 
starting point is--but they just said that it should end up 
being a mix. So, I think my recollection is the same as Senator 
McCain's. We should check the record.
    Chairman Warner. We'll check that record.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    Clarification of responses from July 13, 2006, hearing on military 
commissions in light of the Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. 
Rumsfeld.
    Major General Jack L. Rives, USAF, The Judge Advocate General of 
the Air Force and Major General Thomas J. Romig, JAGC USA (Ret.), 
Former Judge Advocate General of the Army both felt the Uniformed Code 
of Military Justice (UCMJ) was a good starting point for setting up a 
process for the adjudication of detainees, but also should include a 
mix of other sources as well.
    Major General Scott C. Black, JAGC USA, The Judge Advocate General 
of the Army; RADM James E. McPherson, JAGC USN, Judge Advocate General 
of the Navy; Brigadier General Kevin M. Sandkulher, USMC, Staff Judge 
Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and RADM John D. 
Hutson, JAGC USN (Ret.), Former Judge Advocate General of the Navy all 
stated they believe a mix of various procedures would be the best 
course of action to set up the process for the adjudication of 
detainees and did not specify a specific starting place.

    Thank you very much.
    Any further questions, Senator?
    Senator McCain. No. I thank the witnesses.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you.
    I'll turn to my colleagues on the left here. I see, Senator 
Reed, you're next up.
    Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the 
nominees.
    Mr. Laufman, the last several years, DOD has been embroiled 
in allegations with respect to the treatment of detainees. You 
are going to assume a position, if you're confirmed, at the 
apex of--and, as you point out, at the independent agency that 
tries to keep the Department honest. I think your opening 
statement was very emphatic about the need to maintain the 
independence, the need to ask tough questions, the need to 
speak truth, and the need to go after the case, wherever it 
leads you.
    So, with that as a prelude, with respect to the issue of 
detainees, and particularly ``ghost detainees,'' General Kern, 
who conducted an investigation before the committee in 
September 2004 said, ``We have asked two organizations to do 
further investigations, DOD IG and the Central Intelligence 
Agency (CIA) IG, and both have agreed that they will take on 
that task of investigating this ghost detainee policy.''
    Now, over the last several years, I have made inquiries to 
DOD, and, for a while, the presumption was that there was 
actually an investigation by the DOD IG, but it turns out that 
it never really materialized. Secretary Rumsfeld finally stated 
that the investigation was being turned over to the CIA. 
However, a DOD spokesman also stated that DOD could not attest 
to the work done by the CIA during their investigation. I read 
this to mean that DOD doesn't know the effectiveness of the 
investigation and its recommendations, and, therefore, cannot 
use the results to take appropriate action. In fact, I would 
suspect that if the CIA was looking at it, their focus was the 
CIA.
    So, there is a question outstanding of whether anyone has 
seriously looked at the responsibility for senior-level members 
of DOD with respect to this issue. As the proposed nominee for 
the IG of DOD, the question simply is, what are you going do 
about it?
    Mr. Laufman. Thank you for the question, Senator.
    Let me begin by saying that the statutory jurisdiction of 
the IG is broad enough to encompass the type of issue that you 
are inquiring about. I'm not familiar with the Kern matter, or 
the interaction between DOD and CIA on that issue. It's 
probably fair to say that the jurisdiction of DOD's IG 
jurisdiction would extend to that aspect of the matter that 
concerns DOD resources or personnel. If confirmed, I'd be happy 
to look into the status of the matter and make a judgment as 
expeditiously as possible about whether the IG should examine 
that issue with the appropriate resources.
    Senator Reed. You will make that determination independent 
of guidance by anyone else, and you'll do that in your capacity 
as the IG?
    Mr. Laufman. I would expect to make all judgments 
independently, pursuant to my statutory mandate, Senator.
    Senator Reed. I think you're aware, also, that these 
allegations run to the conduct not just of CIA operatives, but 
of military personnel and members of DOD--civilian members. 
You're aware of that?
    Mr. Laufman. I'm aware generally, yes, sir.
    Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Laufman, again, in 2004, Attorney General Ashcroft 
announced the indictment of a CIA contractor for abuse in 
Afghanistan. He also indicated that there were other 
allegations of abuse, and that these were going to be processed 
through the Department of Justice. It's my understanding that 
at least 17 of these cases were forwarded to your previous 
office, as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of 
Virginia. Other than the case against the CIA contractor, could 
you indicate what the status of these cases are? Have they been 
fully investigated? Has there been a determination to charge 
anyone?
    Mr. Laufman. Well, you just gave me a battlefield promotion 
to U.S. attorney.
    Senator Reed. Oh.
    Mr. Laufman. I'm an assistant U.S. attorney.
    Senator Reed. Well, you're in a nomination committee. 
[Laughter.]
    Mr. Laufman. I understand.
    I am aware, Senator, that there are matters pending within 
the U.S. attorney's office for the eastern district of 
Virginia. I am not involved in those matters. It's my 
understanding that they are being examined with diligence and 
the commitment of significant resources. I'm not in a position 
to comment on the status of those matters, except to say that I 
believe the people to whom they are assigned are very able, 
experienced prosecutors, and that they will make their best 
judgments as to what recommendations to make.
    Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
    Let me, again, share the concern illustrated by the 
questions of Senator McCain and Senator Levin with the need to 
clarify after Hamdan, the status of the application of military 
law to these procedures for detainees. I think, Mr. Jimenez and 
Mr. Cohen, your responses were appropriate, in terms of using, 
as the starting point, the UCMJ, and making appropriate 
modifications, and letting Congress do that, as it must, after 
Hamdan. So, I thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Reed.
    Senator Nelson, why don't you proceed?
    Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Chairman Warner. You bet.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Thank all of you, ladies and 
gentlemen, for offering yourself for public service.
    I would add my comments, as well, for the two nominees to 
general counsel, of using the UCMJ as the starting framework 
for the procedures. I think the line of questioning of Senator 
McCain is quite obvious, and someone who, without a doubt, has 
the credentials to ask those questions. America is different, 
and America is a place where we are known by our standards and 
our values. That often goes back to the Good Book in the 
statement that is issued upon which all the law and--is built 
upon, which is, ``Treat others as you want to be treated.'' 
That has found its way into the Geneva Convention, and it's 
found its way into the procedures of the UCMJ. So, I would echo 
the comments of Senator McCain and Senator Reed.
    I want to take a different tack, and I thank you all for 
offering yourself for public service. Each of you had a 
distinguished career before arriving at this table. Now we have 
the obligation, as well as the privilege, of the checks and 
balances of our Government, of overseeing the executive branch 
and inquiring, of you, things that are concerning to us 
regarding the positions that you're about to enter.
    So, with regard to Dr. McQueary and Ms. Payton, I wanted to 
let you all know that recently I met with General Carlson, who 
is the head of the Air Force Materiel Command. He wanted to 
alert me as to a proposed Air Force effort to cut the test and 
evaluation budget by $581 million. He was given--I think it was 
$1.5 billion that he had to cut in his bailiwick. He came up 
with part of that, roughly a third of it, he was going to 
deactivate the 46th Test Wing and close a number of 
sophisticated testing facilities that happened to end up in my 
State. Now, it's not only the reason that it's my State of 
Florida that I'm asking these questions, but I'm looking at the 
efficiency and the ultimate cost of this proposed cut. 
Obviously, we understand the importance of testing and 
evaluation facilities, and that's especially important to the 
modernization of the Air Force and the safety of our military 
personnel.
    So, one example is that the Air Force, in this proposal 
that was shared with me by General Carlson, was that you shut 
down the McKinley Climatic Test Lab. It happens to be the 
world's largest environmental test chamber in which aircraft 
and vehicles and tents and a bunch of systems are subjected to 
extreme temperatures, to sandstorms, to rainstorms, and many 
other conditions. Those systems range from the B-2 to the F-22 
to the Joint Strike Fighter to the Terminal High Altitude 
Defense missile, and they've all passed through, or will pass 
through, for testing there to consider how they stand up.
    Now, you shut that thing down, and I'm wondering if the Air 
Force is getting around to the idea, ``Well, if you want to 
test for cold, send it to Greenland, or if you want to test for 
hot, send it to the desert.'' The climatic lab is about 
controlled test conditions, it's about cost savings, and it's 
about reduction of risks associated with overseas testing. By 
the way, as I have looked into this, I've found out that the 
lab is booked with reservations through 2011. Now, that sounds 
rather cost effective to me. It doesn't sound like closing it 
makes much sense.
    What I'm concerned about--and I shared some of this with 
General Carlson, but he's got a rigid requirement that he has 
to find $1.5 billion. Obviously, my question is, is that the 
best place, in a big, big Air Force, to find these savings? I'm 
concerned about the drastic reduction of Air Force test and 
evaluation. Is it going to be shortsighted, and is it going to 
end up delaying important Air Force acquisition programs? Is it 
going to end up increasing costs to taxpayers?
    So, I want to ask the two of you, are you aware of these 
Air Force proposals to cut?
    Doctor?
    Dr. McQueary. Sir, I am not aware of the specific case that 
you're talking about. I have never been to McKinley and the 
Climatic Test Range. I have been a participant in using Eglin 
before, so I'm familiar with what goes on there, to a degree. 
I'm not familiar with it, but I'll be happy to agree to look 
into the issue, early on, because, certainly in this position 
that I'm being considered for, ``OT&E'' are the key words in 
the descriptive title, and that must be an important 
consideration in determining whether systems are ready to be 
fielded or not.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Ms. Payton.
    Ms. Payton. Senator Nelson, thank you very much for 
enlightening me on this. I have not heard of this. I started my 
career, back in the early 1980s, in test and evaluation of 
spacecraft systems. You launch them, and you cannot retrieve 
them, for the most part. So, test and evaluation is an 
extremely important part of the life cycle of the acquisition 
of major weapons systems. If confirmed, I will make this one of 
my high-priority items to understand the cost trades and the 
business case analysis that's behind this.
    Thank you.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you both for your responses. 
Clearly, you're aware of it now. I would like for you to look 
into these proposals, and I'd like for you to provide this 
committee with your personal professional analysis, 
conclusions, and recommendations on the potential impacts on 
the Air Force and DOD testing evaluation and our broader 
modernization. Specifically, I'd like you to assess the cost 
and risk to our developmental testing industrial base.
    By the way, I would like you both to join me in visiting 
the facilities at Eglin, and to meet some of the highly 
qualified experts that are involved in these testing 
activities.
    Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to get out ahead of this enough so 
that we're not looking back at this as a done deal that may not 
be in the interest of DOD, as a whole.
    I would also recommend to you that you visit the other 
facilities proposed for closure, in Tennessee, New Mexico, and 
California.
    I want to ask you one more question. If we step back with 
the Air Force trying to develop and deploy advanced systems 
like the F-35, the small-diameter bomb, certain space systems, 
are you concerned that the Air Force is greatly reducing its 
overall investments in test and evaluation?
    Doctor.
    Dr. McQueary. Sir, I spent all of my business professional 
career before joining the Government doing operational tests, 
design-development operational testing. So, there is no 
question that the operational testing near the end of 
completion of a program is absolutely essential to assure that 
a system will work properly and be used in an effective way by 
those service men and women who will be chartered with risking 
their lives at times, and using it.
    Ms. Payton. I certainly do agree with what Dr. McQueary 
just said. Relative to the small-diameter bomb, that particular 
munition could be the most transformational capability that we 
will have in our arsenal. The amount of collateral damage and 
innocent lives that can be spared by that small-diameter bomb 
can be immense, and the cleanup after war will also be 
mitigated. So, I am especially interested in the small-diameter 
bomb and the focused lethality that it can bring to our 
warfighter. I will do everything to make sure it's tested 
properly.
    Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I would note, for the 
record, in Ms. Payton's written answers to questions that had 
been supplied to the committee in advance of this hearing, in 
response to the question, ``What are your views on the 
importance of accurately projecting future test facility 
instrumentation requirements and budgeting for these needs?'' 
that Ms. Payton's answer is, ``In my experience, test 
facilities are a very important contributor to the ability to 
field capable, proven weapons systems for our warfighters. We 
need to do a good job of protecting the test capabilities our 
future systems will require to ensure that they are in place to 
support thorough testing as part of the acquisitions process. 
We cannot permit test infrastructure shortfalls to delay 
acquisition programs.''
    So, given that, I'm looking forward to visiting the 
facilities with both of you on this very important decision. 
It's not the first time that things have been done for 
budgetary reasons. I just want to make sure we're not cutting 
off our nose to spite our face because somebody's been given an 
arbitrary number of dollars to whack out of their particular 
budget.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
    I shall ask each of you a question at this point in time.
    First, Mr. Laufman, again, I profited greatly from the 
meeting that we had, and am greatly encouraged about the 
attitude that you have with regard to the mission to which the 
President has selected you to perform. I certainly wish you 
luck.
    Mr. Laufman. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Warner. It's an important department. Having 
served in that department myself for many years, I recognize 
the complexity and how the IG's office can play a pivotal role 
for the Secretary and his subordinates, as well as all who are 
dedicating their careers to making that department work more 
efficiently. So, thank you and your family for taking this on.
    Mr. Laufman. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Warner. My question is more or less on oversight, 
and that is, this committee is concerned about the delays in 
completing many of the investigations--that is, by your 
predecessor--and the effective management controls within your 
office. You indicated, I think quite wisely, in your advance 
questions, that your audit resources may be insufficient to 
meet your statutory obligations and that the IG ``may lack 
sufficient resources to conduct necessary in-theater audit and 
investigative activity in Iraq and Afghanistan.''
    Now, this committee wants to help you, and we hope that you 
will not hesitate a minute in coming to the committee for such 
assistance as this committee may be able to give you in 
alleviating what you perceive are serious infrastructure 
deficiencies; thereby, enabling you and your staff not to 
perform the missions required. Do you wish to amplify on the 
answers that you put in the record? If not, they will just 
stand as they are. They're very clear.
    Mr. Laufman. Only to say, Senator, that I can think of no 
area where we should seek to concentrate our efforts more than 
on making sure that we are providing all the necessary 
resources to the Armed Forces that are currently deployed and 
are at risk in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Chairman Warner. Got it.
    Mr. Laufman. If we reach a determination early on that we, 
as an IG's office, if I'm confirmed, lack the necessary auditor 
investigative resources, it will be my priority to bring that 
to the committee's attention, to the leadership of DOD, and to 
correct that imbalance as soon as possible so that we can 
fulfill our statutory obligations.
    Chairman Warner. Good. All right. We'd like to have you 
note within 3 months or so, send a memorandum over to the 
committee, would you please, on your current status after 
you've had that period of time to make further assessments?
    Mr. Laufman. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. At that time, I will have stepped down as 
chairman, under our 6-year rule, but the fine gentleman on my 
right here, Senator McCain, is hopefully going to be the next 
chairman. I know this is an area in which he shares my concern, 
that you must be adequately staffed to do your job. I presume, 
Senator Levin, you join us on that.
    Senator Levin. I would, either as ranking member, with 
Senator McCain, or as chairman of the committee. So--
[Laughter.]
    In any event, this----
    Chairman Warner. Well, that's nice.
    Senator Levin. Our current chairman is as good as they get. 
They don't come any better.
    Chairman Warner. I said 90 days. That won't happen in 90 
days.
    Senator Levin. You said Senator McCain would hopefully 
become chairman.
    Chairman Warner. Oh, yes, chairman to carry through with 
such reforms as he might recommend.
    Senator Levin. I only heard the word ``hopefully.''
    Chairman Warner. You have the record----
    Senator Levin. I didn't hear the rest of it.
    Chairman Warner. You've stated your case. [Laughter.]
    We've been together for 28 years, and it's been a 
remarkable partnership for the two of us to work together on 
this committee. We both started at the end seat on this long 
dais. It took us 28 years to get up here, and we've been----
    Senator Levin. I actually fell off that twice, it was so 
far out there. [Laughter.]
    Chairman Warner. All right. Now, Mr. Tobey, in your answers 
to the questions the committee sent to you in the hearing this 
morning--I go through these answers; I think they're very 
important--you stated that you would seek to ensure the defense 
nuclear nonproliferation programs are guided strategically to 
address new challenges and opportunities to prevent 
proliferation, including new approaches and work within new 
countries. It was a very good response, by the way. Are there 
countries of proliferation concern where you'd like to initiate 
or expand on cooperative nonproliferation activities?
    Mr. Tobey. Thank you, Senator.
    We have expanded our nonproliferation effort beyond former 
Soviet states. We've worked in Libya and Iraq. I think those 
efforts need to be ongoing. I know that there have been 
discussions with, for example, China to try and improve nuclear 
security there. I'm hopeful that the demonstration project that 
they've undertaken there can actually be applied more widely 
within the Chinese system. I'd also note that President Bush 
and President Putin agreed to a global initiative to combat 
nuclear terrorism over the weekend.
    Chairman Warner. Yes, that was a very encouraging 
announcement by both countries.
    Mr. Tobey. I think it really does pave the way to some 
important progress, because it will allow us to broaden some of 
the efforts that have occurred, or taken place, in former 
Soviet states. In terms of securing nuclear material, to other 
states, and we would hope to encourage other states to adopt 
best practices. These may not necessarily involve exactly the 
same programs that have been undertaken in former Soviet 
states, but I think we can build on the experience that we've 
had with former Soviet states to improve security of 
proliferation-sensitive materials worldwide.
    Chairman Warner. I thank you. Going on to other areas 
regarding Russia, do you think there's some unaddressed 
proliferation threats that should be the focus of further of 
U.S./Russian cooperation? I had some modest experience in that 
area, myself, when I was Secretary of the Navy and negotiated 
the Incidents at Sea agreement, and I got to know the senior 
officials of the Soviet Union, and I have followed carefully, 
in my career here in the Senate, the evolution from the Soviet 
Union to today. Russia is a proud and strong nation in this 
world. But the vastness of the activities of the former Soviet 
Union in an area utilizing fissile material for all types and 
forms of weapons, I just want to make certain that we know, and 
the Russians know, the full extent of those programs and what 
could remain out there that could possibly find its way into 
further proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, with or 
without--well, presumably, let's say, just without the 
knowledge of the current Russian Government.
    Mr. Tobey. I think that's an excellent question Senator. I 
think it's one that's worth continuing to ask. My impression is 
that the broad categories of proliferation-sensitive material 
are covered by U.S. programs. Now, your question also, if I 
understood correctly, included the component about whether or 
not we've completed our efforts, and we have not, yet.
    Chairman Warner. At least they've been identified. I'm more 
concerned, are there other unidentified areas? Not that Russia 
is trying to conceal it, but--again, I was in a position, in 
those days, to get some real insight into the magnitude and 
diversity of their utilization of fissile material for the 
purpose of weaponry. I think, certainly, the Nunn-Lugar 
program--and I was on this committee when that program was 
initiated by those two fine individuals--has gone a long way. 
But it's like everything else, you turn over a new leaf, and 
you find something that you just didn't know existed. Given 
your extraordinary background, I'm certain that you'll keep a 
watchful eye on that.
    Mr. Tobey. I'll do my best, Senator.
    Chairman Warner. Good.
    Mr. Wilkie, we're fortunate, as a Congress, to have you 
once again step up and take on public service. You draw on a 
remarkable background of experience and personal associations 
with former and current Members of the Senate. I think Senator 
Levin and I would acknowledge we've been here a long time, but 
that opening statement by Senator Lott was certainly 
extraordinary in its commendation of you as an individual.
    Mr. Wilkie. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Warner. I share and respect Senator Lott's views.
    Again, having served in that position--not in that 
position, but in the Pentagon, myself, I remember the 
Secretary, on a weekly basis, used to come around and ask his 
service secretaries, ``Have you answered all of the 
congressional mail?'' We used to have a report that we had to 
file, my recollection, on a weekly basis of what the 
outstanding congressional mail and acknowledgment, or lack 
thereof, by the Department. Now, I just hope that you can 
work--I think anything can be improved, and your predecessor, I 
believe, worked very hard at it, but the challenge is still 
there. These are most extraordinary times in world history. We 
only need to go out and turn on the television now to see what 
the problems are. Your Department--and I say ``your''--DOD is 
right in the mainstream of these worldwide problems.
    So, just if you'll nod your head, or do you have some 
specifics you want to share with the committee----
    Mr. Wilkie. Yes, sir, you mentioned my previous 
associations. I was always told by Senator Helms that there was 
a reason that the framers put the congressional article as the 
first article of the Constitution, and that was beaten into my 
head from a very early time in the beginning of my service 
here.
    Chairman Warner. That's quite interesting.
    Mr. Wilkie. I think it's absolutely vital, in a time of 
war, that there be a strong partnership between DOD and 
Congress, and that has nothing to do with partisanship. That 
means making sure that questions are answered and that leads to 
soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen having everything that 
they need to carry on the fight.
    You mentioned something that seems very simple, and that is 
getting correspondence answered. Well, we have put in place, 
once again, that weekly report to the Secretary. I've done that 
in my current position as the Principal Deputy. I am very 
fortunate, in that regard, to have very outstanding people 
within the office who also appreciate what Dan Stanley 
appreciated, that the Department--and the Secretary would 
agree--has not been fast enough in responding to congressional 
inquiries so that the program that was in place during your 
service with President Nixon and Secretary Laird is back. Mr. 
Rumsfeld receives that report every week.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. I wish you luck.
    For Dr. McQueary, the committee has been reviewing the role 
of OT&E in supporting rapid fielding and evolving acquisition 
strategies. In your response to advance questions of the 
committee, you note that the OT&E challenge is becoming more 
involved in below-threshold operational testing for equipment 
such as helmets, armor, and ammunition.
    I cannot stress to you the importance of staying on top of 
that one, because many members, fortunately, receive queries 
from their constituents on the question of the current 
inventory, and perhaps lack of an adequate inventory, of those 
very fundamental things that any warrior needs when he or she 
goes into the field of combat and make sure that you've tested 
this equipment. Do you have any new ideas of how you're going 
to approach that?
    Dr. McQueary. Sir, I don't have any new ideas. I have had a 
short briefing on the helmet issue, so I have some 
understanding of what the issue is, but I don't have a proposed 
solution today.
    I do believe that an important adjunct to the position, the 
OT&E position, may be to get more heavily engaged in programs, 
particularly those that could affect the lives of our men and 
women who are in the Services, even though those programs may 
be below the financial threshold that would be set. I would put 
that as an item that, if I am confirmed in the position, I'd 
put it high on my priority list to seek approval from the 
Secretary and Congress that that be included as a part of our 
responsibilities.
    Chairman Warner. Let me make sure of that. In other words 
of that, you want a formal role in testing force production 
equipment? That is a formal role.
    Dr. McQueary. I think it would be appropriate, yes, sir, at 
least for us to have an oversight role to provide inputs to the 
Secretary and to Congress as to whether adequate testing has 
been done on such equipment.
    Chairman Warner. Well, it's not too late for this committee 
to look into it in the context of a conference report. Perhaps 
I'll ask my staff to confer with you further, and let's see 
what we might elect to do in the course of the conference.
    Dr. McQueary. Thank you.
    Chairman Warner. Ms. Payton, the committee is concerned 
about the adequacy of senior-level management technical and 
functional executives in the civilian workforce, particularly 
in the areas of acquisition. As you well know from your own 
personal experience, there are many opportunities on the 
outside of the Pentagon in which the remuneration and other 
benefits are very enticing. Do you think you have enough in the 
senior executives to keep pace with the Department's 
responsibilities in this acquisition?
    Ms. Payton. Thank you very much for that question, Senator 
Warner. I know that Secretary Wynne has great concern that the 
acquisition workforce needs to be strengthened and it needs to 
grow. I have those concerns, as well, and I also, in my opening 
statement, remarked that if someone is accountable and 
responsible, then they must have the authority to stop 
requirements creep, to identify technologies that are not 
mature and should not be part of the design. From my building 
of teams over the years, I believe what's very important for 
our acquisition workforce is to make sure that they have the 
structure that will allow them to flourish and that will allow 
them to be proud of the job they're doing and be recognized. 
So, I very much look forward, if confirmed, to tackling these 
issues with the acquisition workforce and to grow a stronger 
acquisition workforce.
    Chairman Warner. Well, we wish you luck.
    Ms. Payton. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Warner. We wish you luck. Because this is an area 
in which Senator McCain has devoted a great deal of his time. 
My guess is that he will continue that devotion.
    Ms. Payton. I very much look forward to that. Luck is a 
great thing, but support from Congress and within the 
Department will also be very important in this.
    Chairman Warner. Now to our two counsels here, Mr. Jimenez 
and Mr. Cohen. First, as you reflect on today's hearing and the 
questions put and the answers that you provided, the record 
will remain open until the close of business today if either of 
you wish to supplement your responses. That's true of any of 
the witnesses, but particularly these two. I simply tried to 
bring some clarification, and I will check the record on that 
one point, and provide it to you, as to what those witnesses--
certainly what the record reflects.
    So, my question to you is, not unlike the question to the 
others, do we have enough young people--or people coming up 
through the system in the attorney field to do the work that's 
going to be required in your respective jobs, if confirmed? 
Now, you can answer that for the record or wait until you get 
in to your job. But if you have any current assessment, we'd 
like to know, on the committee.
    Mr. Jimenez. Mr. Chairman, the Office of Navy General 
Counsel has over 600 attorneys in over 100 locations worldwide. 
I do believe that that is a sufficient end strength, so to 
speak, for the office. I wouldn't recommend any cuts, 
necessarily, but I think we do have sufficient staffing at this 
time.
    Chairman Warner. Good.
    Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding, and 
certainly my experience when I was at DOD General Counsel's 
Office, that the Army General Counsel and Office of the Judge 
Advocates General have sufficient resources, but, as you 
mentioned earlier, everything is capable of improvement, and we 
certainly need to continue monitoring whether we have the 
resources required to deliver legal services to the Army 
community.
    Chairman Warner. Good. Thank you very much. We want this 
committee to give you such support as you need.
    Finally, Ms. Blair, in responses you provided to the 
committee's policy questions, you indicated that you have 
worked with Navy medicine to address challenges in medical 
recruiting and retention. It would appear that this problem was 
not adequately foreseen and responded to. Give us your 
assessment of Navy and Reserve recruiting and retention in 
doctors, dentists, and nurses and what steps you might take to 
cure any deficiencies.
    Ms. Blair. Mr. Chairman, in the Department of the Navy, 
Navy Medicine, like the other two Services, has been challenged 
by the need for enough highly qualified medical personnel to be 
able to meet the demands of the force, and particularly for 
Navy medicine, because we have forward operating demands, as 
well as the need to provide medical care for families and all 
the folks back home. There have been shortages in various 
communities. Nurses and dentists strike me as two areas where 
we have particular shortages. Most of the efforts to attract 
and retain medical personnel have focused on bonuses, whether 
they be recruitment bonuses or retention bonuses. Other areas 
in which we have offered economic incentives are to provide 
assistance with payment of loans, to provide medical 
scholarships, and so forth.
    I can assure you that these problems have the attention not 
only of the medical community, but also of the leadership in 
the Department of the Navy, generally. Our Marine Corps is also 
involved in this, because they have a big interest here, too.
    So, we are proceeding with those----
    Chairman Warner. Why don't you address the Air Force, too. 
That'll be your specific responsibility?
    Ms. Blair. Well, sir, I am obviously a lot less familiar 
with the Air Force, but I'm sure that some of the same issues 
are probably present over there. I would like to defer any 
detailed analysis of the Air Force until I might have a chance 
to look into it in detail.
    Chairman Warner. Well, I think that's wise.
    All right. I thank you. Since we've all talked about our 
families, I'm so proud of the fact that my father was a young 
Army captain surgeon who fought in World War I in the trenches 
and was wounded and cared for thousands of others who, 
likewise, bore the wounds of that frightful conflict.
    Ms. Blair. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Warner. I have always been, as a member of the 
committee here, very strong in making sure that the medical 
resources of the military department are adequate. I thank you 
for your stepping up to your public service.
    That concludes the questions I might propound. We'll keep 
the record open. I may desire to put a question or two out 
before the close of business today, because we've had a very 
comprehensive hearing, we've had a lot of witnesses.
    Senator Levin, if you have further matters----
    Senator Levin. I do. Thank you.
    I'd like to just pick up where I left off with the two 
lawyers that are up for general counsel positions.
    I'd like to ask each of you, what do you believe the policy 
is, and should be, if there's any difference, about military 
members appearing at partisan events in uniform? There is an 
issue that was raised, because a couple of marines appeared in 
uniform at a Republican event in Colorado. This led to a number 
of newspaper articles. Without getting into facts or details, 
just tell us in terms of what the policy is and should be.
    Mr. Jimenez. Thank you, Senator Levin. Yes, without 
commenting on that incident, since I don't know the details, 
there is a DOD policy that covers this issue. I agree with that 
policy. It generally prohibits the wearing of uniforms at 
partisan events or events in which the appearance of 
partisanship might be apparent.
    Senator Levin. Mr. Cohen.
    Mr. Cohen. Senator, that's also my understanding of DOD 
policy, and it seems entirely appropriate.
    Senator Levin. Okay, thank you.
    Mr. Laufman, after September 11, the Department of Justice 
detained a significant number of foreigners (approximately 900) 
inside the United States. Now, these detainees had nothing to 
do with the al Qaeda or Taliban detainees which were held at 
Guantanamo. These were foreign citizens in the United States 
who were detained on the basis of suspected immigration 
violations. I want to emphasize that point. None was ever found 
to have had any connection with September 11.
    Senior Justice Department officials assured Congress that 
these detainees were being held in accordance with applicable 
law. Michael Chertoff, who was then the Assistant Attorney 
General for the Criminal Division, testified, in December 2001, 
that, ``Nobody is held incommunicado. We don't hold people in 
secret, cut off from lawyers, cut off from the public, cut off 
from their families and friends. They have the right to 
communicate with the outside world. We don't stop them from 
doing that.''
    However, the Department of Justice IG subsequently found 
that access to counsel was denied to many detainees, sometimes 
for prolonged periods. Communications blackouts lasting from 
several days to several weeks were imposed on some detainees. 
Even when there was no blackout, many detainees were only 
allowed one phone call to a lawyer per week.
    The IG of the Department of Justice, in reviewing this 
matter, found that you, personally, as the chief of staff to 
the Deputy Attorney General, played a role in this practice. In 
particular, the Department of Justice IG reported that you 
called the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and she 
stated that you told her that she should not be in a hurry, in 
her words, to provide those detainees with access to 
communications, including calls to their lawyers and families. 
In other words, while senior Department of Justice officials 
publicly assured Congress and the American people that the 
right to counsel and the right to call your family and so forth 
would be protected, according to that IG report, you actively 
sought to undermine that stated position.
    Was the Department of Justice IG's report fair and accurate 
in stating that you made those statements to the Bureau of 
Prisons?
    Mr. Laufman. I think the IG's report was accurate, but I 
think the IG's report also made it clear, both through its 
characterization of the statements I made to their 
investigators and its reporting of the statements that the 
then-BOP Director, Kathy Hawk Sawyer, made, that what we asked 
her to do was to evaluate what the legal limit was of her 
discretion under the regulations that govern BOP, and to 
exercise what unused latitude she might have, particularly in 
the days and weeks immediately after September 11, when we were 
seeking to stabilize the security situation and were concerned 
about another wave of attacks--to circumscribe, to the extent 
permissible under law, outside communications by terrorist 
detainees who might, for example, be communicating with 
confederates outside. We did not get into specific individuals 
or cases, but, at all times, we asked Ms. Sawyer--and I don't 
think she told the IG to the contrary--that we were only asking 
her to exercise that lawful discretion that she had under BOP 
regulations. At no time did she express any discomfort to us, 
either from a policy or a legal matter, about examining the use 
of additional discretion.
    Senator Levin. It wasn't a matter of just examining 
discretion. According to the IG of the Department of Justice, 
you told her not to be in a hurry.
    Mr. Laufman. I think we asked her to use that unused----
    Senator Levin. Were those your words, though?
    Mr. Laufman. I believe they were. It's many years ago, but 
I think the spirit of what I and my colleagues asked Ms. Hawks 
Sawyer to do, as we were seeking to utilize all Department of 
Justice resources in those perilous days after September 11, 
was to use what legal discretion we had under the rule of law--
in this case it was BOP regulations--to maximize the security 
of the people of this country, consistent with the rule of law.
    Senator Levin. Yes. These are alleged immigration 
violators, is that correct? Nine hundred, approximately?
    Mr. Laufman. We were not having conversations, as I recall 
it, with the BOP Director about immigration cases. We were 
focused on terrorist detainees, individuals who had been 
convicted of terrorism or terrorist-related crimes.
    Senator Levin. That's the people you were talking to BOP 
about?
    Mr. Laufman. Our focus, at that time, was on individuals 
who were being held in BOP detention for terrorism-related 
offenses.
    Senator Levin. How many people were there like that?
    Mr. Laufman. I don't know, sir.
    Senator Levin. So, when you talked to her, you weren't 
referring to the approximately 900 people who were being held 
for immigration violations, unconnected to any allegations or 
prior convictions of terrorists or terrorist-related offenses.
    Mr. Laufman. I don't recall making that distinction. It is 
true, though, Senator, that, in some cases, individuals who 
were believed to be engaged in terrorist activity were 
initially detained on immigration offenses, if there was a 
legal basis to do so, until further investigation could be 
completed on the terrorism issue.
    Senator Levin. But were these the only people you were 
referring to when you talked to her?
    Mr. Laufman. Our focus was on people who might be posing a 
security threat to the United States, yes, sir.
    Senator Levin. Has it been the practice of the DOD IG to 
consult with the Secretary of Defense about authorizing 
investigations within the scope of section 8(b)(1) during the 
course of those investigations after they have been initiated 
with the Secretary's approval?
    Mr. Laufman. Your question is, has it been the practice of 
the IG?
    Senator Levin. Yes.
    Mr. Laufman. I can't speak to what the prior incumbent did. 
I could only speak to what my understanding is as to what the 
statute would provide, or what good, sound practice would be if 
I'm confirmed.
    Senator Levin. Is it your understanding, then, that, after 
such an investigation has been initiated by the IG, that the IG 
then continues to consult with DOD?
    Mr. Laufman. You're asking about consultation----
    Senator Levin. Just on section 8(b)(1) investigations.
    Mr. Laufman. National security related investigations.
    Senator Levin. Right.
    Mr. Laufman. I think, in that category, Senator, since 
Congress explicitly, in the statute, gave the Secretary more 
direct control, it probably would be more appropriate for there 
to be a greater amount of consultation on those sensitive 
matters. But I would go on to say that that consultation should 
not go so far as to infringe on the letter or spirit of the 
independence that the IG should continue to exercise. But, in 
those sensitive areas that Congress delineated, I do think it's 
appropriate for there to be some greater interaction between 
the IG and the Secretary. What that is will have to be examined 
with prudence and care on a case-by-case basis.
    Senator Levin. You believe that interaction between the IG 
and DOD and those cases continues after the DOD has authorized 
the section 8(b)(1) investigation to begin?
    Mr. Laufman. If the IG, according to my reading of the 
statute, has initiated an investigation into any of those 
intelligence- or sensitive-related matters, there may be times 
where it is appropriate for the IG to consult some member of 
the Secretary's office, or other senior official, as 
appropriate, to report on some circumstance that merits their 
attention. I don't think it ought to be necessarily a running 
dialogue, but it could be that those areas that implicate 
operational considerations or other matters that may be 
appropriate to bring to the Secretary's attention. It ought not 
necessarily affect the actual ultimate findings or 
recommendations of the IG, but it does seem to me, given the 
way the statute is written, that some greater consultation is 
probably appropriate in those areas.
    Senator Levin. Do you believe that the IG has a statutory 
obligation to consult with the Secretary of Defense regarding 
the findings and recommendations of those investigations prior 
to issuing a report?
    Mr. Laufman. With respect to the national security related 
investigations?
    Senator Levin. Yes.
    Mr. Laufman. I think it is probably a fair reading of the 
statute to construe an obligation on the part of the IG to 
consult with respect to findings on those matters. Again, 
because of the carve-out that Congress created for those 
matters, it would seem to be inconsistent not to ask the IG to 
provide that measure of communication to senior officials.
    Senator Levin. Prior to issuing the report.
    Mr. Laufman. Prior to issuing the report. But I would add, 
too, that that does not mean that the IG should trim the sails 
of any findings or recommendations. It may, in that respect, be 
more of an advisory consultation, as opposed to an invitation 
to alter findings and recommendations.
    Senator Levin. It may not be an invitation to alter it, but 
it sure as heck is the opening to have DOD recommend changes in 
the report. I'm curious, though, about your statement that 
there's an obligation to consult.
    Mr. Laufman. Senator, it's my reading of the statute. It's 
clear that Congress took a different approach.
    Senator Levin. No, I understand that. It is a different 
approach on these. But, in terms of obligation--after the 
investigation is initiated, that you find that there's an 
obligation to consult with DOD prior to issuing findings from 
an IG in those areas. That's what your reading of the statute 
is?
    Mr. Laufman. Based on my reading of the statute, it seems 
to me that Congress intended there to be a different kind of 
relationship between the IG and the Secretary in those matters 
that Congress delineated in the statute. How that is made 
operational, I think, is going to depend on the prudence and 
judgment of the IG, the particular matter at hand, and whether 
the findings or potential recommendations are such as may get 
into areas that are of particular proprietary concern to 
operational commanders or intelligence issues where some 
greater cross-communication is prudent.
    Senator Levin. My question, however, is that, in your 
answers to our questions, you said there's an obligation in 
every report, in those areas, to consult with the Secretary of 
Defense before that report is issued, in those section 8(b)(1) 
areas.
    Mr. Laufman. Well, I don't know if I could say that with 
respect to every report. But, from a 30,000-foot view, it does 
seem to me, as a general proposition, that the statute--not 
explicitly, but this is how I read the statute--places on the 
IG an obligation to engage in greater consultation in those 
sensitive areas. Yes, sir.
    Senator Levin. Have you had any discussions about this 
matter with DOD?
    Mr. Laufman. No, sir.
    Senator Levin. Or the White House?
    Mr. Laufman. No, sir.
    Senator Levin. Have you discussed any pending IG 
investigation with DOD or the White House?
    Mr. Laufman. No, sir.
    Senator Levin. Have you talked to the Acting IG about your 
view that there is such an obligation to involve the Secretary 
of Defense, through consultation, in findings of an IG, after 
the IG has been authorized by the Secretary of Defense to 
proceed with the investigation?
    Mr. Laufman. I've had no conversations with him. I did 
transmit my draft answers to the committee's questions, and 
received no feedback, as best as I recall, on that issue, at 
least none that I recall now.
    Senator Levin. Was that answer to the question then 
basically that you believe the IG has a statutory obligation to 
consult with the Secretary of Defense regarding findings and 
recommendations of those investigations prior to issuing a 
report? Was that then bounced off the Acting IG?
    Mr. Laufman. I think I submitted a written answer, 
substantially identical to what you read as part of the package 
of answers so I could elicit feedback from the IG's office----
    Senator Levin. And received no feedback on that matter?
    Mr. Laufman. I don't recall receiving it.
    Senator Levin. So, you don't know if that has been the 
practice of the current IG or not, or the previous IGs?
    Mr. Laufman. I really don't, Senator. All I can do is do my 
best as a lawyer to read a statute. As I say, that particular 
portion of the IG act seems to be, as a matter of statutory 
construction, one that Congress took a different approach in, 
and that's the basis for my views today, sir.
    Senator Levin. Yes, we did, indeed. It has to do with 
authorizing those investigations and making sure that DOD 
authorizes any such investigation. But I don't believe it has 
been the practice of the IGs to consult with DOD, or to feel 
obligated to consult with DOD, relative to those findings 
following those investigations, because to do so would be a 
real impingement on the independence of the IG. It is these IGs 
that we rely upon for independent findings in investigations. 
If you're proposing a practice--and I say ``if,'' and I believe 
you are--that is different from any that has been followed 
before by any IG, I believe that you are, in fact, proposing a 
practice which will impinge upon that independence. So, that's 
why I am very surprised by your answer. I think it is different 
from the prior practice, and I think it represents a departure, 
in terms of the independence of the IG.
    Mr. Laufman. I appreciate your concern, Senator. I will 
say--and I hope it's been made clear through my answers and 
opening statement today--that the independence of the IG is 
going to be, first and foremost, a guiding principle for me, 
and I do not anticipate taking any course of action that 
infringes on the actual independence of the IG. If, for 
example, I were to consult, if confirmed, with someone in the 
Secretary's office, I think it would be appropriate--and I 
think I made this clear in my answers--that the nature and 
circumstances of those consultations should be memorialized in 
a report if they had any bearing whatsoever on findings and 
recommendations, so there would be--and I would insist on--a 
measure of transparency that would, I think, preserve, in the 
committee's view, the confidence that it reposes in the 
independence of the IG.
    Senator Levin. Do you know about how many section 8(b)(1) 
investigations are currently underway at the IG's office?
    Mr. Laufman. I do not, sir.
    Senator Levin. Ms. Payton, at a committee hearing 2 years 
ago, a senior Air Force acquisition official testified that in 
the 1990s not only did we go through a very serious 
restructuring of our forces in drawdown, but we also went 
through a major acquisition reform that took much of the 
oversight and took much of the checks and balances out. 
Secretary Wynne has attributed some of these problems to the 
depletion of the acquisition workforce over the last decade. In 
his previous capacity as Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Secretary Wynne told our committee that ``I 
believe we're at the point where any further reductions in the 
defense acquisition workforce will adversely impact our ability 
to successfully execute a growing workload. The numbers are 
startling,'' he said. ``The defense acquisition workforce has 
been downsized by roughly half since 1990, while the contract 
dollars have roughly doubled during the same period. We need to 
continue to renew and restore the defense acquisition 
workforce. Now, more than ever, I believe we need to increase 
the size of the acquisition workforce to handle the growing 
workload, especially as retirements increase in the coming 
years.''
    Do you share Secretary Wynne's concerns about the 
acquisition workforce?
    Ms. Payton. Senator Levin, I more than share Secretary 
Wynne's concern. Any organization that I've ever gone to and 
then left has improved, and it will be one of my number-one 
goals to look at the acquisition workforce, to look at the 
skill levels, to look at the numbers, and to determine the best 
way ahead to strengthen our acquisition workforce.
    Senator Levin. Thank you. The acquisition of contract 
services has been often neglected by senior DOD acquisition 
officials who spend a majority of their time on the major 
weapons system. As a result, we continue to spend billions of 
dollars for contract services without adequate assurance that 
we are getting our money's worth. If confirmed, will you make 
it a top priority to improve the management of contract 
services by the Department of the Air Force?
    Ms. Payton. Senator, if confirmed, this will be one of my 
top priority items. When I was in industry, I was under a 
services' contract. There were milestones to meet. There were 
deliverables to meet. I believe that we need to examine this 
issue and determine the right way ahead again. If confirmed, it 
will be one of my top priorities.
    Senator Levin. Thank you.
    Mr. Tobey, last week the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) 
issued the Atom Study, reviewing the progress of actions taken 
to reduce the possibility that nuclear or radioactive materials 
or nuclear weapons would be stolen. Much has been accomplished, 
but many of the sites and large quantities of material remain 
unsecured. I'd appreciate it if you would share your thoughts 
on how we address some of the problems highlighted in that 
report. For instance, the report states that two-thirds of the 
highly enriched uranium supplied by the United States to 
overseas research reactors is still not covered by agreements 
to take back the fuel and convert the reactors to safer, lower 
enriched uranium fuels. Is it possible to increase the quantity 
of highly enriched uranium fuels subject to takeback 
agreements? How would you go about that? Are you familiar with 
that NTI report?
    Mr. Tobey. Yes, Senator, I am familiar with the report.
    Senator Levin. Can you just comment, perhaps, on that one 
recommendation, and any of the other recommendations that they 
made, as to how we can do better, in terms of securing 
materials at the many sites that remain unsecured?
    Mr. Tobey. Sure. With respect to your specific question, my 
understanding is that about two-thirds of material not being 
covered by takeback agreements actually resides in France and 
Germany, and is, therefore, a lower priority, in terms of our 
concerns about its safety and security.
    I should say, though, that it's clear that preventing the 
spread of nuclear weapons is a complex and vital issue, and I'd 
expect there to be criticism and advice with respect to the job 
we're doing to deal with the proliferation. It would be my 
intention, if confirmed, to try and use that criticism and 
advice to improve our efforts. So, I welcome the report. I 
intend to talk to the report's authors. I've studied it over 
the weekend, as it just came out last week.
    I would also note that from my reading of the report, the 
three principal recommendations were to: one, launch a global 
coalition to prevent nuclear terrorism; two, forge effective 
global security standards; and three, accelerate removal of 
weapons-usable material. I think, actually, we're doing much of 
what was encouraged in the report. For example, the initiative 
announced by Presidents Bush and Putin over the weekend, I 
think, will do much to accomplish the first two 
recommendations.
    Senator Levin. I think the chairman has asked you about 
that already, and we appreciate that.
    Mr. Wilkie, this relates to a pre-hearing policy question 
as to an e-mail of more than 75 pages of information your 
office sent to a number of congressional offices in connection 
with the debate in the Senate on certain amendments relating to 
Iraq recently. You said that the Department routinely prepares 
position papers and statements of policy for use by Congress. 
This was an effort by the Department in the National Security 
Council. Are you familiar with that 75-page e-mail?
    Mr. Wilkie. Yes, sir.
    Senator Levin. Was that sent to all the offices?
    Mr. Wilkie. The instructions, sir, were to have the 
document sent to the communications list that we had in our 
office. That means the Republican Policy Committee, the 
Democratic Policy Committee, the leadership offices. What 
happened within an hour of that e-mail being sent out, the 
individual in the office who pushed the button on the computer 
started to receive a whole host of administrative errors. We 
cleaned up that list, and, within an hour, we not only re-sent 
the document to your office, to Ms. Pelosi's office, but we 
cleaned up the list. It was a strange list. I don't know how, 
to be honest with you, the U.S. Embassy in Belgium ended up on 
that communications list, but that was one of the 
administrative errors, but the rest of that day, we sent the 
document out to anyone who requested it, both in the press and 
also any congressional offices that had not received it through 
their leadership chain.
    Senator Levin. So, the document that I'm referring to was 
sent to too broad of a list or an inaccurate list, but the same 
document was then sent to our leadership on both sides of the 
aisle?
    Mr. Wilkie. Yes, sir.
    Senator Levin. There were some quotes in that draft that--
where you quoted, I believe, ``only Democrats.'' Are you 
familiar with that?
    Mr. Wilkie. I know that there were, I think, two pages of 
quotes that were placed into that document that quoted members 
of the Democratic Party, yes, sir.
    Senator Levin. Do you know why it was limited to Democrats?
    Mr. Wilkie. I think the authors of the product believed 
that those quotes were in support of the position that the 
administration took. The talking points that were included in 
that document, they were compilations of talking points that 
the President, the Secretary, and, I believe, the Vice 
President had used. So, those talking points were certainly the 
product of the President, the Vice President, and the 
Secretary.
    Senator Levin. Who were the authors?
    Mr. Wilkie. The authors, if you could use that term, sir, 
people just collected talking points. The National Security 
Council (NSC) provided them. The Department provided them, and 
those were put together in that document.
    Senator Levin. Not by your office?
    Mr. Wilkie. We did collate the documents that were handed 
to us by the NSC. We sent it back to the White House and the 
NSC, and they sent it back to us for distribution.
    Senator Levin. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all.
    Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin. I think we have 
very thoroughly examined this distinguished panel. I compliment 
the President and other members of the administration for 
working to see that these nominations were brought to 
Congress--that is, the Senate, specifically, under the advise 
and consent provisions--very expeditiously. It is my hope and 
expectation that our committee can act expeditiously on this 
panel and seek confirmation of the full Senate prior to the 
August recess. We have that as our goal.
    Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, if the record could be kept 
open for additional questions, it would be appreciated.
    Chairman Warner. I announced earlier we'd keep the record 
open through the close of business today. Do you wish a longer 
period?
    Senator Levin. I think it would be better if perhaps we 
kept it open through close of business on Thursday, that would 
be good.
    Chairman Warner. Fine. We'll try to accommodate the Senator 
in that, for some point on Thursday, in the hopes that perhaps 
by Thursday afternoon we might address--could we make that, 
say, midday Thursday?
    Senator Levin. Questions for the record? That would be 
fine.
    Chairman Warner. Fine. We'll examine those responses to 
questions to determine the ability to get those members of the 
panel who've complied through and confirmed.
    I thank you, and the members of the family who joined us 
today, I appreciate your patience. I see some of our littler 
guests have departed, but I'll see that they get copies of the 
record.
    Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, also let me just thank you. 
This is a very large panel, an unusually large panel. Even 
though this has been a fairly long hearing, given the number of 
nominees, it's due, I think, to your organization and 
efficiency that we've been able to get through this many.
    Chairman Warner. Senator, it speaks to the good fortune 
that you and I have of an excellent professional staff, who, as 
you said, work together in a bipartisan way to achieve the 
goals of this committee.
    This hearing is concluded.
    [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the committee adjourned.]

    [Prepared questions submitted to Charles E. McQueary by 
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied 
follow:]
                        Questions and Responses
                            defense reforms
    Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense 
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have 
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have 
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain 
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant 
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
They have also clarified the responsibility of the military departments 
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment 
to the combatant commanders.
    Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act 
provisions?
    Answer. I see no need for modifications to any Goldwater-Nichols 
Act provision as I understand them.
    Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to 
address in these modifications?
    Answer. N/A
                                 duties
    Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of 
the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E)?
    Answer. I understand that, if confirmed, my duties as DOT&E will be 
to serve as the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense and Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics as to 
the conduct of test and evaluation (T&E) within the Department and in 
formulating and implementing operational T&E policy. I would also be 
required to provide to Congress an annual report summarizing 
operational T&E activities, to include comments and recommendations on 
operational T&E resources and facilities, levels of funding made 
available for operational T&E activities. I would provide Beyond Low 
Rate Initial Production reports and respond to specific requests from 
Congress for information relating to operational T&E in the Department 
of Defense. If confirmed, my duties will include responsibility for 
prescribing policies and procedures for the conduct of operational T&E, 
providing guidance to and consultation with the Secretary of Defense 
and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics, and for monitoring and reviewing all operational and live-
fire T&E within the Department. I would also be responsible for 
coordinating joint operational testing, review of and recommendations 
to the Secretary of Defense on all budgetary and financial matters 
relating to operational and live-fire T&E, including test facilities.
    Question. What background and experience do you possess that you 
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
    Answer. Throughout my private industry career which began in 1966 
and spanned 36 years, I have led various technical activities which 
involved research, development, test, and manufacture of systems to 
support the Department of Defense and other government agencies. 
Specifically, I spent 2 years on Kwajalein (1971-1973) as head of 
Missile Operations on the Safeguard Antiballistic Missile Program. 
Subsequently, I led a group which installed, operated, and provided 
training for an undersea surveillance system at an overseas location. 
This system successfully passed a Commander, Operational Test and 
Evaluation Force evaluation. I have led groups who designed, developed, 
and manufactured towed sonars for submarines, fiber optic undersea 
surveillance systems, fiber optic communication systems, and signal 
processing hardware and software.
    In the final 10 years of my career, I had full profit and loss 
responsibility for those systems designed and developed by my 
organization.
    Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to 
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the DOT&E?
    Answer. If confirmed, there are several steps I intend to take, to 
include becoming familiar with the various programs that DOT&E 
oversees, getting involved with the Military Departments' Operational 
Test Agencies, getting out to observe operational testing, and 
communicating routinely with Congress. I see the upcoming development 
of the Director's Annual Report as an opportunity to take many of these 
steps.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do 
you expect that the Secretary of Defense will assign to you?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would expect that Secretary Rumsfeld would 
look to the Director to carry out duties as assigned by statute and 
regulation; in particular, advise and propose policies on all T&E 
activities, and funding/management of operational test facilities, test 
ranges, and other related issues.
                            major challenges
    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will 
confront the DOT&E?
    Answer. While I am still learning about the challenges that I will 
face if confirmed, I have formed some initial opinions. The long war on 
terrorism (LWOT) is making resources for adequate OT&E difficult to 
come by. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are in general either 
deployed into theater or training to return to theater. The Army and 
Marines are particularly affected.
    The workload on the DOD T&E community has been steadily increasing 
without an increase in manning. The Operational Test Agencies are 
struggling in general, and DOT&E is also feeling the pinch. Increased 
demands stem from: complexity of systems, systems-of-systems testing, 
increased emphasis on information assurance and interoperability, 
involvement in rapid acquisition to support the LWOT, ACTD evaluations, 
joint and multi-service testing, new types of weapons systems (e.g., 
directed energy weapons), etc.
    Operational realism incorporated during DT and the open sharing of 
DT data during development is essential to understanding system 
performance and progress and readiness for OT&E.
    Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these 
challenges?
    Answer. My initial thoughts that I would follow-up on if confirmed 
are:
    To forge a stronger bond between the test and training communities 
so that exercises or events can be phased to support both testing and 
training objectives.
    To actively engage in the DOD Planning, Programming, and Budget 
Execution process to ensure organizations with designated 
responsibilities have the resources, including the manning with which 
to carry out those responsibilities.
    To work with the Defense Acquisition Executive and the Service 
Secretaries to promote transparency and sharing of performance data 
early during development so OT&E is not perceived as threatening to a 
program.
    Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in 
the performance of the functions of the DOT&E?
    My initial thoughts are:
    DOT&E and the OTAs are dependent upon the process for generating 
and validating requirements that are affordable and that will lead to 
``. . . quality products that satisfy user needs with measurable 
improvements in mission capability and operational support. . .'' 
Getting the requirements right and reasonable with a well thought out 
rationale is essential for successful development and to demonstrate 
performance through adequate OT&E.
    Developing acquisition strategies that include adequate OT&E to 
support procurement decisions, and, in today's environment, before 
decisions to deploy systems into combat is essential to ensure 
warfighters receive weapons that are operationally effective, suitable, 
survivable, and lethal.
    Question. If confirmed, what management actions and timelines would 
you establish to address these problems?
    Answer. If confirmed, I plan to meet with the Joint Requirements 
Oversight Council (JROC) Chairman, the Military Department Secretaries, 
and the DAE to address these issues within 30 days of taking office. I 
believe it is imperative that DOT&E participate in the topdown 
leadership structure of the Department. Providing advice to the 
requirements generation process as well as the development of 
acquisition strategies is part of that leadership.
                             relationships
    Question. If confirmed, how will you work with the following: the 
Secretary of Defense; the Deputy Secretary of Defense; the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; the Director of 
Defense Research and Engineering; the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for Networks and Information Integration; the Inspector General of the 
Department of Defense; the General Counsel of the Department of 
Defense; the Service and agency officials responsible for major 
acquisition programs; the Directors of the Services' T&E organizations; 
the JROC; and the Director of the Defense Test Resource Management 
Center (DTRMC).
    Answer. The relationship of the Director with many of these offices 
is described or defined in regulation or policy documents. If 
confirmed, I intend to develop a rapport with these officials to ensure 
the interests of the public and the Department are served and Congress 
remains informed.
                      independence and objectivity
    Question. Congress established the position of Defense DOT&E as an 
independent and objective evaluator of the performance of major 
systems. Report language accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1984 (Public Law 98-94), which was 
codified as section 139 of title 10, U.S.C. states that ``the Director 
[is] to be independent of other DOD officials below the Secretary of 
Defense'' and ``not circumscribed in any way by other officials in 
carrying out his duties.'' In describing the Director's duties, the 
report also noted an expectation that the Director ``safeguard the 
integrity of operational testing and evaluation in general and with 
respect to specific major defense acquisition programs.''
    Can you assure the committee that, if confirmed, you will be 
independent and objective in your evaluations, and that you will 
provide your candid assessment of Major Defense Acquisition Programs to 
Congress?
    Answer. Yes. I strongly believe independence to be crucial to 
objective testing and reporting. If confirmed, I intend to be 
independent and to provide candid assessments of all oversight programs 
to Congress.
    Question. In your view, does the DOT&E have the necessary 
authorities under sections 139 and 2399 of title 10, U.S.C., and 
applicable departmental regulations to carry out the duties prescribed?
    Answer. Yes, I believe the statutory authority presently ascribed 
to the position of DOT&E is sufficient to allow me to carry out the 
duties as director, if confirmed.
    Question. Section 2399 of title 10, U.S.C., establishes certain 
requirements regarding the impartiality of contractor testing personnel 
and contracted for advisory and assistance services utilized with 
regard to the T&E of a system.
    What is your view of these requirements?
    Answer. I believe the key point is that we must test systems in the 
realistic environment in which they will be employed with the same 
maintenance and logistics structure that will support that system once 
fielded. If contractors are specifically intended to be part of that 
support structure, their participation in test is appropriate. 
Otherwise, their participation is not appropriate. In my view, section 
2399 allows the flexibility to properly structure the operational 
testing, and properly provides for impartial contracted advisory and 
assistance services.
    Question. How will you maintain independence from the often 
conflicting goals of the acquisition community and the mandates for 
necessary operational testing?
    Answer. From DODD 5000.1,``The purpose of the acquisition system is 
to acquire quality products that satisfy user needs with measurable 
improvements to mission capability and operational support, in a timely 
manner, and at a reasonable price.'' I support this purpose. 
Improvement in mission capability cannot be measured without testing in 
relevant operational context. Independence is essential to ensure 
objective T&E reporting. The DOT&E authorities and responsibilities for 
OT&E and LFT&E, set out in title 10 U.S.C., establish that 
independence. I have reviewed DOT&E reports and found them to be fair 
and balanced. In the case of the Missile Defense Agency, in which DOT&E 
provides advice on DT, I also found the reporting to be unbiased and 
credible. If confirmed, I intend to maintain the credibility DOT&E has 
established over the years.
                      test and evaluation funding
    Question. In the fiscal year 2007 budget request, the Air Force 
reduced T&E activities by nearly $400 million over the Future Years 
Defense Program, relative to projected budgets for this activity 
presented to Congress with the fiscal year 2006 budget request. 
Operating and investment budgets for Major Range and Test Facility 
Bases have been historically underfunded.
    Do you believe that the Department's T&E function is adequately 
funded?
    Answer. I am aware of a DSB finding that the T&E process is not 
adequately funded and notes that the age of the facilities and 
capabilities averages over 35 years, with some over 50 years old. 
Service T&E resources investment proportionately reflects the overall 
Service budgets. If confirmed, I will look closely at this issue as I 
believe that as the complexity of systems under test continues to grow, 
so must the investment in new T&E capability.
    Question. What are your views about the importance of accurately 
projecting future test facility instrumentation requirements and 
budgeting for these needs?
    Answer. In my view accurately projecting future T&E resources needs 
within a program's T&E Master Plan at program inception is absolutely 
critical. The discipline required to accurately define these resources 
goes a long way to ensuring a program is deemed executable at 
inception. Such projection also supports and justifies Service planning 
and budgeting for those T&E assets that must be modified or developed 
to meet a program's needs years into the future. Reviewing and 
assessing program T&E resources plans is a critical part of assessing 
the adequacy of testing.
    Question. How do you plan to evaluate and improve the operational 
testing workforce in DOD especially in light of the growing numbers of 
new technologies embedded in weapon systems and the desire to speed the 
acquisition and deployment of systems to the battlefield?
    Answer. In response to section 234 of the Bob Stump National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, the Department reported 
to Congress on the ``Capabilities of the Test and Evaluation Workforce 
of the Department of Defense.'' The report provided an overview of 
ongoing efforts to improve personnel management and concluded that a 
strategic plan would be developed to address future manpower.
    In May 2006, the Department published the initial version of the 
AT&L Human Capital Strategic Plan. This plan addresses recruiting, 
governing, measuring performance, and improving the knowledge of all 
acquisition workforce members, including T&E personnel.
    If confirmed, I will examine this effort and follow-up on the 
Department's plans.
                 operational and developmental testing
    Question. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently 
reported that the Department's acquisition system incentivizes delayed 
operational testing ``because that will keep `bad news' at bay.'' 
According to GAO, program managers have an incentive to suppress bad 
news and continually produce optimistic estimates, because doing 
otherwise could result in a loss of support and funding and further 
damage their programs.
    Do you agree with the GAO finding?
    Answer. I am not thoroughly familiar with that report but generally 
understand the argument. Acquisition programs compete each year for 
continued funding and support. Within the Services, program managers 
and resource sponsors vie with others to gain or retain programmed 
funds. The process repeats itself many times as the Defense budget is 
submitted, reviewed, and approved.
    At any point in this process, performance deficiencies identified 
in testing are perceived as weakness. The established planning, 
programming, and budget system tends to reward perceived ``good news'' 
and punish ``bad news'' by reducing funding, sometimes to the point of 
forcing programs to restructure.
    I believe the incentives in the acquisition system could be changed 
to value early realistic testing. Such testing strengthens weapon 
systems by revealing design flaws and allowing time to correct them 
during system development. In my view, incentives could be provided to 
foster the discovery of such design flaws early in development. When 
system developers realistically test their design, subjecting it to the 
stresses expected in combat conditions, they have the opportunity to 
improve that design. The most successful weapon system development 
programs are those that discover and acknowledge deficiencies early and 
commit resources to correct them.
    Question. What are your views on the appropriate point in concept 
development of a new acquisition program for incorporation of T&E 
planning and integration of testing requirements?
    Answer. During concept refinement (Pre-Milestone A = Concept 
Refinement Phase) the major effort should be to develop a strategy to 
evaluate system performance and mission accomplishment. During 
technology development (Pre-Milestone B = Technology Development with 
Program Initiation at Milestone B) the test-related efforts might 
include analysis, modeling, simulation, component, subsystem, and 
breadboard testing. During this phase, detailed T&E activities should 
be planned, resourced, and documented in a Test and Evaluation Master 
Plan (TEMP). The ultimate objective of these activities should be an 
Initial Operational Test and Evaluation in a realistic combat 
environment and full-up system-level live-fire testing prior to full-
rate production and deployment.
    Question. What steps, if any, do you believe the Department should 
take to ensure that testing takes place early enough in the program 
cycle to identify and fix problems before it becomes prohibitively 
time-consuming and expensive to do so?
    Answer. I would strongly support the practice of conducting 
rigorous operationally oriented developmental test and robust 
operational assessment prior to entering low-rate initial production. 
If confirmed, I will continue to emphasize the early involvement of 
operational testers and work to ensure that no weapon system is 
delivered to the warfighter until it has been subjected to the stresses 
of modern combat and objectively evaluated
    Question. Acquisition programs continue to complete developmental 
testing satisfactorily, but perform poorly on operational testing 
suggesting that developmental testing lacks sufficient rigor or realism 
to adequately characterize the technical performance of a system under 
test.
    What are you views on the current relationship between 
developmental and operational testing?
    Answer. Developmental and operational testing complement each 
other. The current DOD relationship is appropriate. Developmental 
testing should be the program manager's tool to understand system 
performance, discover design flaws, and determine readiness to enter 
initial operational T&E. There is evidence that developmental testing 
must be more rigorous and realistic, and that deficiencies discovered 
in developmental testing should be corrected prior to operational 
testing.
    Operational testing should determine that a unit equipped with the 
system can accomplish its mission and determine if the system is 
operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and lethal for combat 
use.
    Question. When is it appropriate for developmental and operational 
testing to be combined?
    Answer. The focus of developmental evaluation is engineering and 
system technical performance. The focus of operational evaluation 
should remain on the ability of a unit equipped with the system to 
successfully accomplish combat missions. Often a single test event 
might be designed to provide needed information to system engineers and 
to operational evaluators. It is appropriate to combine developmental 
and operational testing when the objectives of both evaluations can be 
met. This may provide shared data at a reduced cost.
    I do not believe it is appropriate to combine developmental and 
operational testing solely to recover program schedule. I strongly 
believe in the value of event-based acquisition program management and 
test execution.
    The final step in development should be the field test of end-to-
end missions by an operational unit equipped with the system under 
realistic combat conditions.
               defense acquisition performance assessment
    Question. The Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment (DAPA) 
report recommended that laws governing operational testing be modified 
to add a new ``operationally acceptable'' test evaluation category and 
provide fiscal and time constraints for operational testing.
    What is your view of these recommendations?
    Answer. My initial review of the DAPA highlights some very good 
points, but I do not believe that the provisions governing operational 
testng in title 10 need to be changed to incorporate a new category of 
``operationally acceptable.'' To me, this new reporting category sounds 
like a watered down standard that would be difficult to define and 
enforce. ``Operationally acceptable'' implies something less than 
operationally effective and suitable for combat.
    Question. The DAPA report notes that ``[b]etween fiscal years 2002 
and 2005, the T&E workforce grew by over 40 percent while the program 
management workforce declined by 5 percent, production engineering 
declined by 12 percent, and financial managers declined by 20 
percent.''
    Do you agree with these DAPA findings on the T&E workforce?
    Answer. No, I understand that the DAPA's findings on the T&E 
workforce were based upon flawed or incorrect personnel accounting. 
Those findings seem to confuse the T&E acquisition career field within 
AT&L, which increased by 40 percent, and the T&E workforce (mostly 
outside AT&L) that actually decreased by 10 percent. If confirmed, I 
intend to look into this issue more closely.
          adaptation of t&e to evolving acquisition strategies
    Question. A natural tension exists between major program objectives 
to reduce cost and schedule and the T&E objective to demonstrate 
performance to specifications and requirements. This committee has 
received testimony by senior Defense Department leadership indicating 
the need to streamline the acquisition process to reduce the fielding 
times and cost for new weapons systems and capabilities.
    If confirmed, how would you propose to achieve an appropriate 
balance between the desire to reduce acquisition cycle times and the 
need to perform adequate testing?
    Answer. The time to conduct operational testing is only a small 
percentage of the overall acquisition cycle time. Delays in entering 
operational testing usually are much longer than the timeframe of the 
operational test itself. Because the operational tests supporting full 
production occur near the end of the acquisition cycle, there is 
greater pressure to rush such tests. I feel that the early involvement 
of operational testers can contribute to reducing cycle time by 
identifying issues early in the development cycle when the problems can 
be solved with less impact on the program.
    Question. In your view, would a review of T&E processes be useful 
in light of evolving acquisition approaches?
    Answer. I understand that DOT&E and USD(AT&L) recently commissioned 
and received a study by the National Research Council, titled ``Testing 
of Defense Systems in an Evolutionary Environment.'' I am in the 
process of reviewing the principal findings of that study.
    Question. What requirements and criteria would you propose to 
ensure an effective test program is established for an evolutionary 
acquisition program?
    Answer. Evolutionary acquisition requires a time-phased 
requirements process with a distinct set of requirements for each 
development spiral. The important point is that each spiral should 
remain ``event-based,'' as opposed to'' schedule driven.'' Each spiral 
can then be operationally tested and evaluated against appropriate 
requirements.
    Question. Recent equipment problems have brought to light potential 
testing deficiencies resulting from programs fielded that fall below 
the thresholds established for oversight by the DOT&E. In many cases, 
such as with body armor, helmets, vehicle armor kits, and ammunition, 
the materiel involved is crucial to the everyday mission effectiveness 
and survivability of our military forces.
    If confirmed, how would you ensure acquisition and fielding of such 
critical equipment is effective, safe, and suitable for our military to 
take into combat?
    Answer. It is a challenge for DOT&E to become involved in these 
programs for several reasons. The smaller programs do not meet the 
statutory thresholds that require formal program oversight by DOT&E. 
The Service Acquisition Executive manages and executes these 
acquisition programs and, in most cases, DOT&E does not even know the 
programs exist. DOT&E becomes aware of issues with these systems, such 
as with ground vehicle armor, body armor, helmets, and ammunition, when 
problems surface internally in the Department or through the media. 
Since there is no statutory requirement for DOT&E oversight of these 
programs, the Services are reluctant for DOT&E to become involved. In 
all these cases, DOT&E leadership has successfully engaged with 
Services to conduct a comprehensive review of the issues, and as 
required, conduct adequate analyses and/or testing to address the 
problems. This presents a challenge to DOT&E because the staff size is 
limited to that required for oversight of the Major Defense Acquisition 
Programs (MDAP) only. Time the DOT&E staff spends to resolve these 
critical issues with the non-MDAP programs, detracts from statutory 
oversight of the major programs.
    If confirmed, I will work with the Services to continue to address 
problems with the smaller programs, as they arise. I will try to 
influence the Department to adopt policy that to gives DOT&E formal 
insight to any acquisition program that impacts a soldier, sailor, 
airmen, or marine's personal effectiveness, safety, and survivability.
    Question. What are your views on the testing of systems under 
spiral development?
    Answer. Systems under spiral development should include as much 
operational realism as possible in a robust DT program. Such systems 
should also use operational assessments to support decisions to 
continue low-rate production. Appropriate LFT&E and end-to-end mission 
context OT&E should be completed before a spiral, block, increment, 
etc. is deployed and placed in harm's way.
    Question. Do you believe that follow-on operational testing should 
be required for each program spiral?
    Answer. Each program spiral that is to be deployed and placed in 
harm's way should be required to complete appropriate LFT&E and OT&E. 
In many cases that may be through a follow-on test, as you suggest.
             combination of testing with training exercises
    Question. Some hold the view that the most representative 
operational testing would be to allow operational forces to conduct 
training exercises with the system under evaluation.
    In your view, should testing be combined with scheduled training 
exercises for efficiency and effectiveness?
    Answer. I understand that the Department has combined testing and 
training events since the 1960s. I favor combined test and training 
events in a joint environment when they provide increased test realism, 
more realistic friendly and threat forces, and a broader operational 
context, but still allow for the necessary collection of data. Large 
scale exercises often present an economical way to create such 
conditions.
    Question. What are the barriers, if any, to doing so?
    Answer. On the other hand, I recognize there may be differing 
objectives between testing and training. Testing requires the ability 
to control events and collect data, which may interfere with 
commanders' training objectives. These potential barriers require close 
cooperation between the tester and trainer in order to be successful. 
This is challenging in today's environment as commanders prepare for 
ongoing contingency operations.
                        suitability performance
    Question. A study of acquisition programs from 1985-1990 and 1996-
2000 showed that the percentage of systems meeting reliability 
requirements decreased from 41 percent to 20 percent. This trend may be 
evidence that the Department, in attempting to field systems more 
rapidly, is focusing on effectiveness and treating suitability--to 
include reliability, availability, maintainability, and logistics--as 
less important. Late last year, the Department developed a guide to 
address this concern and to promulgate metrics for reliability, 
availability, and maintainability (RAM) of systems.
    What are your views about the appropriate balance between the need 
for rapid fielding of effective systems and RAM of such systems?
    Answer. My firm belief is that we cannot compromise the mission 
capability of the force and poor RAM does just that. As a practical 
matter, there does not necessarily have to be a trade-off between 
mission effectiveness and suitability (RAM) if both are designed for 
early in-program development. If confirmed, I will ensure that DOT&E 
continues to look for that duel emphasis early in-program development.
                     ``system-of-systems'' testing
    Question. Many programs are now developing what is called a 
``system-of-systems'' approach.
    What inherent challenges exist for operational testing with regard 
to DOD programs that are a part of an overall ``system-of-systems''?
    Answer. I believe there are significant challenges in conducting 
adequate operational T&E of a ``system-of-systems'' or programs that 
are a part of an overall ``system-of-systems.'' Some of the inherent 
challenges are: size of the unit, size of the threat, size of the test 
and test area; complexity of the test and test instrumentation; 
differing Service and Joint solutions; interdependence; 
interoperability between systems and Services; integration of complex 
systems; schedule synchronization; cost of test; and availability of 
operational units and opposing forces for test.
    Question. How should a ``system-of-systems'' be tested to assess 
the effectiveness of the whole?
    Answer. I believe the ``system-of-systems'' should be tested end-
to-end as a complete unit, ideally in conjunction with first unit 
equipping and training activities.
    Question. Complex system integration and related software 
development have emerged as the primary risks to major defense program 
development.
    If confirmed, how would you propose to assess the effectiveness of 
and, if necessary, improve the force's methodology for verification and 
validation of these extremely large, intensive computer programs which 
are so critical to the performance of today's weapon systems?
    Answer. The testing and assessment of complex software programs 
should be based on the same principles that we use for any weapon 
system--realistic, rigorous, and robust testing focused on the missions 
and tasks the software supports; used by the soldiers, sailors, airmen, 
marines, and DOD civilians as they will operate with it in the field or 
in their daily work environment. To do so, the Department must have the 
right tools available to create the complex, joint environment in which 
they often operate. If confirmed, I would urge Congress and the 
Department to support the development of a test environment as outlined 
in the testing in the Joint Environment Roadmap developed under Tom 
Christie's watch.
    In addition, if confirmed I would work closely with the Services 
and Joint Forces Command to develop the means to combine testing with 
training events. Major training events bring large numbers of forces 
and organizations together in a way that can rarely be duplicated for a 
single operational test event--creating that complex, stressful 
environment needed by these programs.
    Our growing reliance on complex software and information 
technologies for net-centric warfare creates a natural vulnerability to 
cyberthreats. If confirmed, I will transition the success DOT&E has had 
in assessing the information assurance posture for the combatant 
commanders to operational testing of systems during acquisition.
    Finally, if confirmed, I would stress the need for intense systems 
engineering and developmental testing prior to moving into operational 
testing. The Department has many hard lessons learned (and relearned)--
if the time isn't taken upfront to engineer the software and it isn't 
exercised in an operationally realistic architecture in a lab 
environment, then there is a high probability it will not work in the 
field. Testing of these complex systems must be event driven--and not 
schedule driven.
                   t&e facilities and instrumentation
    Question. Concern over long-term support for and viability of the 
Department's test ranges and facilities led to creation of the DTRMC in 
2002 and a requirement for direct research, development, and T&E 
support of facilities.
    In your view, how are these changes working to address funding and 
sustainability concerns at the department's test ranges and bases?
    Answer. I understand the Department revised its financial 
regulations in fiscal year 2005 as they pertain to the test 
infrastructure. This resulted in a realignment of funding to support 
the Major Range and Test Facility Base in an amount of approximately 
$600 million per year. The effects of such a significant redistribution 
in Department funding will take time to assess. If confirmed, I will 
continue to work with the DTRMC to ensure that the Department's 
investment strategy for test and evaluation is adequate to meet future 
needs.
    Question. Is the Department developing adequate test targets, 
particularly aerial targets, and ranges to represent emerging threats 
and environments?
    Answer. A 2005 Defense Science Board Study said that threat 
realistic aerial targets, in sufficient quantities, are critical to 
assessing the effectiveness of weapons and sensor systems. The DTRMC 
reinforced this position by establishing Full-scale Aerial targets and 
Supersonic Sea-skimming Missile targets as two of their four Critical 
Interest Items within the Strategic Plan for Defense Test Resources. 
These targets, and their control systems, have historically had 
difficulty competing in Service budget deliberations. If confirmed, I 
will closely monitor the approach that the Services take to these 
critical interest items during the certification of Service T&E 
budgets.
    Question. How can training and testing ranges be used more jointly 
and efficiently?
    Answer. Consistent with the Secretary identifying the 
implementation of joint test, training, and experimentation as one of 
his key priorities for fiscal year 2008, I know that DOT&E has an 
established liaison with Joint Forces Command to more efficiently 
integrate joint testing and training. I recognize this is an important 
issue and, if confirmed, will pursue steps to efficiently integrate 
testing and training.
               advanced concept technology demonstrations
    Question. Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTD), to 
include, the new Joint Concept Technology Demonstrations, are one 
mechanism by which the Department rapidly transitions promising 
technology into the hands of the operational forces.
    How do you view the role of operational T&E in the execution of 
ACTDs, especially for those demonstrations where the system is to be 
fielded operationally upon completion of the ACTD?
    Answer. I believe that it is a leadership responsibility to ensure 
that all systems deployed for combat work. If confirmed, I will work 
with the Services and their OTAs to ensure that ACTD systems being 
considered for deployment receive some type of operational assessment 
prior to their employment so that commanders completely understand 
those systems' capabilities and limitations.
                           live-fire testing
    Question. The live-fire testing program is a statutory requirement 
to assess the vulnerability and survivability of platforms, while also 
assessing the lethality of weapons against the required target sets.
    Do you believe that the Department's current live-fire testing 
program is accomplishing its purpose?
    Answer. Yes. The Abrams Tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the 
M109 Howitzer Family, the F18E/F fighter aircraft, the Apache and 
Blackhawk helicopters, and more recently the Stryker family of 
vehicles, are all outstanding examples where the live-fire program 
directly affected the system design and improved both system and crew 
survivability.
    Question. How would you propose to overcome limitations that the 
live-fire testing program suffers due to shortages in threat-
representative targets?
    Answer. This question addresses two areas--weapon system live-fire 
lethality (section 2366) and operational end-to-end weapon 
effectiveness testing against threat systems, also referred to as 
``live-fire testing.''
    The shortage of high fidelity threat representative targets does 
not have a significant impact on characterizing munitions lethality. 
Much of this testing is at the warhead level in the laboratory or 
controlled test environment where there are adequate threat or threat 
surrogate targets, test methodology, and analytical tools to 
characterize warhead lethality.
    The need for high fidelity threat representative targets is crucial 
for the operational end-to-end weapon effectiveness testing--especially 
in a joint environment where various weapon and sensor platforms using 
a variety of technologies have to detect, acquire, track, and 
successfully engage threat targets. The Department needs to have an 
integrated DOD approach to the target problem. In the near-term, the 
Department should identify and fund innovative initiatives to improve 
the threat representation of the existing target suite. For the longer-
term, the Department should focus on the recent recommendations from 
the Defense Science Board to acquire threat representative supersonic 
missile targets and establish a replacement program for the aging QF-4 
fixed-wing aircraft target. If confirmed, this will be a high priority 
issue for me.
                        modeling and simulation
    Question. Advances in modeling and simulation (M&S) have provided 
an opportunity to streamline the testing process, saving time and 
expense.
    What do you believe to be the proper balance between modeling and 
simulation and actual testing of the developed product?
    Answer. It is appropriate to use models to support core T&E 
processes. For example, M&S can be used to effectively predict results 
of tests to be conducted. It can be used effectively to produce a full 
parametric evaluation of system performance where actual parametric 
testing may be too expensive. Models can also help the Department 
design tests to maximize learning and optimally apply resources. Still, 
M&S is a complement, not a replacement, for operational testing.
    Question. How is the amount of this actual testing determined to 
ensure reliability and maintainability thresholds are met with 
sufficient statistical confidence?
    Answer. The amount of actual testing required to validate RAM 
thresholds would vary from program to program. In terms of using M&S to 
support that process, it would seem to me that program managers who 
make an early commitment to integrate the use of models as tools to 
support learning and to gain insight and understanding throughout the 
life cycle of a program would be much better positioned to be 
successful than those who try to use models late in the life of a 
program as a means to respond to resource or schedule constraints.
    Question. Can T&E modeling and simulation be integrated with 
exercise simulation?
    Answer. Again, T&E modeling and simulation can help represent the 
environment during test to realistically stress the system under test. 
M&S should complement, not replace, actual testing.
                       t&e science and technology
    Question. The Department's T&E science and technology (S&T) effort 
now falls under the jurisdiction of the Director of the Major Test 
Resource Management Center.
    What are your views on the appropriate level of investment in the 
S&T of testing?
    Answer. Given my background, I believe strongly in a robust S&T 
effort. If confirmed, I look forward to investigating means by which we 
can apply technology to enhance our T&E capabilities.
    Question. What mechanisms will you employ to ensure the S&T 
portfolio is responsive to the department's future test instrumentation 
needs?
    Answer. I look forward to working with the USD(AT&L) and his 
subordinate organizations to shape the S&T portfolio to best suit the 
Department's instrumentation needs, if confirmed. I am particularly 
interested in examining the use of embedded instrumentation that can be 
used by testers, trainers, and operator-maintainers.
                       operational test agencies
    Question. Operational Test Agencies (OTA) are tasked with 
conducting independent operational testing and evaluation of 
acquisition programs. Recent demands on these organizations have 
increased to meet rapid acquisition initiatives, to demonstrate joint 
and advanced concept technology programs, and to evaluate information 
assurance, information operations, and joint T&E requirements.
    In your view, are these agencies sufficiently staffed to perform 
the required functions?
    Answer. The OTA staffs appear to be stretched thin by added test 
types and events, such as demonstrations of rapid acquisition 
initiatives; demonstrations of ACTDs; and evaluations of Information 
Assurance, Information Operations, and Joint T&Es. If confirmed, I 
intend to look into manning issues to ensure there is adequate military 
operational experience in the OTAs without inappropriate reliance upon 
contractor support.
    I have also been made aware of the potential adverse impact on the 
Army T&E Command of their impending relocation. If confirmed, I will 
monitor that situation closely as they may suffer a loss of experienced 
personnel and loss of continuity just as they will be involved in the 
testing of the very complex Future Combat System (FCS).
    Question. How would you propose to arbitrate shortfalls between 
program managers' limited funding and OTAs independent test 
requirements?
    Answer. Title 10 and DOD Directives require DOT&E to assess the 
adequacy of operational testing. Service leadership retains the 
responsibility to ensure programs are managed to meet testing 
requirements. If confirmed, I will ensure the DOT&E staff continues to 
facilitate dialogue between program stakeholders.
    Question. Do you have any concerns about the independence of the 
OTAs?
    Answer. Yes, I am concerned that there will always be pressures on 
the OTA Commanders to support component acquisition strategies. I think 
that it is important that they continue to report to the top level of 
their respective components, independent of the acquisition 
organizations.
    Question. Should policies and procedures of the OTAs be 
standardized?
    Answer. Each of the component OTAs has unique processes for the 
conduct of OT&E. As long as these processes lead to a robust 
operational T&E of all acquisitions, I believe DOT&E does not need to 
dictate standard processes that may limit component flexibility. I do, 
however, believe the capability to develop, test, train, and experiment 
complex systems in a joint operational environment needs improvement. 
The ``Testing in a Joint Environment Roadmap,'' approved in November 
2004, defines capabilities in common, measurable, warfighting terms. I 
look forward to advancing the objectives identified in the roadmap, if 
confirmed.
                         information assurance
    Question. Recent defense authorization legislation provided the 
DOT&E with oversight responsibility for information assurance (IA) 
evaluations of fielded systems. There has reportedly been an increased 
focus on IA as an evaluation issue for systems on the operational T&E 
oversight list and a group of acquisition programs have been identified 
for an expanded review of the adequacy of IA evaluation planning.
    Does the operational T&E component of the Department possess 
adequate expertise, staffing, and funding to carry out its IA 
responsibilities?
    Answer. The IA community, both in DOD as well as industry, has for 
many years been relatively small, but has experienced considerable 
growth in the past few years. At present, DOD appears to possess 
adequate expertise within the traditional cryptologic and 
communications professional fields, but may need increased staffing and 
funding to address all of the systems and areas where IA has become 
critical. In multiple assessments, it has been observed that the 
network support personnel are frequently over-tasked in what is a 
growing technical discipline. The OTAs are not currently manned to 
address all of the areas of concern. If confirmed, I will support 
efforts to provide additional resources to the OTAs for hiring, 
training, and fielding IA experts to test, assess, and validate the 
readiness of network systems for operations. Additionally, if 
confirmed, I will continue the work of my predecessor, Tom Christie, in 
revising the IA acquisition policy to ensure that IA is addressed in 
all operational testing for systems in which the secure exchange of 
information is integral to mission success.
    Question. What is the status of the recommendation that IA should 
become an exercise objective wherever information is critical to 
mission accomplishment?
    Answer. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has provided direction to 
the combatant commanders requiring that IA be addressed in every major 
combatant command exercise by fiscal year 2007 (and in half of all 
fiscal year 2006 exercises). The combatant commanders have dramatically 
increased the focus on IA in recent years, and the inclusion of 
training objectives specifically addressing networks, network security, 
and network personnel has become more common. If confirmed, I will 
continue to work closely with the combatant commanders, the National 
Security Agency, the Joint Staff, and the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Networks, Intelligence, and Integration (ASD-NII) to 
increase attention on IA, improve the way it is assessed, and provide 
the operational commanders with the information they need.
                       ballistic missile defense
    Question. The United States is developing a Ballistic Missile 
Defense System (BMDS) that is intended to defeat ballistic missiles of 
all ranges, in all phases of flight, to defend the United States, its 
allies, and friends with a very high degree of confidence.
    Can you assure the committee that, if confirmed, you will ensure 
that adequate operational testing and evaluation is conducted of the 
BMDS, and that you will make a determination of whether the system and 
its elements that are tested are effective and suitable for combat?
    Answer. DOT&E provides an annual report and a BMDS Block assessment 
report to Congress. If confirmed, I will assess BMDS system operational 
effectiveness and suitability as well as test adequacy in these 
reports.
    Question. If you determine that such operational testing and 
evaluation does not demonstrate that the BMDS or its elements are 
effective and suitable for combat, will you inform Congress of that 
determination?
    Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will provide my assessment on test 
adequacy and BMDS and element effectiveness and suitability in the 
annual reports to Congress.
    Question. According to title 10, U.S.C., major defense acquisition 
programs are required to complete initial operational T&E before 
proceeding beyond low-rate initial production. This is to ensure that 
weapons systems work effectively before they are produced in large 
numbers and at great expense. The Defense Department has exempted the 
BMDS from this requirement, saying that there will be only one BMDS, 
and thus no question of proceeding beyond low-rate initial production.
    What do you believe is the appropriate role for the office of the 
DOT&E in providing an independent and objective assessment of the 
operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the BMDS?
    Answer. I believe there should be adequate operational testing of 
any element to demonstrate its capability before it is fielded as an 
operational system. Where there are urgent requirements to rapidly 
deploy an element, testing should be conducted to confirm it is safe to 
operate and to characterize its performance capability to address the 
urgent requirement. After the urgency subsides, operational testing and 
assessment should continue to ensure the system is effective, suitable, 
and survivable for its intended mission.
    Question. Concerning the BMDS, the 2005 DOT&E Annual Report states: 
``As reported last year, there is insufficient evidence to support a 
confident assessment of Limited Defensive Operations or Block 04 
capabilities.''
    Do you believe it is essential to conduct operationally realistic 
testing of the BMDS to characterize its operational capability and 
assess whether it is operationally effective, and suitable for combat?
    Answer. Yes. I believe operational testing should be conducted on 
the BMDS to characterize its operational capability and to demonstrate 
its effectiveness, suitability, and survivability.
    Question. Concerning the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) 
system, the 2005 DOT&E Annual Report notes that the ``lack of flight 
test validation data for the simulations that support the ground 
testing limits confidence in assessments of defensive capabilities,'' 
that ``robust testing is limited by the immaturity of some 
components,'' and that ``flight tests still lack operational realism.'' 
The last five attempted intercept tests with the GMD system have 
resulted in failures.
    Do you support robust, operationally realistic testing and 
disciplined operational T&E of the GMD system as necessary steps to 
properly demonstrate the system's capabilities and to assess its 
operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability?
    Answer. Yes. I believe there should be adequate, robust, 
operationally-realistic testing of GMD to demonstrate its capability. 
Where there are urgent requirements to rapidly deploy an element, 
testing should be conducted to confirm it is safe to operate and to 
characterize its performance capability to address the urgent 
requirement. After the urgency subsides, operational testing and 
assessment should continue to ensure the system is effective, suitable, 
and survivable for its intended mission.
    Question. In 2005, the Mission Readiness Task Force (MRTF) examined 
problems with the GMD testing program, found numerous problems, and 
recommended a number of corrective actions, which the Defense 
Department has adopted.
    Do you support the MRTF findings and recommendations as appropriate 
and prudent steps to return the GMD program to successful flight 
testing?
    Answer. Yes. The MRTF review was thorough and sobering. The review 
findings are a reminder that the GMD program is still in development. 
The MDA Director embraced the results and has taken actions to 
implement the recommendations. The slow down in the GMD test program is 
a direct result of his prudent philosophy of ``test-analyze-fix-test'' 
which has proven to be the correct approach as demonstrated by recent 
successes in the Aegis BMD, THAAD, and even the GMD programs.
                     ground-based midcourse defense
    Question. The Senate-passed version of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 includes an increase of $45 
million to improve the ability of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to 
conduct concurrent test and operations of the GMD system and to improve 
the pace of flight testing.
    Do you support the establishment of procedures and infrastructure 
to support combined operations and robust testing?
    Answer. The capability to test and train on the operational 
configured BMDS as it evolves is critical to ensuring the 
effectiveness, suitability, and readiness of the integrated fielded 
capability. MDA should develop and employ a concurrent test and 
operations capability for the full BMDS. The concept would be similar 
to that used for the Cheyenne Mountain Upgrade Program for training and 
testing the ``on-line'' Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack 
Assessment mission capability. The solution should allow MDA to conduct 
robust end-to-end testing of the fully-integrated operational system, 
including flight test interceptors, sensors, and launch equipment using 
warfighters and operational tactics, techniques, and procedures, while 
the combatant commanders maintain an on-alert posture for the BMDS.
    Question. Do you believe the pace of GMD flight testing can 
reasonably be accelerated?
    Answer. The 1998 Welch Report on Reducing Risk in Ballistic Missile 
Defense Flight Test Programs concluded that schedules can be more 
aggressive, but only if justified by processes or approaches that 
support shorter development times. Accelerating schedules by simply 
accepting more risk carries a high risk of failure. Accelerating the 
GMD flight test schedule would add significant risk to the program. The 
program needs adequate time to accomplish the structured ground and 
flight test program currently planned. Recent intercept successes with 
Theater High-Altitude Area Defense and Aegis proves that MDA's current 
engineering, development, and test-analyze-fix-test philosophy is 
successfully maturing the elements. The MDA is finding and fixing 
problems that are only surfacing due to its test-analyze-fix-test 
initiatives. MDA is allocating time between the conduct of ground and 
flight tests to analyze data, and to find and fix design and 
manufacturing problems that surface from the previous tests. 
Accelerating flight-testing would reduce this critical time and limit 
the MDA's opportunities to find and fix problems that surfaced from the 
previous test. History shows that program timelines are shortened when 
all the essential steps are done right the first time. The MDA's test-
analyze-fix-test philosophy reduces the potential for the ``rush to 
failure'' result highlighted in the Welch Report. MDA appears to be 
working hard to get it right this time--on its own schedule.
    Question. What missile defense lessons do you expect the 
operational test and evaluation  community  to  learn  from  the  North 
 Korean  flight  test  of  short-, medium-, and long-range ballistic 
missiles in July 2006?
    Answer. I am uncertain about what we might be able to learn from 
these recent events. These firings occurred just days ago. It will take 
time to analyze the data that our intelligence assets were able to 
collect. The data may be limited due to the extremely short duration of 
the ballistic missile's flight prior to failure. I am advised that any 
relevant lessons-learned from these events will be addressed as part of 
the February 2007 BMDS Report.
    Question. On April 4, 2006, the Acting DOT&E, David Duma, testified 
before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee that ``with the current 
program and test events scheduled, it's very likely that the [GMD] 
system will demonstrate ultimately that it is effective.''
    Do you concur with this assessment, based upon your initial review 
of the GMD system?
    Answer. Yes. Based on the reports I have seen and the briefings I 
have been given, I believe the GMD element is on a growth path towards 
maturity. However, I am not sure that there is sufficient test data to 
establish where the system is on the maturity growth curve. Future 
testing will ultimately demonstrate whether the system is effective and 
suitable.
                          environmental issues
    Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2004 included provisions that were intended to add flexibility to the 
Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to 
ensure the ability to conduct realistic military testing and training.
    What has the DOD experience been conducting test operations under 
these more flexible provisions?
    Answer. Since enactment of the amendments, I understand that the 
Department has been able to conduct its test operations adequately 
while making compensating adjustments to address environmental issues 
when necessary.
    Question. What type of testing has the Department been able to 
conduct and what type of encroachment concerns on military testing have 
been avoided as a result of these provisions?
    Answer. The provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2004 certainly provide the Department overall with 
greater flexibility to conduct its programs that address military 
readiness. Consequently, I believe that the act's provisions 
effectively contribute to the accomplishment of adequate testing for 
the Department's acquisition programs.
    Question. The Secretary of Defense, after conferring with the 
Secretary of Commerce, recently invoked the national security exemption 
to the MMPA for a period of 6 months. During the same week, the Navy 
settled a lawsuit brought by the National Resources Defense Council 
that challenged Navy and Commerce Department compliance with the MMPA 
which sought to halt the Navy's Rim of the Pacific exercise near 
Hawaii.
    How do you envision these developments impacting military T&E of 
sonar and other technologies that involve the marine environment?
    Answer. While I cannot speak to the terms of the litigation 
settlement reached between the Navy and the National Resources Defense 
Council, I believe the exemption is an essential element in the 
statutory framework that supports departmental test programs and its 
judicious use will foster test adequacy.
                        congressional oversight
    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to 
appear before this committee and other appropriate committees of 
Congress?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as the DOT&E?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
                Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
                testing of force protection technologies
    1. Senator Reed. Dr. McQueary, at the hearing, you and Chairman 
Warner engaged in a discussion relating to the Director's role in the 
development and deployment of helmets and other force protection 
technologies. What role specifically do you think the Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) should play in the development 
and deployment of force protection technologies?
    Dr. McQueary. Since force protection equipment directly impacts the 
survivability and well being of our military personnel, I believe the 
Director should have similar oversight authority for these programs as 
for the major defense acquisition programs. Typically, the budget and 
program offices for these type programs are much smaller and require 
less organizational infrastructure than the major acquisition programs. 
I believe that DOT&E should not create unnecessary additional 
bureaucracy for these programs, but should oversee the programs to 
ensure the Services appropriately define operational survivability 
requirements and then plan, execute, and report on adequate testing to 
demonstrate the equipment or technology performs as intended.

    2. Senator Reed. Dr. McQueary, in your answers to pre-hearing 
policy questions on Ballistic Missile Defense, you stated that you 
believe ``there should be adequate operational testing of any [missile 
defense] element to demonstrate its capability before it is fielded as 
an operational system.'' Of course, that is the practice with all other 
major defense acquisition programs, except missile defense. You also 
state that in cases where there are ``urgent requirements to rapidly 
deploy'' a missile defense system, ``testing should be conducted to 
confirm it is safe to operate and to characterize its performance 
capability to address the urgent requirement.'' Do you believe that 
testing has already been conducted on the Ground-Based Midcourse 
Defense (GMD) system to ``characterize its performance capability,'' or 
that such testing remains to be conducted on this system that has been 
deployed since 2004?
    Dr. McQueary. My knowledge of the GMD system test program is 
limited to what I have read in the media and the DOT&E reports while 
preparing for this hearing. Based on those reports, I believe the 
deployed GMD system is not fully characterized at this time and must 
yet demonstrate that it can reliably and repeatably detect, acquire, 
track, and intercept threat ballistic missiles in an operationally 
realistic end-to-end engagement scenario.
                                 ______
                                 
             Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
                         acquisition incentives
    3. Senator Akaka. Dr. McQueary, in your written testimony, you note 
that you believe that incentives in the acquisition system could be 
changed to value early realistic testing and that incentives could be 
provided to foster the discovery of such design flaws. Yet, the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified the Department of 
Defense's (DOD) use of incentive and award fees as a ``longstanding 
business management challenge'' for the DOD. Given that the GAO has 
found that awarding incentives has not produced the desired results 
and, in fact, can undermine performance, in what ways do you believe 
that adding another layer of incentives will improve program success?
    Dr. McQueary. When I said that incentives in our acquisition system 
could be changed to value early realistic testing, I did not mean to 
imply that the incentives should necessarily be fees. I believe that 
Congress has provided an excellent set of incentives in the new 
language on acquisition in section 801 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. That language specifies that an 
acquisition program may not receive Milestone B approval until the 
milestone decision authority certifies that, among other things. . .

          1. . . . the technology in the program has been demonstrated 
        in a relevant environment;
          2. . . . the program demonstrates a high likelihood of 
        accomplishing its intended mission.

    It seems to me that this language provides a great incentive for 
early realistic testing. The results are also highly visible: the 
certification is to be submitted to the congressional defense 
committees.
    With respect to the GAO report, I believe they recommended DOD 
improve the use of fees, not that DOD abandon them. The GAO 
recommendations were directed to the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of Charles E. McQueary follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                     June 29, 2006.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    Charles E. McQueary, of North Carolina, to be Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation, Department of Defense, vice Thomas P. 
Christie, resigned.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The biographical sketch of Charles E. McQueary, which was 
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was 
referred, follows:]
               Biographical Sketch of Charles E. McQueary
    Dr. McQueary was nominated by President Bush to fill the position 
of the Department of Defense, Director Operational Test and Evaluation 
on June 30, 2006. His career spans nearly 40 years of public and 
private sector service in the science, technology, research and 
development fields. His public service includes the honor of serving as 
the Nation's first Under Secretary for Science and Technology in the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Over the past 3 years, his 
efforts at DHS have led to significant technical advancements in our 
country's ability to combat terrorism at home and abroad.
    In 1997, Dr. McQueary joined General Dynamics Corporation, as 
President of General Dynamics Advanced Technology Systems where he led 
all aspects of business operations and strategy in one of America's 
premier defense contractors. From 1987 to 1997, he served as President 
and Vice President of AT&T/Lucent Technologies. Dr. McQueary also held 
executive leadership positions with AT&T Bell Laboratories from 1966 to 
1997.
    A native of Gordon, Texas, Dr. McQueary is a graduate of the 
University of Texas, Austin where he earned a B.S. Degree in Mechanical 
Engineering; M.S. Degree in Mechanical Engineering; and a Ph.D. in 
Engineering Mechanics as a NASA Scholar (M.S. & Ph.D.) and member of 
five Academic Honor Societies.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals 
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a 
form that details the biographical, financial, and other 
information of the nominee. The form executed by Charles E. 
McQueary in connection with his nomination follows:]
                          UNITED STATES SENATE
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              Room SR-228
                       Washington, DC 20510-6050
                             (202) 224-3871
                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
      BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
    Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If 
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the 
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation 
of your answer applies.
                    Part A--Biographical Information
    Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in 
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for 
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in 
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.

    1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
    Charles Everette McQueary; nickname: Chuck.

    2. Position to which nominated:
    U.S. Department of Defense Director, Operational Test and 
Evaluation.

    3. Date of nomination:
    June 29, 2006.

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

    5. Date and place of birth:
    September 1, 1939; Gordon, Texas.

    6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
    Married to Cheryl McQueary (nee Bath).

    7. Names and ages of children:
    Joanna Lea Gossett (nee McQueary), 43.

    8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
    University of Texas, Austin--Ph.D., Engineering Mechanics, 1966.
    University of Texas, Austin--M.S., Mechanical Engineering, 1964.
    University of Texas, Austin--B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 1962.
    Gordon High School, Gordon, Texas--Diploma, 1958.

    9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the 
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of 
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
    Senior Executive Service, LT, U.S. Department of Defense, 
Washington, DC, April 2006-present.
    Under Secretary, Science & Technology Directorate, U.S. Department 
of Homeland Security, March 2003-March 2006.
    President, Advanced Technology Systems, General Dynamics, 
Greensboro, NC, October 1997-December 2002.
    President, Advanced Technology Systems, Lucent Technologies, 
Greensboro, NC, 1995-September 1997.

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

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

    12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in 
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and 
other organizations.
    Life Member, Phi Eta Sigma (scholarly organization).
    Life Member, Tau Beta Pi (scholarly organization).
    Life Member, Phi Kappa Phi (scholarly organization).
    Honorary Member, Sigma Xi (scholarly organization).

    13. Political affiliations and activities:
    (a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or 
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
    None.
    (b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered 
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5 
years.
    None.
    (c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign 
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar 
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
    Senator Elizabeth Dole--$2,000.
    The Honorable Asa Hutchinson--$500.
    Republican National Committee--$2,000.
    Re-elect Mike Barber--$100.
    Justice Butterfield--$250.
    Kay Hagen--$200.
    Sixth District Republican Party--$250.
    Boyd for Congress--$100.
    Britt for Congress--$100.
    General Dynamics PAC Contributions--$1,200 estimate.

    14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, military medals, and any other special 
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
    Academic Fraternities: Phi Eta Sigma, Pi Tau Sigma, Tau Beta Pi, 
Phi Kappa Phi, Sigma Xi; Tau Beta Pi Outstanding Senior Engineer; 
Distinguished Engineering Graduate of the University of Texas at Austin 
(1997); NASA Scholarship; NDIA Homeland Security Leadership Award.

    15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of 
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have 
written.
    Nonlinear Periodic Modes of Oscillation of Elastic Continua 
(Technical paper, 1968).
    Oscillations of a Circular Membrane on a Nonlinear Elastic 
Foundation (Technical paper, 1967).
    Bessel-Function Integrals Needed for Two Classes of Physical 
Problems (Technical paper, 1967).
    Periodic Oscillations of a Class of Non-Autonomous Nonlinear 
Elastic Continua (Technical paper, 1967).
    The SPARTAN Missile--A Major Component of the Sentinel System 
(Technical paper, 1968).
    Recipe for Success in Defense Industry: ``Acquire or Be Acquired'' 
(National Defense article, October 1998).
    Industry Interview (Military Information Technology, Vol. 4, Issue 
5).

    16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal 
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have 
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have 
been nominated.
    None. I gave approximately 150 speeches in 3 years in my position 
at the Department of Homeland Security.

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

                           Signature and Date
    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete.
                                               Charles E. McQueary.
    This 10th day of July, 2006.

    [The nomination of Charles E. McQueary was reported to the 
Senate by Chairman Warner on July 20, 2006, with the 
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination 
was confirmed by the Senate on July 21, 2006.]
                              ----------                              

    [Prepared questions submitted to Anita K. Blair by Chairman 
Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
                        Questions and Responses
                            defense reforms
    Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense 
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have 
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have 
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain 
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant 
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
They have also clarified the responsibility of the military departments 
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment 
to the combatant commanders.
    Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act 
provisions?
    Answer. After 20 years, and especially after September 11 and its 
aftermath, it is only prudent to review our basic assumptions about how 
best to organize and operate in the context of today's national 
security mission.
    Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to 
address in these modifications?
    Answer. The Goldwater-Nichols Act has proven immensely valuable to 
the Department of Defense (DOD), especially in establishing the 
conditions for success of joint military operations. National security 
needs today demand close cooperation and coordination between military 
and civilian operations. The Goldwater-Nichols Act provides a 
successful model for improving military-civilian jointness, both within 
the DOD and involving interagency, intergovernmental, nongovernmental, 
and contractor activities. Similarly, to sustain the success of the 
All-Volunteer Force, I believe it is worthwhile to review the way we 
manage our military personnel, including compensation, assignment, 
development, and force integration policies.
                                 duties
    Question. Section 8016 of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the 
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs 
shall have the principal duty of ``overall supervision of manpower and 
Reserve component affairs of the Department of the Air Force.''
    Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect that 
Secretary Wynne will assign to you?
    Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to being part of Secretary 
Wynne's management team, and I expect that he will assign me duties 
consistent with the title 10 requirements for this position.
                             relationships
    Question. If confirmed, what will be your relationship with:

         The Secretary of the Air Force
         The Under Secretary of the Air Force
         The General Counsel of the Air Force

    Answer. The Secretary is the head of the Department of the Air 
Force. Along with the Under Secretary, the General Counsel and other 
Assistant Secretaries, I will, if confirmed, report to the Secretary 
and perform duties as he assigns.
    Question. If confirmed, what will be your relationship with:

         The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
        Readiness
         The Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 
        Personnel and Readiness
         The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs
         The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs

    Answer. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
is the representative of the Secretary of Defense for matters 
concerning those areas. The Principal Deputy and the Assistant 
Secretaries for Reserve Affairs and Health Affairs report to the Under 
Secretary. If confirmed, I will collaborate and cooperate with these 
officials and their staffs.
    Question. If confirmed, what will be your relationship with:

         The Chief of Staff of the Air Force
         The Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force for 
        Personnel
         The Surgeon General of the Air Force

    Answer. The Chief of Staff presides over the Air Force staff, 
delivers plans and recommendations of the Air Staff to the Secretary, 
and upon the Secretary's approval, acts as his agent for carrying them 
into effect. He is assisted by deputies, including the Surgeon General, 
who is the chief for Air Force medical matters. If confirmed, I will 
work on behalf of the Secretary to coordinate policies and proposals 
with the appropriate members of the Air Staff. The Air Force Chief of 
Staff is also a member of the Joint Chiefs and has other operational 
duties, including keeping the Secretary fully informed of significant 
operations affecting the Secretary's duties and responsibilities.
    Question. If confirmed, what will be your relationship with:

         The Chief, National Guard Bureau
         The Chief, Air National Guard
         The Chief, Air Force Reserve

    Answer. The Chief, National Guard Bureau is the principal adviser 
to the Secretary of the Army and the Army Chief of Staff, and to the 
Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief of Staff, on matters 
relating to the National Guard, the Army National Guard of the United 
States, and the Air National Guard of the United States. The Chief, Air 
National Guard heads the air portion of the National Guard. The Chief, 
Air Force Reserve is the head of the Reserve component of the Air 
Force. If confirmed, I will work closely with these officials to 
provide good policies and effective oversight of the Guard and Reserve 
on manpower and personnel matters.
    Question. If confirmed, what will be your relationship with:

         Airmen and their families

    Airmen and their families are the reason why there is an Assistant 
Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs--an 
official dedicated to ensuring that the people who serve and make 
sacrifices on behalf of their country are properly treated and cared 
for. If confirmed, I will strive to be their most vigilant guardian and 
humble servant.
                             qualifications
    Question. What background and experience do you have that you 
believe qualifies you for this position?
    Answer. I am humbled and honored to be considered for the position 
of Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve 
Affairs. My most relevant background and experience is the past 5 years 
I have served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Military 
Personnel Policy, responsible for policy and oversight relating to 
manpower and personnel matters affecting Navy and Marine Corps Active-
Duty servicemembers and their families. Major issues have included 
recruiting and retention; training and education; Active-Duty strength 
and compensation; character, leadership development and diversity/equal 
opportunity; health affairs; counterdrug programs; family support; and 
morale, welfare, and recreation. In February 2005, I accepted 
additional duties as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Total 
Force Transformation, leading efforts to modernize the management of 
the Department's total force of Active-Duty, Reserve, civilian, and 
contractor personnel. Since August 2001, I have also had the 
opportunity to observe and learn from both civilian and military 
leadership, not only in the realm of manpower and Reserve affairs, but 
across a range of DOD activities.
    Before joining DOD in 2001, I practiced law for about 20 years, 
initially concentrating in corporate law and litigation and later, as a 
nonprofit organization leader, focusing on constitutional equal 
protection and individual rights issues. In prior public service, I 
served on the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) Board of Visitors from 
1995 to 2001, and chaired the Board's committee overseeing the 
successful assimilation of women at VMI. In 1998-1999, I was chairman 
of the Congressional Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related 
Issues, which was established in the aftermath of a string of scandals 
in the mid-1990s involving sexual misconduct in the military.
    Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to 
take to enhance your expertise to perform the duties of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs?
    Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the Air 
Force, its mission, and its people so that I can improve my ability to 
perform my duties.
                     major challenges and problems
    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges and problems 
confronting the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and 
Reserve Affairs?
    Answer. People are our most valuable asset. Even if we have the 
most advanced technology and hardware in the world, if we do not have 
good people, we cannot accomplish our mission. The enduring challenge 
is to attract, retain, and manage people in such a way that both they 
and the institution can succeed and thrive.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for 
addressing these challenges?
    Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with others--in the 
Air Force, in DOD, Congress, and beyond--to apply the best knowledge 
and experience toward solving and overcoming these challenges.
             air force active-duty end strength reductions
    Question. Following recommendations made in the Quadrennial Defense 
Review (QDR), the President's budget for fiscal year 2007 begins the 
process of reducing Air Force manpower by 40,000 full-time equivalents 
across the total force. The Air Force plans to take a reduction of over 
23,000 airmen by September 30, 2007.
    What is your understanding of how the Air Force intends to achieve 
these planned Active-Duty Force reductions within the officer and 
enlisted ranks in a single fiscal year, and they will affect readiness 
and recruiting?
    Answer. I understand that the Air Force plans to reduce its end 
strength in the near future. The Navy has faced similar challenges in 
the past few years. If confirmed, I expect to examine this subject 
thoroughly with the Air Force staff and others.
    Question. If the Air Force is unable to implement planned 
retirement of aircraft, such as the F-117, U-2, B-52, and C-21, what is 
your understanding of how this would affect the Air Force's ability to 
achieve planned reductions?
    Answer. I understand that planned reductions may be affected by the 
number and types of platforms in use in the Air Force. As a platform-
based service, the Navy has had to deal with comparable issues. If 
confirmed, I expect to examine this subject thoroughly with the Air 
Force staff and others.
    Question. To what extent does the Air Force plan to rely on 
military-to-civilian conversions to achieve reductions in end strength 
while continuing to perform its missions, and have any studies been 
performed that address military-to-civilian conversions, availability 
of funding for civilian salaries, and the amount of time needed to 
achieve significant reductions using this means?
    Answer. I am not familiar with the Air Force's plans as they may 
relate to military-to-civilian conversions. The Navy and Marine Corps 
have also planned and executed such conversions; both have ``lessons 
learned'' to share. If confirmed, I expect to examine this subject 
thoroughly with the Air Force staff and others.
    air national guard and air force reserve end strength reductions
    Question. Under the QDR, the Air Force plans to cut over 14,000 
part-time end strength positions from the Air National Guard (ANG) and 
about 7,700 part-time positions from Air Force Reserve over the next 5 
years.
    What is your understanding of how the ANG and Air Force Reserve 
will absorb these reductions in end strength over the FYDP given the 
missions they have been assigned worldwide?
    Answer. I understand that the Air Force plans to reduce its ANG and 
Air Force Reserve end strength in the near future. I am not familiar 
with the details of the Air Force plan. If confirmed, I expect to 
examine this subject thoroughly with the Air Force staff and others.
    Question. What is your understanding of the current status of 
coordination about the impact of these reductions with the National 
Guard Bureau and the State National Guard units affected?
    Answer. I am not familiar with the current status of Air Force 
coordination with the National Guard Bureau and State National Guard 
units on the possible impacts of end strength reductions. If confirmed, 
I expect to examine this subject thoroughly with the Air Force staff 
and others.
    Question. What missions currently assigned to the ANG and Air Force 
Reserve would be changed or eliminated in order to meet end strength 
reductions?
    Answer. I am not familiar with the Air Force's plans for adjusting 
ANG or Air Force Reserve missions to meet end strength reductions. If 
confirmed, I expect to examine this subject thoroughly with the Air 
Force staff and others.
              reserve component involuntary recall policy
    Question. The DOD has implemented a policy that limits the 
involuntary recall of Reserve and National Guard personnel for 
mobilization to 24 cumulative months.
    What is your understanding of the impact, if any, of the 24-month 
policy on the Air Force Reserve and ANG with respect to their ability 
to generate forces for operational missions?
    Answer. I understand that the policy limiting involuntary recall to 
24 cumulative months may have an impact on Air Force Reserve and ANG. 
The Navy and Marine Corps have had to deal with the same policy; 
however, I recognize that the policy may have different impacts on 
different Services. If confirmed, I expect to examine this subject 
thoroughly with the Air Force staff and others.
    Question. What is your understanding of the number and percentage 
of members of the Air Force Reserve and ANG who are unavailable for 
deployment as a result of the 24-month policy and the impact, if any, 
that this has on mission readiness?
    Answer. I am not familiar with Air Force statistics on non-
availability of Reserve or Guard personnel or the impact on mission 
readiness, as a result of the 24-month policy. If confirmed, I expect 
to examine this subject thoroughly with the Air Force staff and others.
    Question. What measures are being taken in the Department to 
respond to operational requirements for low density, high demand units 
and personnel whose skills are found primarily in the Reserve 
components?
    Answer. I am not familiar with measures taken in the Department of 
the Air Force to respond to such skill gaps. The Navy Reserve has 
reorganized to align itself better with the Active-Duty Navy and its 
current and forecasted missions. The Marine Corps Reserve remains 
flexible and agile to meet new requirements on a continuous basis. If 
confirmed, I expect to examine this subject thoroughly with the Air 
Force staff and others.
                       officer management issues
    Question. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, what role would you expect to play, if 
any, in the officer management and promotion system, including policies 
affecting general officers?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will provide support as directed by the 
Secretary of the Air Force in matters concerning the officer management 
and promotion system, including policies affecting general officers.
                       force shaping initiatives
    Question. The Air Force has requested authority to reduce the 
number of its Active-Duty airmen by 23,000 in fiscal year 2007. In 
order to implement this ambitious plan without irreparably harming 
recruiting, the Air Force intends to employ both voluntary separation 
incentives and involuntary separation procedures.
    What is your understanding of Air Force planning with respect to 
the numbers of officer and enlisted personnel by paygrade who must be 
separated in 2007 to achieve end strength requirements?
    Answer. I understand that the Air Force has requested force-shaping 
authorities. I am not familiar with the Air Force's detailed planning. 
The Navy has engaged in similar planning in recent years in connection 
with its force reductions. If confirmed, I expect to examine this 
subject thoroughly with the Air Force staff and others.
    Question. What oversight role, if any, would you play, if 
confirmed, to ensure that involuntary separations or forced retirement 
are implemented as equitably as possible?
    Answer. If confirmed, and with the advice of the Department's legal 
staffs, I will require that Air Force policies governing involuntary 
separations or forced retirement be implemented in a manner consistent 
with applicable law and policies, as well as fundamental principles of 
fairness.
                implementation of tricare for reservists
    Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2006 authorized new categories of eligibility for TRICARE for members 
of the Selected Reserve, which are required to be implemented by 
October 1, 2006.
    What is your assessment of the Department's ability to timely 
implement the new benefits and the challenges it will have to overcome?
    Answer. I understand that the Air Force, like other Services, has 
members of the Selected Reserve who are intended beneficiaries of this 
new extension of TRICARE. Effective communication and notification will 
be important in meeting the deadline. If confirmed, I expect to examine 
this subject thoroughly with the Air Force staff and others.
    Question. If confirmed, what role would you play in coordinating 
the Air Force's efforts implementing these new benefits?
    Answer. If confirmed, I expect to oversee the efforts of the Air 
Force staff, including the Air Force Reserve, and to assist the Air 
Force Surgeon General in coordinating those efforts with the DOD 
TRICARE agency.
                       gender-integrated training
    Question. You were the Chairman of the Commission on Military 
Training and Gender-Related Issues that from 1998 to 1999 studied 
cross-gender relationships of members of the Armed Forces and, in 
particular, the basic training programs of the Services. The Commission 
recommended that the Services continue to train recruits of both sexes 
in accordance with their current policies, which for the Air Force, 
Navy, and Army, meant gender-integrated basic training. You disagreed 
with the Commission's finding in this regard, and issued a personal 
statement expressing your view that military effectiveness should 
dictate how the Services conduct basic training and that there were 
unanswered, serious questions about the relative effectiveness of 
gender-integrated versus gender-separate training.
    Based on your experience since August 2001 as the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy for Military Personnel Policy and, since February 
2005, Total Force Transformation, what are your current views about the 
military effectiveness of gender-integrated training?
    Answer. I believe that military effectiveness should be the 
standard by which Services make decisions about training. Pursuing 
military effectiveness as a goal, the Services should not stand still, 
but continually reexamine their assumptions and seek out better ways to 
accomplish their training mission.
    In the Department of the Navy today, both Services have retained 
the same format for basic training that they had in 1999: Navy boot 
camp is gender-integrated, and Marine Corps boot camp is gender-
separate. Both Services report that they are satisfied with the product 
they obtain and they are able to perform their assigned missions.
    Question. If confirmed, what actions, if any, would you take with 
respect to evaluating the benefits of gender-integrated versus gender-
separate training in the Air Force?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will let the Air Force know (as I have done 
with both the Navy and Marine Corps) that I stand ready to support 
efforts to improve training results.
                     employment of military spouses
    Question. In your view, what progress has been made, and what 
actions need to be taken to provide increased employment opportunities 
for military spouses?
    Answer. Thanks to congressional support extending over the past 20 
years, many programs exist today to provide increased employment 
opportunities for military spouses. These include relocation 
assistance, both in the United States and worldwide, job search aids, 
Federal preferences for military spouses, education and job training 
programs, and even assistance in starting their own businesses.
    It is important to assess the effectiveness of these programs and 
continue to support those that work, while improving or replacing 
others with new program opportunities that may produce better results 
for our military families.
   management and development of the senior executive services (ses)
    Question. The Air Force has initiated a senior leader management 
model to enhance and improve management, development, and assignment of 
SES and general officers.
    What is your assessment of how the Air Force program is working?
    Answer. I am aware that the Air Force has initiated a new model for 
management, development, and assignment of SES and general officers. I 
applaud the Air Force's initiative in this important area. The program 
is in a very early stage, and it may take several years before the 
program fully takes shape. I look forward to learning more about the 
design, deployment, and results of this model.
    Question. What is your vision of the approach the Air Force should 
take to further improve the management, development, and assignment of 
SES members, especially in the critically important areas of 
acquisition and financial management?
    Answer. I believe these efforts should be aligned with the relevant 
provisions of the QDR and similar strategic documents to achieve the 
vision of a capable, flexible, and agile future Total Force. The 
leadership of the future Total Force must be of the highest character, 
competence, and accountability. I believe the acquisition and financial 
management communities would benefit from studying how other 
professions are organized and governed, to include specific ethical 
rules, some form of internal self-policing, minimum competency 
standards, and requirements for continuing education.
   joint assignment opportunities for military and civilian personnel
    Question. The QDR Report of February 2006 calls for reorienting 
defense capabilities in support of joint operations, to include joint 
air, joint mobility, and joint command and control.
    What is your view of the opportunities for joint training and 
assignment today for both military and civilian personnel in DOD?
    Answer. Opportunities for joint training and assignment for 
military and civilian personnel in DOD remain somewhat limited today, 
but are growing steadily. The leadership in both DOD and the Service 
Departments is focused on increasing capabilities by expanding the pool 
of individuals who may be able to perform the many jobs involved in our 
national defense. ``Jointness'' no longer applies only to the military 
services, but to the Total Force of Active and Reserve component 
military, plus government, nongovernment, and contractor civilians.
    Question. If confirmed, how would you assess the adequacy of the 
Air Force civilian workforce--in terms of training, experience, and 
numbers of government personnel--to support the Air Force mission?
    Answer. I have not had enough exposure to the Air Force civilian 
workforce to be able to assess their training, experience, and numbers. 
If confirmed, I expect to examine these issues in detail with Air Force 
staff and others.
    Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to move closer 
to the goal of reorienting Air Force personnel in support of a joint 
concept of operations?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would gather information and data to assess 
the current status of Air Force personnel, identify gaps that need to 
be addressed in order to bring them fully in support of a joint concept 
of operations, and along with Air Force staff and others, develop plans 
and programs to fill the gaps, along with measures of progress and 
performance.
                      medical personnel shortages
    Question. The military medical corps of all three Departments are 
facing unprecedented challenges in the recruitment and retention of 
medical and dental personnel needed to support DOD's medical mission.
    What steps would you take, if confirmed, to address recruitment and 
retention challenges in the Air Force Medical Services as well as the 
Air Force Reserve?
    Answer. I have worked with Navy medicine in addressing similar 
challenges, and I hope that experience will be useful. I am aware, 
however, that the Navy and Air Force medical corps have somewhat 
different missions and requirements, and so I would not assume that 
either the problems or the solutions are the same for both Services. If 
confirmed, I expect to examine these issues in detail with Air Force 
staff and other Service and DOD colleagues, among others.
    Question. Based on your Navy experience, are you confident that the 
Department has sufficient tools to achieve goals for recruitment and 
retention of highly skilled health care personnel? If not, what 
additional tools might be worthy of consideration in the future?
    Answer. Based on my knowledge of Navy medicine's concerns and 
challenges, I know that a number of tools already exist--including 
scholarships, loan repayment programs, and critical skills accession 
and retention bonuses--to recruit and retain highly skilled health care 
personnel. The Navy recognizes that it needs to make full use of the 
tools it already has. Bottom Line: While I cannot say that I am 
confident that the Department has all the tools it might need for this 
purpose, I do believe the Services should look critically and 
creatively at the full range of tools, flexibilities and authorities 
that Congress has already provided and make good use of them.
    It is hard to compete with the private sector on a financial basis 
alone. Further, I believe many people who are attracted to military 
medicine are not necessarily motivated by money alone. In addition to 
financial incentives, the ability to offer flexible career options 
could help us recruit and retain highly skilled health care personnel. 
For example, on- and off-ramps (allowing people to leave the Service 
for a period of time and return later) could be very attractive to some 
of our medical personnel, who may wish to leave the military for a time 
to devote themselves to raising a family or pursuing other personal or 
professional goals, then return to military medicine later. Permitting 
the Services to experiment with different approaches to managing their 
medical Reserve components (for example, adjusting the timing and 
conditions of Reserve duty to avoid undue damage to the physician 
reservist's private practice) also could help with recruiting and 
retention.
                    personnel and health care costs
    Question. Senior military leaders have testified in favor of the 
administration's plan to significantly increase health care fees for 
military retirees as a result of the growing portion of the DOD budget 
devoted to personnel and benefit costs.
    Do you share the view that future operational readiness of the 
Armed Forces is threatened by the increasing costs of personnel 
benefits?
    Answer. The increasing costs of personnel benefits, especially 
health care, do pose a budgetary threat because we must operate within 
the limits of finite resources. Funds for increased entitlement costs 
must come from discretionary spending elsewhere in the budget. Thus, 
dramatic increases in benefit costs are bound to affect the amount of 
money we can apply toward operational readiness.
    Question. What efficiencies and personnel benefit changes do you 
believe warrant consideration to ensure a viable and affordable force?
    Answer. I believe that the government must keep its promises, and 
it is important to keep faith with servicemembers who rely upon 
promises previously made to them. Nevertheless, we all have a stake in 
ensuring a viable and affordable force. I believe there may be more 
creative options that could both reduce costs and increase members' 
satisfaction. For example, cafeteria-style benefits plans enable 
individual employees to select the benefits that are most valuable to 
them personally. Other nonfinancial benefits, such as allowing more 
individual choice in transfers and assignments, might yield equal or 
better retention at lower cost to DOD.
               national security personnel system (nsps)
    Question. Although currently enjoined from implementation of a new 
labor-relations system, the Department is planning to move ahead in the 
implementation of a pay-for-performance civilian personnel system.
    Based on your experience in the Navy, what is your assessment of 
the adequacy and quality of training that is being provided on the new 
personnel system?
    Answer. Based on my experience in the Navy, NSPS training appears 
to be proceeding as planned and receiving a lot of attention from 
leadership. The success of the plan will not be known until results can 
be seen and evaluated. Meanwhile, I believe that the leadership of the 
Department of the Navy is committed to ensuring that managers and 
others receive the training they need. Leaders are watching these 
programs carefully and are willing to adapt in response to experience 
in order to achieve the best results.
    Question. What is your understanding of the manner in which pay 
levels will be determined under the new system?
    Answer. I understand that under NSPS employees will be assigned to 
a pay band that reflects their current pay, with no reduction in actual 
pay, and they will have the opportunity to earn future increases 
through merit and performance.
    Question. If confirmed, how would you monitor the acceptance of the 
new system by the civilian workforce, and how would you intervene if 
acceptance of the system fell below expected levels?
    Answer. If confirmed, I expect to work closely with both Air Force 
staff and other elements of DOD to monitor workforce acceptance of 
NSPS. If acceptance falls below expected levels, I will work with 
colleagues to determine how best to respond to workforce concerns.
                             family support
    Question. In your view, do the Services have adequate programs in 
place to ensure support for Active and Reserve component families, 
particularly those who live great distances from military 
installations?
    Answer. Thanks to Congress, military family support programs have 
improved tremendously. The Services are able to offer a wide range of 
programs to meet the needs of families in both Active and Reserve 
components. Toll-free telephone support, such as OneSource, allows 
families who live far away from military installations to have access 
to support tailored for their needs. Customer surveys and retention 
rates in the Navy and Marine Corps show that family support programs 
appear to be adequate.
    Question. If confirmed, what additional steps would you take to 
enhance family support to airmen?
    Answer. In the Department of the Navy, although there are many 
similarities between the Navy and the Marine Corps, there are also many 
differences, resulting in different programs that nonetheless meet the 
needs of each Service. I have found it is important to ask what people 
feel they need rather than impose ``solutions'' that they don't want 
and can't use. If confirmed, I would not want to make assumptions about 
what airmen and their families need or want, but instead I would ask 
them what they think and do my best to develop programs that respond to 
them.
                  general and flag officer nominations
    Question. Under section 506 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the Services must provide substantiated 
adverse information to promotion selection boards selecting officers 
for promotion to the grades of O7 and above.
    What problems, if any, do you foresee in the Air Force's ability to 
implement this requirement?
    Answer. I have no information about the Air Force's ability to 
provide substantiated adverse information to promotion selection boards 
for grades of O7 and above.
    Question. If confirmed, what guidance would you provide to 
promotion selection board members about the manner in which such 
adverse information should be considered?
    Answer. Any guidance naturally would start with the legislative 
language itself. In addition, I understand that the Office of Secretary 
of Defense is about to publish regulations providing guidance as 
required under section 506, which will be effective October 1, 2006. If 
confirmed, I expect to provide support in this area as directed by the 
Secretary of the Air Force.
                         interservice transfers
    Question. At the same time that the Army and Marine Corps are 
working harder than ever to achieve recruiting goals, the Navy and the 
Air Force are planning for significant reductions in Active-Duty and 
Reserve military personnel. Under section 641 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, an interservice bonus for 
transfer was authorized. Additional incentives may be necessary, 
however, to encourage ``blue to green'' transfers in order to retain 
sailors and airmen with valuable military training, skills, and 
experience
    What is your assessment of the adequacy of existing incentives for 
interservice transfers?
    Answer. It may be that monetary incentives alone will not prove 
sufficient to persuade members of one Service to join another. Each 
Service has a unique culture, with which its members strongly identify. 
I endorse the idea of promoting ``blue to green'' transfers, but I 
believe that, to be successful, the program should consider other 
methods of motivating departing sailors and airmen to stay in the 
military in another Service.
    Question. If confirmed, and given your experience as Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of the Navy, what steps would you take to enhance 
the number of ``blue to green'' interservice transfers?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would like to explore other possible 
methods of assisting the Army and Marine Corps in fulfilling their 
mission requirements. For example, one barrier to interservice 
cooperation is the lack of a common set of competencies for various 
jobs. Recently, the Navy was able to provide Master at Arms (MA) 
sailors to assist the Army in Military Police (MP) work by identifying 
competency gaps between the two communities and providing ``just in 
time'' training to MAs so that they could do the work of MPs. I look 
forward to continuing to work with other Service Department colleagues 
on this issue.
                       diversity in the air force
    Question. In its policies and practices, the Air Force is committed 
to the principles of equal opportunity with the goal of promoting 
equity, eliminating unlawful discrimination, and building teamwork and 
readiness. Diversity initiatives, including reliance on affirmative 
action plans, according to Air Force instructions, focus on ``broad 
policies seeking to remove barriers to status inequality and to 
capitalize on demographic changes in society. Diversity initiatives 
constitute a philosophy and practical tools aimed at producing 
results.''
    What is your view of the proper use of affirmative action plans and 
measures aimed at achieving or nurturing diversity in the Armed Forces?
    Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the Air Force 
diversity plan, but I appreciate the strategic importance of ensuring 
that service in the Armed Forces is broadly supported by all Americans 
and that our Armed Forces are able to work effectively in many 
different areas and cultures around the world.
    ``Affirmative action'' originally meant taking positive steps to 
identify and remove barriers and to ``cast a wider net'' in seeking to 
offer qualified persons an opportunity to compete based on their own 
merits. I endorse this original intent, and I believe there are many 
ways in which the Armed Forces can take positive steps as just 
described, without resorting to quotas and preferences, in order to 
achieve or nurture diversity. For example, both Navy and Marine Corps 
have produced ads and marketing plans tailored to reach nontraditional 
markets. We also challenged Navy recruiters, not to deliver a certain 
number of minority sailors, but instead to increase measurably their 
contacts with minority prospects. Both these efforts--classic examples 
of ``casting a wider net''--helped to increase diversity without using 
quotas or preferences.
    Question. In your opinion, how, if at all, should considerations 
relating to gender and minority status with respect to race, ethnicity, 
and national origin be addressed in the guidance provided by the 
Secretary of each Service to promotion selection boards?
    Answer. Precept language relating to race, ethnicity, national 
origin, or gender should emphasize that candidates must be evaluated 
based on merit and performance in the assignments they have been given. 
Precepts should also advise boards that the demonstrated ability to 
lead a diverse force and deal successfully with different cultures is 
valued and important.
    Question. What is your understanding of the manner in which 
considerations relating to gender and race, ethnicity, and national 
origin are used in selection processes for the U.S. Air Force Academy?
    Answer. I am not familiar with the manner in which the U.S. Air 
Force Academy considers gender and race, ethnicity, and national origin 
in its selection processes.
    Question. Do you agree with the Air Force Academy's approach with 
respect to the selection of applicants?
    Answer. I am not familiar with the Air Force Academy's selection 
process, but if confirmed, I expect to examine this area in detail with 
Air Force staff and others.
                             sexual assault
    Question. On February 25, 2004, the Senate Armed Services Committee 
Subcommittee on Personnel conducted a hearing on policies and programs 
of DOD for preventing and responding to incidents of sexual assault in 
the Armed Forces at which the Service Vice Chiefs endorsed a ``zero 
tolerance'' standard. Subsequently, in response to congressional 
direction, the Department developed a comprehensive set of policies and 
procedures aimed at improving prevention of and response to incidents 
of sexual assaults, including appropriate resources and care for 
victims of sexual assault.
    Do you consider the new sexual assault policies and procedures, 
particularly those on confidential reporting, to be effective?
    Answer. The new sexual assault policies and procedures have not 
been in effect very long. Early indications seem to show that the 
expanded opportunity for confidential reporting may have had the 
desired effect of inducing more victims of sexual assault (who 
otherwise might not have reported their attacks) to come forward and 
receive assistance and treatment. It is not yet clear whether increased 
reporting rates will yield greater numbers of substantiated cases or 
convictions.
    Question. What problems, if any, are you aware of in the manner in 
which the new policies have been implemented?
    Answer. For over 10 years before the recent DOD policies became 
effective, the Department of the Navy had regulations on Sexual Assault 
Victim Intervention (SAVI), setting standards for mandatory Navy and 
Marine Corps programs in response to sexual assault victim needs and 
rights, reporting requirements, and investigations and prosecutions. As 
a result, the Navy and Marine Corps already had well-developed programs 
and a strong culture of victim support and zero tolerance for sexual 
assault. The only problem I am aware of so far in connection with 
implementation of the new policies is that both Services had to change 
some of their previous terminology (e.g., SAVI to SARC) in order to 
comply with the DOD policy, and those changes seem to have caused some 
confusion in the fleet and field.
    Question. If confirmed, what oversight role, if any, would you 
expect to play?
    Answer. If confirmed, I expect to devote substantial and constant 
attention to these issues.
                    united states air force academy
    Question. In 2003, in response to complaints of sexual assaults and 
harassment of female cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy, the 
Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff initiated the 
``Agenda for Change,'' which introduced numerous changes at the Academy 
aimed at preventing and responding to incidents of sexual assault.
    What elements of the Agenda for Change have been repealed, and why?
    Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the implementation of 
the Agenda for Change at the U.S. Air Force Academy.
    Question. What is your assessment of the reforms included in the 
Agenda for Change, and what is your current assessment of the equal 
opportunity climate at the U.S. Air Force Academy?
    Answer. I am not familiar with the details of reforms and the 
current equal opportunity climate at the U.S. Air Force Academy.
    Question. If confirmed, what role would you expect to play with 
respect to implementation of Air Force-wide policies regarding equal 
opportunity and prevention of and response to sexual assault at the Air 
Force Academy?
    Answer. If confirmed, I expect to devote significant attention to 
these issues.
    Question. The reviews focused on the status and problems 
experienced by female cadets at the Air Force Academy in 2003 
demonstrated the importance of focused, informed oversight by service 
civilian and military senior leaders of conditions for female cadets 
and midshipmen. The Service Academy 2005 Sexual Harassment and Assault 
Survey found that even with the implementation of corrective measures, 
sexual assault, and harassment continue to be factors negatively 
affecting female cadets at the military academies.
    What is your evaluation of the conclusions and recommendations of 
the Service Academy 2005 Sexual Harassment and Assault Survey and the 
Report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at 
the Military Service Academies?
    Answer. The 2005 Sexual Harassment and Assault Survey revealed 
that, in the case of the U.S. Naval Academy, 59 percent of female and 
14 percent of male midshipmen indicated they had experienced some form 
of sexual harassment, while 5 percent of women and 1 percent of men 
reported experiencing sexual assault. According to the Defense Manpower 
Data Center, these statistics are consistent with those for civilian 
college students; however, I believe it is fair to expect a higher 
standard of behavior from young people privileged to attend a Service 
Academy and intending to pursue a military career.
    Concerning the Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence 
at the Military Service Academies, most of its recommendations were 
consistent with pre-existing policies in the Department of the Navy, 
which has mandated comprehensive sexual assault victim intervention 
programs in the Navy and Marine Corps for over 10 years.
    Question. What actions would you expect to take, if confirmed, to 
address the problems of sexual assault and sexual harassment at the 
U.S. Air Force Academy and with respect to the Air Force's programs in 
this regard?
    Answer. If confirmed, I expect to devote significant attention to 
these issues. As the Task Force noted, ``sexual harassment and assault 
is not a `fix and forget' problem'' but requires ``a long-term, 
sustained effort, not only by the leaders of the Academies, but also by 
the cadets and midshipmen.''
                  religious practices in the air force
    Question. What is your assessment of corrective measures taken at 
the U.S. Air Force Academy to ensure religious tolerance and respect, 
and of Air Force guidelines regarding religious tolerance that were 
promulgated in August 2005?
    Answer. I am not familiar with the details of corrective measures 
taken at the U.S. Air Force Academy or the August 2005 Air Force 
guidelines on religious tolerance and respect. If confirmed, I expect 
to examine this subject thoroughly with the Air Force staff and others.
    Question. What additional steps, if any, do you think need to be 
taken with respect to the role of military chaplains in performing 
their duties in ministering to airmen?
    Answer. I believe the recently revised Department of the Navy 
instruction strikes a proper balance between the free expression rights 
of chaplains and of servicemembers. If confirmed, I would want to learn 
more about the Air Force guidelines on religious tolerance and what 
issues are present in the Air Force before determining any specific 
course of action.
                foreign language transformation roadmap
    Question. A Foreign Language Transformation Roadmap announced by 
the Department on March 30, 2005, directed a series of actions aimed at 
transforming the Department's foreign language capabilities, to include 
revision of policy and doctrine, building a capabilities-based 
requirements process, and enhancing foreign language capability for 
both military and civilian personnel.
    What is your understanding of the status of the actions identified 
in the Defense Language Transformation Roadmap?
    Answer. I am not familiar with the status of Air Force 
implementation of Defense Language Transformation Roadmap requirements. 
In the Navy Department, both Navy and Marine Corps have recently 
submitted progress reports indicating they are on track in executing 
their service-level language transformation plans. Of note, the Navy is 
revitalizing its Foreign Area Officer (FAO) program, and the Marine 
Corps has established a new Center for Advanced Operational Culture 
Learning (CAOCL). As described on its Web site, the CAOCL ``ensures 
marines are equipped with operationally relevant regional, culture, and 
language knowledge to allow them to plan and operate successfully in 
the joint and combined expeditionary environment in any region, in 
current and potential operating conditions, and targeting persistent 
and emerging threats and opportunities.''
    Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to identify 
foreign language requirements, and to design military and civilian 
personnel policies and programs to fill those gaps?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would encourage a joint approach in which, 
for example, each Service might take the lead for developing culture 
and language capabilities in the regions where that Service typically 
operates. I would also encourage the use of informed risk-management in 
determining how we should allocate both financial and human resources 
to attain optimum cultural and language readiness. Our policies and 
programs should seek ways to leverage existing capabilities, for 
example, by employing knowledge management systems that can help us 
find individuals with the needed mix of skills, no matter what their 
current positions might be.
    Question. What is your assessment of an appropriate timeframe 
within which results can be realized in this critical area?
    Answer. The timeframe for results depends on the nature of the 
actions required. When emergent requirements are known, there may be 
ways to ``jump-start'' capabilities (e.g., recruiting native speakers, 
using new technologies). But in general, building language capabilities 
should be regarded as a long-term investment. We need to acknowledge 
that language skills decline if not properly maintained and provide the 
right kind of assignments and opportunities for skilled linguists.
                        military quality of life
    Question. In May 2004 the Department published its first 
Quadrennial Quality of Life Review, which articulated a compact with 
military families on the importance of key quality of life factors, 
such as family support, child care, education, health care and morale, 
welfare and recreation services.
    How do you perceive the relationship between quality of life 
improvements and your own top priorities for military recruitment and 
retention?
    Answer. Quality of life improvements are definitely one of the most 
important factors in successful military recruiting and retention--
which in turn, is fundamental to mission accomplishment for any 
Service. Some quality of life programs primarily benefit the individual 
servicemember, and others provide support for members' families; both 
kinds are important. We know that families often play a decisive role 
in whether a member stays in or leaves the Service.
    If confirmed, what further enhancements to military quality of life 
would you make a priority, and how do you envision working with the 
Services, combatant commanders, family advocacy groups, and Congress to 
achieve them?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would encourage further enhancements to 
military quality of life that would give servicemembers greater ability 
to select the benefits and programs of most interest to them. I would 
also like to examine quality of service improvements, such as longer 
tours, fewer moves, and greater ability to pursue jobs of special 
interest to the member. The Services, combatant commanders, family 
advocacy groups, and Congress would be vital partners in efforts to 
enhance quality of life programs along these lines.
                        congressional oversight
    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information.
    Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before 
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of the 
Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
               Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
                        organization membership
    1. Senator Levin. Ms. Blair, at your nomination hearing earlier 
this week, I asked you several questions about two organizations of 
which you are a member--Independent Women's Forum and the Virginia 
Affiliate of Eagle Forum. You responded in part: ``I would hasten to 
mention that neither one is a membership organization in the sense that 
anybody who may--one pays dues or is apt to be eliminated if one 
doesn't agree with everything that they say.'' The Web sites for both 
organizations provide membership application forms, including annual 
contributions for various categories of membership (copies attached). 
In addition, you listed yourself as a member of each organization in 
your response to the committee questionnaire (question A-12). In the 
cover letter for this form, you stated: ``I am a member of certain 
organizations and professional societies, which are either listed below 
or have been previously provided to the committee. None of these should 
pose any conflict of interest with regard to my governmental 
responsibilities.'' How do you reconcile your statement that neither of 
these two organizations is a ``membership organization'' to which ``one 
pays dues'' with the membership forms and dues information provided on 
the organizations' Web sites?
      
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
      
    Ms. Blair. In my oral answer, I was referring to the definition of 
a ``membership organization'' as I used and understood that term when I 
was a nonprofit executive. Under Virginia corporation laws (which 
applied to the Independent Women's Forum when I worked there), if a 
nonstock (nonprofit) corporation opts to have ``members'' under its 
charter or bylaws, the members may have certain statutory rights. A 
``membership'' organization typically requires its members to pay dues 
and comply with other conditions of membership, such as agreeing to 
abide by certain principles or standards.
    During my tenure the Independent Women's Forum was not a membership 
organization, and I believe that is still true today. To the best of my 
knowledge the same is true of the Virginia Eagle Forum. A person who 
``joins'' the Independent Women's Forum or Virginia Eagle Forum 
receives no right to vote on the governance of the organization and is 
subject to no obligations or conditions imposed by the organization.
    When I was involved with the Independent Women's Forum, we tried 
not to use the terms ``member'' or ``membership'' in promotional 
materials because we did not want to imply that any contributor or 
supporter might have any rights or obligations in relation to the 
organization. Since I resigned as an officer and employee 5 years ago, 
prior to accepting my current position in the Department of the Navy, I 
cannot speak for the current policies or practices of the Independent 
Women's Forum. I have never been an officer, employee, or active 
participant in any way in either the National or Virginia Eagle Forum, 
and thus cannot speak for their past or present policies or practices.

    2. Senator Levin. Ms. Blair, how do you reconcile this statement 
with your response to the committee questionnaire, in which you 
indicated that you are a member of these organizations?
    Ms. Blair. In completing the questionnaire, I assumed that the 
committee was using the term ``membership'' in a colloquial sense, and 
I wished to inform the committee fully about organizations with which I 
have had any connection, whether or not constituting ``membership'' in 
the legal sense. In fact, since August 2001, when I commenced my 
current job in the Department of the Navy, I have not been an officer, 
director, or employee nor actively participated in any organizations. 
The only contact I have had with the Independent Women's Forum was to 
attend its 2004 and 2006 dinners in honor of Hon. Lynne Cheney and 
Secretary Condoleezza Rice, respectively. I did so at the group's 
invitation, which was extended to me based on my personal capacity as a 
former president and not connected with my government employment.

    3. Senator Levin. Ms. Blair, have you paid dues (or any annual 
payments in connection with membership, regardless of how they may be 
designated) to these organizations?
    Ms. Blair. I have not contributed any money to the Independent 
Women's Forum since before 2001. I have no record of ever paying any 
dues or contributions to the National Eagle Forum (whose Web site was 
cited in the hearing). For several years my husband and I have 
contributed approximately $20-$40 per year to the Virginia Eagle Forum.

    4. Senator Levin. Ms. Blair, given that each of these organizations 
has taken a position contrary to the position of the Air Force on the 
issue of gender-integrated training, would you agree that your 
continued membership in these organizations could create the appearance 
of a conflict of interest?
    Ms. Blair. Consistent with the standard of ethics set forth in 5 
C.F.R. Sec. 2635.202 (rules for Federal employees concerning the 
appearance of impartiality), I do not believe that any circumstances 
exist that would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the 
relevant facts to question my impartiality on this subject. I have no 
business, contractual or other financial relationship with these 
organizations, nor does anyone in my family or household. I am not an 
active participant in these organizations. If a particular matter 
involving specific parties should arise that might create the 
appearance of a conflict of interest, I would consult with my agency 
ethics designee to determine how best to handle the matter. As I stated 
at the hearing regarding gender-integrated training in the Air Force: I 
will be guided by the opinions of the experts who are running the 
training programs as to what ways they may want to pursue to attempt to 
improve their training. I have no purpose, plan, or agenda to require 
the Air Force to change its gender-integrated training format.

    4. Senator Levin. Ms. Blair, in the advanced questions sent to you 
by this committee, you were asked several questions regarding 
reductions in Air Force Active-Duty end strength as recommended in the 
Quadrennial Defense Report. In response, you asserted that you hoped to 
employ the ``lessons learned'' by other forces, particularly the Navy 
and Marines, who have experienced similar reductions. To what extent do 
you think that these ``lessons learned'' are directly applicable to the 
Air Force and, in what ways does the Air Force face unique challenges 
in its attempt to implement a reduction in force?
    Ms. Blair. Some of the ``lessons learned'' by other Services may be 
applicable to the Air Force. For example, after the drawdowns of the 
early 1990s, followed by failure to meet recruiting goals later in the 
1990s, the Navy found itself with insufficient numbers of junior 
personnel in certain jobs and year-groups. This created difficulties in 
managing the assignment and promotion systems, and even today some 
year-groups remain at relatively lower levels than expected.
    These problems might have been avoided if the Navy had been able to 
execute its drawdown in a more targeted fashion, taking care to 
preserve the right number, seniority and quality of sailors in various 
jobs, especially those that require a long period of technical 
training. Since that time, the Navy has developed a better system of 
analysis for identifying the types of skills and experience that need 
to be preserved in order to ``shape the force'' without undue stress.
    Another ``lesson learned'' is that, even though the Services have 
broad legal rights to discharge members without cause and without 
compensation, it is important to ensure that members perceive they are 
being treated fairly. Thus it is very desirable for a Service to have 
access to an array of force-shaping tools (monetary or otherwise).
    Not being familiar with the details of Air Force manpower 
management, I am not able to say whether such ``lessons learned'' may 
be directly applicable to the Air Force, nor whether the Air Force 
faces unique challenges. If confirmed, I will be alert to point out 
areas where other Services' experience could be helpful to the Air 
Force, and I will also keep in mind that the Air Force may have unique 
situations where the experience of other Services is not particularly 
relevant.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of Anita K. Blair follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                    April 24, 2006.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    Anita K. Blair, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the 
Air Force, vice Michael L. Dominguez.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The biographical sketch of Anita K. Blair, which was 
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was 
referred, follows:]
                 Biographical Sketch of Anita K. Blair
    Effective 1 February 2005, Anita Blair assumed the responsibilities 
of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Total Force Transformation (TFT). As 
the Deputy Assistant Secretary (TFT), she serves as the Program 
Executive for the Department of the Navy's human capital transformation 
agenda, leading efforts to modernize the management of the Department's 
total force of Active-Duty, Reserve, civilian, and contractor 
personnel. Working closely with the other Deputy Assistant Secretaries 
and with the military Services, the Department seeks to develop a human 
capital management system that is agile, flexible, and integrated in 
support of contemporary requirements, including meeting the challenges 
of the global war on terrorism.
    Dual-hatted as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Military 
Personnel Policy (DASN (MPP)), Anita Blair is also responsible for 
policy and oversight related to personnel matters affecting Navy and 
Marine Corps Active-Duty servicemembers and their families. Issues 
include recruiting and retention; training and education; Active-Duty 
strength and compensation; character, leadership development, and equal 
opportunity; health affairs; counterdrug programs; family support; and 
morale, welfare, and recreation. She was sworn in on 15 August 2001.
    In prior public service, Ms. Blair chaired the 1998-1999 
Congressional Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related 
Issues, which investigated ``cross-gender'' issues such as rules on 
adultery, fraternization, and sexual conduct in the military, as well 
as the effectiveness of military basic training. The Commission 
conducted several weeks of hearings with nearly 100 witnesses and over 
a dozen inspection tours of military training and operational 
facilities, including deployments overseas. The Commission's final 
report included extensive new scientific studies and surveys of over 
30,000 servicemembers.
    Ms. Blair also served for 6 years on the Virginia Military 
Institute (VMI) Board of Visitors, originally appointed by Governor 
George Allen in 1995 and reappointed by Governor James S. Gilmore III 
in 1999. She chaired the Board's initial Assimilation Review Task 
Force, providing continuing oversight of issues related to the 
admission of women to VMI.
    Before joining the Department of the Navy, Ms. Blair had been a 
lawyer in private practice in Virginia and the District of Columbia 
since 1981, concentrating in business law and litigation. She served 8 
years on the Board of Governors of the Virginia State Bar Section on 
Antitrust, Franchise and Trade Regulation Law, which she chaired in 
1998-1999. Beginning in 1992 she was also Executive Vice President and 
General Counsel and later President of the Independent Women's Forum 
(IWF), a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to research and 
public education on policy issues concerning women. Among other 
activities, Ms. Blair appeared in the media, testified before Congress, 
and oversaw IWF's participation as amicus curiae in several high 
profile constitutional law cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.
    Born in Washington, DC, Anita Blair attended Catholic schools and 
received her bachelor's degree in Classical Greek from the University 
of Michigan in Ann Arbor in 1971. She graduated in 1981 from the 
University of Virginia School of Law in Charlottesville, where she met 
her husband and law partner, C. Douglas Welty.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals 
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a 
form that details the biographical, financial, and other 
information of the nominee. The form executed by Anita K. Blair 
in connection with his nomination follows:]
                          UNITED STATES SENATE
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              Room SR-228
                       Washington, DC 20510-6050
                             (202) 224-3871
                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
      BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
    Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If 
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the 
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation 
of your answer applies.
                    Part A--Biographical Information
    Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in 
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for 
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in 
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.

    1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
    Anita Katherine Blair, formerly: Anita Katherine Dascola 1970-1974 
(former marriage).

    2. Position to which nominated:
    Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Manpower and Reserve 
Affairs).

    3. Date of nomination:
    April 24, 2006.

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

    5. Date and place of birth:
    November 15, 1950; Washington, DC.

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

    7. Names and ages of children:
    None.

    8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
    University of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville, VA (1978-
1981), J.D., May 1981.
    Washington School of Law, American University, Washington, DC 
(August-December 1974), (no degree).
    University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (1968-1971), B.A., December 
1971.
    La Reine High School, Suitland, MD (1964-1968), high school 
diploma, May 1968.

    9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the 
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of 
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
    Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Military Personnel Policy & 
Total Force Transformation (August 2001-present).
    President, General Counsel, Executive Vice President, Independent 
Women's Forum, Arlington, VA (1995-2001).
    Chairman, Congressional Commission on Military Training and Gender-
Related Issues, Arlington, VA (April 1998-July 1999).
    Managing Director, Welty & Blair, P.C., Arlington, VA (1991-2001).

    10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, 
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, 
or local governments, other than those listed above.
    Board of Visitors, Virginia Military Institute (1995-2001).

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

    12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in 
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and 
other organizations.
    [Nominee responded and the information is contained in the 
committee's executive files.]

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

04/07/02...........................  Cuccinelli for Senate.     $    100
06/29/03...........................  Bush-Cheney 2004......        1,000
09/30/03...........................  Bush-Cheney E-donation        1,000
04/05/04...........................  Citizens for Salazar..          100
06/29/04...........................  Virginians for Jerry            500
                                      Kilgore PAC.
01/06/05...........................  Cuccinelli for Senate.          100
05/11/05...........................  McDonnell for Virginia          125
09/30/05...........................  Virginians for Jerry            250
                                      Kilgore.
04/25/06...........................  Friends of George               450
                                      Allen.

    14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, military medals, and any other special 
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
    University of Michigan, Hopwood Awards, Fiction and Poetry (Summer 
1971).

    15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of 
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have 
written.
    [Nominee responded and the information is contained in the 
committee's executive files.]

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

          (1) Opening Statement before House Committee on Veteran's 
        Affairs (Subcommittee on Benefits) on Military Transition 
        Assistance Programs (18 July 2002).
          (2) Remarks to Navy Counseling, Advocacy and Prevention 
        Biennial Conference (August 12, 2002).
          (3) Remarks at opening of Navy Child Development Group Home, 
        Norfolk, Virginia (October 15, 2003).
          (4) Remarks presented to the Congressional Women's Caucus 
        (status of DOD Task Force on care for victims of sexual 
        assault) (March 31, 2004).

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

                           Signature and Date
    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete.
                                                    Anita K. Blair.
    This 28th day of April, 2006.

    [The nomination of Anita K. Blair was returned to the 
President on December 9, 2006.]
                              ----------                              

    [Prepared questions submitted to Benedict S. Cohen by 
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied 
follow:]
                        Questions and Responses
                            defense reforms
    Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense 
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have 
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have 
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain 
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant 
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
They have also clarified the responsibility of the military departments 
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment 
to the combatant commanders.
    Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act 
provisions?
    Answer. The Goldwater-Nichols Act changed Department of Defense 
operations profoundly and positively. Although I believe that the 
framework established by Goldwater-Nichols has significantly improved 
interservice and joint relationships and promoted the effective 
execution of responsibilities, the Department, working with Congress, 
should continually assess the law in light of improving capabilities, 
evolving threats, and changing organizational dynamics. Although I am 
currently unaware of any reason to amend Goldwater-Nichols, if 
confirmed, I will have an opportunity to assess whether the challenges 
posed by today's security environment require amendments to the 
legislation with a view to continuing the objectives of defense reform.
    Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to 
address in these modifications?
    Answer. This milestone legislation is now 20 years old and has 
served our Nation well. If confirmed, I believe it may be appropriate 
to consider with Congress whether the act should be revised to better 
address the requirements of the combatant commanders and the needs and 
challenges faced by the military departments in today's security 
environment.
                                 duties
    Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of 
the General Counsel of the Department of the Army?
    Answer. Section 3019 of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the General 
Counsel of the Army shall perform such functions as the Secretary of 
the Army may prescribe. The Secretary has done so through general 
orders, regulations, and memoranda. The General Counsel provides legal 
advice to the Secretary of the Army, the Under Secretary, the Assistant 
Secretaries, and other offices within the Army Secretariat. As the 
chief legal officer of the Department of the Army, the General Counsel 
determines the controlling legal positions of the Department of the 
Army. The General Counsel's responsibilities extend to any matter of 
law and to other matters as directed by the Secretary. Examples of 
specific responsibilities currently assigned to the General Counsel 
include providing professional guidance to the Army's legal community, 
overseeing matters in which the Army is involved in litigation, serving 
as the Designated Agency Ethics Official, exercising the Secretary's 
oversight of intelligence and other sensitive activities and 
investigations, and providing legal advice to the Army Acquisition 
Executive.
    Question. What background and experience do you possess that you 
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
    Answer. The diversity and complexity of legal issues confronting 
the Department of the Army are such that no one lawyer can have in-
depth experience in all of them. However, the General Counsel must 
possess absolute integrity, mature judgment, sound legal and analytical 
skills, and strong interpersonal and leadership abilities. I believe 
that my background and diverse legal experiences in both the public and 
private sectors have prepared me to meet the challenges of this office.
    I received my undergraduate degree magna cum laude from Yale in 
1980 and my law degree from the University of Chicago Law School in 
1983, having served as an associate editor of the Law Review. I clerked 
for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC 
Circuit. I have been in private practice at two law firms. As a staff 
director for two House committees, my principal focus was on legal, 
national security, and homeland security policy. In addition, I served 
as Associate Counsel to President Reagan, Senior Counsel at the U.S. 
Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, Deputy Assistant 
Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice's Environment and 
Natural Resources Division, and Deputy General Counsel (Environment & 
Installations) of the U.S. Department of Defense.
    I believe that my extensive experience in the legislative and 
executive branches have helped prepare me for the extraordinary 
challenge of serving as General Counsel of the Department of the Army 
and overseeing the delivery of legal services in the Army during a 
period of wartime and of Army transformation. My familiarity with the 
Department of Defense and with broader governmental legal practice have 
equipped me to address this important responsibility.
    Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to 
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the General Counsel of 
the Department of the Army?
    Answer. Based on my 20 years of public service with all three 
branches of government, I believe I have the requisite legal training 
and abilities and leadership skills to serve as the Army General 
Counsel. I look forward to dealing with the full array of legal issues 
associated with the operations of the Army. If I am confirmed, I will 
work to further my understanding and knowledge of the Army, its people 
and organization, the resources necessary to sustain and transform it, 
and the challenges it faces. I will work with and through the talented 
and dedicated civilian and military lawyers serving the Department to 
broaden my expertise and increase my knowledge and will seek advice and 
counsel from the many and diverse stakeholders dedicated to the success 
of the Army, including Members and staff of Congress.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do 
you expect that Secretary Harvey would prescribe for you?
    Answer. Although Secretary Harvey has not discussed with me the 
duties and functions he will expect that I perform, I anticipate that 
he will rely on me to provide accurate and timely legal advice to help 
ensure that the Army complies with both the letter and spirit of the 
law. Presumably, the current enumeration of General Counsel 
responsibilities set forth in the general order prescribing the duties 
of each principal official of the Headquarters, Department of the Army, 
will generally remain in effect. Apart from such formally prescribed 
duties, I believe the Secretary of the Army would expect me to continue 
a collegial and professional relationship with the General Counsels of 
the Department of Defense, the other military departments, and the 
defense agencies and, as required, the legal staffs of other Federal 
agencies. I anticipate that Secretary Harvey will expect me to continue 
the extraordinarily effective and professional working relationship 
between the Office of the General Counsel and The Judge Advocate 
General and his staff. Finally, I anticipate that Secretary Harvey will 
expect me to manage the General Counsel's office efficiently and 
effectively, and to ensure that the Army legal community is adequately 
resourced to perform its important mission.
    Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the 
General Counsel of the Department of Defense?
    Answer. The General Counsel of the Department of Defense is the 
Chief Legal Officer and final legal authority for the Department of 
Defense, including the Department of the Army. If confirmed, I 
anticipate having a close and professional relationship with the 
General Counsel of the Department of Defense, characterized by 
continuing consultation, communication, and cooperation on matters of 
mutual interest, in furtherance of the best interests of the Department 
of Defense.
              relationship with the judge advocate general
    Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with The 
Judge Advocate General of the Army?
    Answer. I believe that close, professional cooperation between the 
civilian and uniformed members of the Army's legal community is 
absolutely essential to the effective delivery of legal services to the 
Department of the Army. If confirmed, I will seek to ensure that the 
Office of the General Counsel and The Judge Advocate General and his 
staff continue to work together to deliver the best possible legal 
services to the Department of the Army.
    Question. How are the legal responsibilities of the Department of 
the Army allocated between the General Counsel and The Judge Advocate 
General?
    Answer. The Army General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the 
Department of the Army. The Office of the Army General Counsel is a 
component of the Army Secretariat, and provides legal advice to the 
Secretary of the Army and other Secretariat officials on all legal 
matters. The Judge Advocate General is the legal adviser of the Chief 
of Staff of the Army, members of the Army Staff, and members of the 
Army generally. In coordination with the Army General Counsel, The 
Judge Advocate General serves as military legal adviser to the 
Secretary of the Army. I note that the Ronald Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 expressly prohibited 
interference with the ability of The Judge Advocate General to give 
independent legal advice to the Secretary of the Army; even in the 
absence of that recent statutory change, I would always welcome the 
expression of independent views about any legal matter under 
consideration. The Judge Advocate General also directs the members of 
The Judge Advocate General's Corps in the performance of their duties. 
By law, he is primarily responsible for providing legal advice and 
services regarding the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the 
administration of military discipline. The processing of military 
claims and the provision of legal assistance are other functions for 
which The Judge Advocate General is primarily responsible. The Office 
of the Army General Counsel and the Office of The Judge Advocate 
General have developed and maintain a close and effective working 
relationship in performing their respective responsibilities. If 
confirmed, I will work to continue our synergistic partnership in 
providing legal services to the Army.
                            major challenges
    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will 
confront the General Counsel of the Department of the Army?
    Answer. In my opinion, the major challenge will be to provide 
responsive, accurate legal advice regarding the broad array of complex 
issues likely to arise in connection with the Army's role in the 
prosecution of a global war against an asymmetric enemy while 
simultaneously planning and executing broad strategic transformation 
efforts. Although the current environment makes it difficult to 
anticipate specific legal questions, I expect to confront issues 
relating to operational matters, acquisition reform, privatization 
initiatives, military and civilian personnel policies, compliance with 
environmental laws, and oversight of Department of the Army 
intelligence activities. I am not aware of any serious problems in the 
current delivery of legal services in these areas. However, if 
confirmed, I will work hard to ensure that the Army legal community is 
adequately staffed and resourced to provide the responsive, accurate, 
and timely legal advice necessary to ensure success on the battlefield 
while executing the Department's successful transformation.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for 
addressing these challenges?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will prioritize legal issues in the manner 
that best serves the Department of the Army. I will also ensure that 
the talented and dedicated lawyers comprising the Army legal community 
continue to provide timely legal advice of the highest possible quality 
in response to the Department of the Army's recurring legal 
responsibilities and the numerous issues that the Army confronts every 
day. I would endeavor to keep Army lawyers involved at all stages of 
the decisionmaking process, because I believe that preventive law, 
practiced early in the formulation of departmental policies, will 
undoubtedly facilitate the Department's adaptation to the changing 
operational environment. I would work diligently to adequately resource 
the Army legal community, in order to guarantee decisionmakers at all 
levels access to the best possible legal advice.
                               priorities
    Question. The Army is engaged on a daily basis in combat in 
Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, restructuring itself in 
accordance with the goals of the Quadrennial Defense Review, relocating 
troops and units from Europe and Asia, and transforming its Total Force 
to deal with a host of traditional and non-traditional threats to the 
security of the Nation,
    In what ways can you, if confirmed as General Counsel, contribute 
to military readiness and the success of the Army?
    Answer. If confirmed, and subject to the guidance of the Secretary 
of the Army, I would focus particularly on the delivery of legal 
services related to Army core functions of recruiting, supplying and 
equipping, training, mobilization and demobilization, and 
administering, to include the morale and welfare of personnel, all with 
a view to generating and maintaining a trained and ready force while 
taking care of our people--individual soldiers and leaders--the Army's 
most important asset.
    Question. What broad priorities will you establish in terms of 
issues which must be addressed by the Office of the General Counsel of 
the Department of the Army?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will focus foremost on the issues that 
directly impact soldiers, their families, readiness, and support of 
Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. I anticipate that the 
other legal issues of highest priority will arise from the Army's 
transformation to meet the challenges posed by today's dynamic security 
environment. I will also ensure that the Army legal community continues 
to provide timely legal advice of the highest possible quality, 
executing the Department's recurring legal responsibilities and 
anticipating and responding to the numerous issues the Army confronts 
every day.
                attorney recruiting and retention issues
    Question. How do you assess your ability to hire and retain top 
quality attorneys and provide sufficient opportunity for advancement?
    Answer. The Department of the Army continues to recruit and appoint 
top quality attorneys in both civilian and military positions and is 
confident it can maintain current recruiting standards. As I understand 
it, application levels remain high and exceed available positions. One 
key to continued recruiting success in the military context is access 
to law students. Many of the best and brightest law students are 
interested in learning about the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps 
and join the Corps in response to successful recruiting visits by Army 
judge advocates to law school campuses. The Army continues to retain 
and promote top quality attorneys at all grades, civilian and military.
    Question. In your view, does the Department of the Army have a 
sufficient number of attorneys to perform its missions?
    Answer. It is my understanding that the Army has sufficient 
civilian and military attorneys to execute the Department's missions. I 
note that as the Army transforms, it has emphasized the role of the 
military judge advocate as a vital component of the new modular force.
    Question. In your view, what incentives to successful recruiting 
and retention of attorneys, if any, need to be implemented or 
established?
    Answer. I understand that law students continue to accumulate 
tremendous debt in course of becoming attorneys. Many students now 
incur debt in excess of $100,000 in order to become licensed to 
practice law. Electing a career as either a military attorney or a 
civilian attorney in public service presents a financial challenge for 
many. Accordingly, I support the Judge Advocate Continuation Pay as 
well as civilian attorney student loan repayment programs. As a matter 
of principle, I will support programs that enable the Army to recruit 
and retain lawyers of the same extraordinarily high quality as are 
currently serving in the Department.
                  base realignment and closure (brac)
    Question. In 2005, the BRAC process was concluded, and the BRAC 
Commission's recommendations enacted. These decisions will close or 
realign significant numbers of military installations, increasing the 
military value of our infrastructure, transforming certain common 
functions across the Department, and saving valuable resources.
    Now that those recommendations have the force and effect of law, 
how would you approach implementation of those recommendations if you 
are confirmed?
    Answer. I understand that the Department of Defense has a legal 
obligation to implement fully the recommendations of the BRAC 
Commission within the statutorily prescribed 6-year period. I have been 
advised that the Army is developing implementation plans and budget 
justification materials to execute the Army's BRAC recommendations and 
a portion of the joint cross service group recommendations, as assigned 
by the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology & 
Logistics). I understand that the successful implementation of BRAC 
2005 is critical to Army Transformation, the Integrated Global Presence 
Basing Strategy, and operational deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. I 
will work to ensure that BRAC is executed in a manner that satisfies 
operational and applicable legal requirements. As the Department of 
Defense Deputy General Counsel for Installations and Environment, I was 
involved with several environmental and disposal issues associated with 
the implementation of previous BRAC rounds. If confirmed, and with the 
guidance of the Secretary, I will work closely with the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense, other Federal agencies, Local Redevelopment 
Authorities, Governors, and other appropriate State and local officials 
to accelerate the property disposal process and return closed 
installations to productive economic re-use as soon as possible. The 
Army has effectively used current BRAC authorities to successfully 
implement its closure, realignment, and disposal obligations and, if 
confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to execute BRAC 
2005.
                        military justice matters
    Question. Article 6 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice gives 
primary jurisdiction over military justice to The Judge Advocates 
General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
    How do you view your responsibilities in the performance of 
military justice matters with regard to The Judge Advocate General of 
the Army?
    Answer. Article 6 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires 
The Judge Advocate General or senior members of his staff to make 
``frequent inspections in the field'' in furtherance of his 
responsibility to supervise the administration of military justice. 
Although The Judge Advocate General bears primary responsibility for 
administering the military justice system within the Army, I understand 
that he often coordinates with the Army General Counsel on particular 
matters associated with the fair and consistent enforcement of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice. I will, if confirmed, consult and 
cooperate with the Judge Advocate General on matters of mutual interest 
or concern relating to military justice, recognizing his statutory 
duties and special expertise in this area. If confirmed, I will work 
with the Judge Advocate General in establishing policy for the Army and 
safeguarding the integrity of the military justice system.
    To avoid the appearance or actuality of improper command influence, 
decisions in individual military justice cases must be entrusted to the 
accused's commander, the convening authority, the military judge, and 
court members. The General Counsel, like the Secretary of the Army and 
other senior civilian and military officials of the Department of the 
Army, must avoid any action that may affect or appear to affect the 
outcome of any particular case. The Army General Counsel helps to 
ensure that the military justice system and its judicial officers are 
shielded from inappropriate external pressures that may threaten or 
appear to threaten the independence of the military's judicial system 
or the commander's discretion in exercising his or her responsibilities 
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to maintain good order and 
discipline.
                         treatment of detainees
    Question. What is your understanding of the definition of ``humane 
treatment'' of detainees?
    Answer. I have been advised that in the law of armed conflict, 
humane treatment has traditionally been understood to be treatment 
consistent with the humanitarian principles of the Geneva Conventions. 
The general protection policy for Army detainees, expressed in Army 
Regulation 190-8, Enemy Prisoners, Retained Personnel, Civilian 
Internees, and Other Detainees, is derived in large part from the text 
of the Conventions.
    Question. What is the role of the General Counsel of the Department 
of the Army in ensuring that all detainees in the custody of U.S. Armed 
Forces are provided humane treatment?
    Answer. I have been informed that the Secretary of the Army is the 
DOD Executive Agent for administering policy related to enemy prisoners 
of war and other detainees. Accordingly, if confirmed, I would consider 
it as my duty to provide the Secretary with legal advice on all matters 
related to his execution of that important responsibility. Further, I 
believe the Army should continue to coordinate with the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense, the combatant commands and Joint Staff, and with 
other Services to broaden its capability to resource and sustain short-
term and long-term detainee operations in support of the global war on 
terror. The humane treatment of detainees is and will continue to be an 
inherent part of the doctrine, training, and culture of Army forces 
charged with performing such operations.
    Question. What is the role, if any, of the General Counsel of the 
Department of the Army in ensuring that interrogation policies under 
the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogations, 
including any revisions to the current field manual, are consistent 
with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005?
    Answer. I understand that, in ordinary circumstances, the revision 
and publication of Army field manuals would not require the Secretary's 
personal attention or that of the Army General Counsel. The November 3, 
2005, publication of DODD 3115.09, DOD Intelligence Interrogations, 
Detainee Debriefings, and Tactical Questioning, however, imposed a 
requirement to submit all implementation plans, policies, orders, 
directives, and doctrine related to intelligence interrogation 
operations to the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence for 
review and approval. Accordingly, I understand that the revisions to 
the Army field manual that relates to intelligence interrogations have 
been reviewed by Army attorneys, among others, for compliance with 
applicable law, including the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, prior to 
submission to the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence for 
review and approval.
          consolidation of military and civilian legal staffs
    Question. On September 10, 2001, Secretary Rumsfeld initiated a 
``war on bureaucracy'' stating that in order to make decisions more 
quickly, the Department must slash duplication, encourage cooperation, 
and start asking tough questions about redundant staff. He noted: 
``There are dozens of offices of general counsel scattered throughout 
the Department. Each Service has one. Every agency does, too. So do the 
Joint Chiefs. We have so many general counsel offices that we actually 
have another general counsel's office whose only job is to coordinate 
all those general counsels.''
    What is your understanding of actions that have been taken in the 
Department of Defense and Department of the Army to address the 
Secretary's concerns?
    Answer. As a DOD Deputy General Counsel, I worked closely with my 
counterparts in the military departments, military Services, and 
defense agencies to ensure consistency of approach and eliminate 
duplication of effort, and I share the Secretary of Defense's interest 
in the good stewardship of scarce legal resources.
    Question. What actions need to be taken, if any, in response to 
Secretary Rumsfeld's challenge?
    Answer. If confirmed, and consistent with the Secretary of the 
Army's business transformation initiatives, I would exercise my best 
efforts to ensure that legal resources are effectively allocated and 
deployed to maximize service and minimizing unnecessary duplication of 
function, all with an emphasis on attorney accountability.
    Question. Do you believe that the Department of the Army has the 
legal resources necessary to carry out the missions that may be 
required of it in wartime? If not, what is needed?
    Answer. In view of the worldwide deployments underway and the 
Army's business transformation initiatives, I understand that there is 
a high demand for legal resources in the Army. If confirmed, and in 
consultation with The Judge Advocate General, I would make it a high 
priority to ensure both the sufficiency and quality of the Department's 
legal resources.
                          religious guidelines
    Question. What is your legal assessment of the measures being taken 
by the Services to provide religious guidelines aimed at ensuring that 
members of the Chaplain Corps of the Army, Navy, and Air Force ensure 
religious tolerance and respect?
    Answer. I am informed that the Army's policies support religious 
tolerance and respect. If confirmed, I would make it an objective to 
continue the Army's firm commitment to upholding the constitutional 
tenets of the ``free exercise'' and ``establishment'' clauses. I am 
informed that as they now stand, Army policies appear to require 
chaplains to support all unit personnel, regardless of their beliefs. 
It is my understanding that Army policies are consistent with the First 
Amendment.
    Question. What is your legal assessment of Army guidance regarding 
chaplain prayers during official functions other than worship services 
with respect to praying according to the manner and forms of the church 
of which the chaplain is a member?
    Answer. I am advised that during mandatory official functions, 
chaplains are not compelled to offer prayers that are inconsistent with 
their faith, but are expected to remain sensitive to the pluralistic 
Army and society they serve. It is my understanding that these policies 
are consistent with the First Amendment.
    Question. What is your legal assessment of the adequacy of Army 
guidance to commanders and other leaders regarding free exercise of 
religion in the Army?
    Answer. I am informed that it appears that Army regulations provide 
commanders and other leaders ample guidance regarding the free exercise 
of religion in the Army. AR 600-20, Army Command Policy: AR 165-1, 
Chaplain Activities in the United States Army and DOD Directive 
1300.17, Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military 
Services, provide detailed guidance on the important responsibilities 
of commanders and leaders in this regard. It is my understanding that 
these policies are consistent with the First Amendment.
                  general and flag officer nominations
    Question. Under DOD Instruction 1320.4, adverse and alleged adverse 
information pertaining to general and flag officers must be evaluated 
by senior leaders in the Services and in the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense prior to nomination.
    If confirmed, what role, if any, would you play in the officer 
promotion system, particularly in reviewing general and flag officer 
nominations?
    Answer. I understand that for all officer promotions, including 
general officer promotions, the Office of the Army General Counsel, in 
coordination with the Office of the Judge Advocate General, reviews 
Memoranda of Instructions (MOIs) that govern the conduct of promotion 
selection boards and subsequent promotion selection board reports. 
These offices review adverse information that is not in an officer's 
official military personnel file that may be presented to the promotion 
selection board to ensure it is accurate and comports with the 
requirements of title 10, U.S.C., section 615, e.g., that the 
information is ``substantiated, relevant information that could 
reasonably affect the deliberations of the selection board'' and 
whether notice and opportunity to respond to the information has been 
afforded to the officer. For adverse information that becomes available 
after a promotion selection board makes its recommendations, these 
offices assist the Secretary of the Army in determining whether a 
promotion review board should be convened to consider whether the 
Secretary should continue to support the promotion of the considered 
officer or take steps to remove an officer from a promotion list. The 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 amended title 
10, section 615, with regard to the processing of adverse information 
for general officers. In general officer cases, the Office of the Army 
General Counsel provides the same review, except the standard is ``any 
credible information of an adverse nature.''
    Question. What is your understanding of the role of the General 
Counsel of the Department of the Army in ensuring the legal sufficiency 
of statutory selection board processes?
    Answer. I understand that under title 10, U.S.C., chapter 36, the 
Secretary of the Army is responsible for the proper functioning of the 
Department of the Army's promotion selection process. Prior to approval 
by the Secretary of the Army, all MOIs for officer promotion selection 
boards are reviewed by the Office of the Army General Counsel, in 
coordination with the Office of the Judge Advocate General, to ensure 
the Secretary's instructions conform to statutes and accurately reflect 
his guidance regarding attributes necessary for service in the next 
grade. All reports of promotion selection boards are processed through 
the Office of the Army General Counsel prior to final action on the 
report by the Secretary. The Army General Counsel must satisfy himself 
or herself that the Army has met applicable statutory standards and 
that individual selection board reports conform to the law. The Army 
General Counsel must advise the Secretary of the Army of any case in 
which a selection board report fails to adhere to the statutory 
standards, either generally or with regard to a particular officer 
being considered for promotion. In advising the Secretary of the Army 
and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and 
Reserve Affairs), the General Counsel helps to ensure that Army 
promotion policies properly implement applicable laws and regulations 
and are fairly applied. Moreover, the Office of the Army General 
Counsel coordinates closely on these matters with the Office of the 
Judge Advocate General.
    Question. What is the role, if any, of the General Counsel of the 
Department of the Army in reviewing and providing potentially adverse 
information pertaining to a nomination to the Senate Armed Services 
Committee?
    Answer. I have been advised that under current Department of the 
Army practice, the General Counsel's office reviews each selection 
board report, as well as departmental communications to the committee, 
the President, and the Secretary of Defense concerning nominations, to 
ensure that the reports and communications comply in form and substance 
with law and regulation. The General Counsel's office gives special 
attention to cases of nominees with substantiated or potentially 
adverse information, in order to ensure that such information is 
reported to the Senate Armed Services Committee in a timely manner.
                  military personnel policy and cases
    Question. In your view, what role, if any, should the General 
Counsel play in military personnel policy and individual cases, 
including cases before the Board for Correction of Military Records?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary of the 
Army, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve 
Affairs), and other senior Department of the Army leaders to ensure 
that the Department of the Army's military personnel policies are 
formulated and applied uniformly, fairly, and in accordance with 
applicable laws and regulations. If I were to become aware of 
individual cases in which military personnel policies were not fairly 
and lawfully applied, I would take appropriate action to ensure that 
the case is properly resolved. If confirmed, I will coordinate with the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), who 
exercises overall supervision of the Army Review Boards Agency, to 
ensure that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records receives 
the Army legal community's full support.
             sexual assault prevention and response policy
    Question. Numerous cases of sexual misconduct have been reported by 
troops in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan over the last several years. 
Many victims and their advocates contend that they were victimized 
twice: first by attackers in their own ranks and then by unresponsive 
or inadequate military treatment. They asserted that the military 
failed to provide basic services available to civilians who have been 
raped, from medical attention to criminal investigations of their 
charges. Most of these incidents involve Army personnel because the 
Army has the largest presence in the theater.
    What is your view of the systems and programs the Army has in place 
in deployed locations to offer victims of serious sexual assaults the 
medical, psychological, and legal help they need?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will focus on this area. I understand that 
the Army has taken significant steps to improve the assistance to 
victims of all sexual assaults, with enhanced recognition of the 
special circumstances that apply to deployments. The Army recently 
implemented a comprehensive Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 
Program. Under the program, the Army requires every unit, brigade-sized 
and higher, to appoint and train a deployable Sexual Assault Response 
Coordinator and every battalion to appoint and train two Unit Victim 
Advocates. These individuals are trained to provide victim advocacy and 
help victims through the process of recovery in a deployed location. I 
also understand that Army policy now requires deployed mission 
commanders to conduct monthly command oversight of, and to obtain 
feedback concerning, the implementation of the program. If confirmed, I 
will study this matter in greater depth with a view to ensuring the 
Army is taking appropriate steps to provide medical, psychological, and 
legal help to soldiers who are victims of sexual assault, both in 
garrison and in deployed locations.
    Question. What is your view of the steps the Army has taken to 
prevent additional sexual assaults on female soldiers at their home 
stations and when they are deployed?
    Answer. I have been advised that this is an extremely important 
issue for the Army leadership and, if confirmed, look forward to 
working with them to ensure all appropriate measures are taken to 
prevent sexual assault, both at home stations and in deployed 
environments. With a view to preventing sexual assault, the Army has 
promulgated specific guidance in Army Regulation 600-20, Army Command 
Policy, that reinforces a commitment to eliminating incidents of sexual 
assault through a comprehensive policy that centers on awareness and 
prevention, training and education, victim advocacy, response, 
reporting, and accountability. In accordance with that regulation, 
commanders are required to conduct annual sexual assault prevention and 
response training and ensure that such training is integrated into pre- 
and post-deployment briefings. I understand that the Army maintains a 
Web site with a set of comprehensive training packages to facilitate 
standardized and progressive training at all levels. The Army safety 
office also published guidance to assist commanders to identify risk 
factors for sexual assault and to help reduce or eliminate the risk of 
sexual assault. If confirmed, I will ensure that the legal community 
fully supports these initiatives and will assess whether additional 
steps can be taken.
                        whistleblower protection
    Question. Section 1034, title 10, U.S.C., prohibits taking 
retaliatory personnel action against a member of the Armed Forces as 
reprisal for making a protected communication. By definition, protected 
communications include communications to certain individuals and 
organizations outside of the chain of command.
    If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure that senior 
military leaders understand the need to protect servicemembers who 
report misconduct to appropriate authorities within or outside the 
chain of command?
    Answer. Department of Defense Directive 7050.6, Military 
Whistleblower Protection, implements title 10, U.S.C., section 1034, 
and affirms that members of the Armed Forces shall be free from 
reprisal for making or preparing a protected communication to a Member 
of Congress; an Inspector General; a member of a DOD audit, inspection, 
investigation, or law enforcement organization; or any other person or 
organization (within or outside the chain of command) designated under 
regulations or established procedures to receive such communications. 
If confirmed, I will work with The Judge Advocate General to ensure 
that military leaders are fully and accurately advised of the 
whistleblower protections accorded by law and regulation, and 
understand their legal responsibilities in this important area. In 
addition, I will ensure that any individual cases involving illegal 
reprisals that come to my attention are addressed in accordance with 
the law.
                   support to army inspector general
    Question. What role, if any, do you think the General Counsel of 
the Army should have in reviewing the investigations and 
recommendations of the Army Inspector General?
    Answer. If confirmed, as the chief legal officer of the Department 
of the Army and counsel to the Secretary and other Secretariat 
officials, I will establish and maintain a close, professional 
relationship with the Inspector General, and will communicate with him 
directly and candidly as he performs his prescribed duties. I will 
provide independent and objective legal advice with regard to all 
matters that relate to Inspector General programs, duties, functions, 
and responsibilities. I will oversee the provision of productive and 
effective legal guidance to the Office of the Inspector General in 
conducting investigations and delineating recommendations. Further, as 
part of my responsibility to review legal and policy issues arising 
from the Army's intelligence and counterintelligence activities, I will 
advise the Inspector General concerning proper reporting of the Army's 
intelligence oversight activities. Of course, given the Inspector 
General's mandate for independence and candor in advising the Secretary 
as to his investigative findings and recommendations, the Inspector 
General has final authority over matters within his functional purview.
                            women in combat
    Question. Section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 requires the Secretary of Defense to report to 
Congress on his review of the current and future implementation of the 
policy regarding assignment of women in combat. In conducting the 
review, the Secretary of Defense must examine Army unit modularization 
efforts and associated personnel assignment policies to ensure their 
compliance with the Department of Defense policy on women in combat 
that has been in effect since 1994.
    What lessons have been learned about the feasibility of current 
policies regarding women in combat from Operation Iraqi Freedom and 
Operation Enduring Freedom and what is your assessment of the Army's 
compliance with the requirements of law relating to women in combat?
    Answer. The study requested by Congress and underway within the 
Department of Defense will help the Department understand the 
implications for, and feasibility of, current policies regarding women 
in combat, particularly in view of the Army's transformation to a 
modular force and the irregular, nonlinear nature of the battlefields 
associated with today's conflicts.
    It is my understanding that the Army's transformation to modular 
units is expected to be based on the current policy concerning the 
assignment of women. Women have and will continue to be an integral 
part of our Army team, performing exceptionally well in all specialties 
and positions open to them. Women make up about 14 percent of the 
Active Army, 23 percent of the Army Reserve, and 13 percent of the Army 
National Guard. Approximately 10 percent of the forces deployed in 
support of the global war on terrorism are women soldiers. Today, 
almost 14,000 women soldiers are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Question. How do you anticipate you will participate in the review 
of the policy required by section 541?
    Answer. The Office of the Secretary of Defense has undertaken to 
complete the comprehensive review requested by this committee and 
Congress. It is an important study of complex issues critical to the 
Department. The Army will support the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense to complete this review. The Army, DOD, and Congress must work 
together closely on this issue. If confirmed, I will endeavor to 
provide the Secretary with cogent legal advice regarding implementation 
of this policy. If in the future the Army determines that there is a 
need to seek a change to the policy, I will, if confirmed, advise the 
Army to comply fully with all notification requirements in title 10, 
U.S.C., section 652.
                           civilian attorneys
    Question. Judge advocates in the Armed Forces benefit from an 
established career ladder, substantial training opportunities, and 
exposure to a broad spectrum of legal areas and problems. By contrast, 
civilian attorneys in the military departments normally do not have 
established career programs and may do the same work for many years, 
with promotion based solely upon longevity and vacancies.
    In your opinion, does the personnel management of civilian 
attorneys need changing? If so, what do you see as the major problems 
and what changes would you suggest?
    Answer. I believe that the entirety of the Army legal community 
appreciates the growing need for a systemic civilian attorney 
professional development program that appropriately reflects the tenets 
by which we have historically developed judge advocates. In 2005, the 
Office of the Army General Counsel, together with the Office of the 
Judge Advocate General and the other Department of the Army qualifying 
authorities, created, and have committed to long-term participation in, 
a Department of the Army Civilian Attorney Professional Development 
Working Group for the purpose of assessing and recommending programs 
for the professional development of civilian attorneys. The Working 
Group is currently creating a systemic plan for civilian attorney 
professional development that will include identifying civilian 
attorney training requirements and categorizing key management and 
specialty positions for attorneys in the Department of the Army (DA). 
The group is also creating a civilian attorney database to manage all 
DA civilian attorneys and developing a plan for recruiting young 
attorneys into the DA legal community. If confirmed, I would work 
closely with The Judge Advocate General and the other qualifying 
authorities to support this important endeavor.
                          environmental issues
    Question. A number of major environmental statutes include national 
security exemptions. For example, section 7(j) of the Endangered 
Species Act states: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
chapter, the committee shall grant an exemption for any agency action 
if the Secretary of Defense finds that such exemption is necessary for 
reasons of national security.''
    If confirmed as General Counsel of the Army, what role would you 
expect to play in determining whether it would be appropriate to 
exercise a national security exemption in connection with an activity 
or function of the Department of the Army?
    Answer. If confirmed as the General Counsel of the Army, I would 
view my role as one of facilitating both the decision as to whether a 
national security exemption is appropriate and, in those limited 
circumstances where it may be determined that one is proper, assisting 
the processing of the exemption to approval.
    First, where important Army operations or capabilities are 
significantly impacted by application of the requirements of 
environmental law, it would be my role to advise senior Army 
decisionmakers on their legal options, including the possibility of 
pursuing available national security exemptions. However, before 
advising on pursuing an exemption, I believe it would be imperative to 
look at the environmental requirement in light of the operation or 
capability being impacted and determine whether legal alternatives to 
an exemption were available.
    Second, if it were decided that it was appropriate to seek an 
exemption, I would advise and assist in pursuing the exemption on 
behalf of the Army. For example, some exemptions can be exercised only 
in consultation with other agencies (such as that under the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act, which requires consultation with the Secretary 
of Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior). Even where consultation 
is not specifically required, all environmental exemptions implicate 
regulatory programs under the auspices of other agencies at the Federal 
or State level and could benefit from the expertise of those agencies. 
I believe my position as General Counsel would involve me in these 
interagency discussions.
    Question. Under what circumstances do you believe that the use of 
such an exemption would be necessary and appropriate?
    Answer. In crafting the exemptions that currently exist in 
environmental law, Congress has appropriately established a high 
hurdle, often requiring a presidential determination, based on the 
highest possible standard: that the exemption is necessary in the 
``paramount interest of the United States.'' Such is the case under 
section 313(a) of the Clean Water Act, section 6001(a) of the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act, section 118(b) of the Clean Air Act, 
section 4(b) of the Noise Control Act, and section 1447(a) of the 
Public Health Service Act (Safe Drinking Water Act). From this 
standard, and from the limited duration for which exemptions may be 
granted, it is clear that Congress intended that exemptions should be 
invoked only in extraordinary circumstances. Such circumstances, I 
believe, include those where a particular environmental restriction 
poses a significant threat to military readiness or national security 
and no effective alternative exists which will allow compliance with 
the environmental requirement and still permit the critical activity to 
proceed.
    In seeking an exemption, I believe the proponent must shoulder the 
burden of identifying not only the restriction imposed and its impact 
on military readiness, but also why the military training, testing, or 
operational activity cannot be modified to avoid a conflict with the 
environmental requirement without diminishing readiness, and an 
explanation of how any environmental impacts of the exemption can be 
mitigated. Finally, I believe the exemption should be tailored to be as 
narrow as possible while still preserving military readiness.
    Although I believe it is important that the existing environmental 
exemptions should be used sparingly and with great caution, I must add 
that their focus on individual activities, facilities, or pollution 
sources, for a limited duration, makes them of limited suitability for 
some ongoing actions, including many categories of readiness activities 
that are part of the day-to-day training regimen for our forces. To 
date, the Department of Defense has worked well and cooperatively with 
the regulatory community and other stakeholders to avoid impacts on 
these activities, which individually might not be significant, but 
which cumulatively could have large impacts on military readiness.
                        congressional oversight
    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information.
    Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before 
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as the General Counsel of the 
Department of the Army?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
              Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions
      relationship between general counsel and corps of engineers
    1. Senator Sessions. Mr. Cohen, please explain your understanding 
of the relationship between the Office of the General Counsel of the 
Army and the various lawyers for the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
    Mr. Cohen. As provided for in General Order No. 3, the General 
Counsel of the Army is the legal counsel to the Secretary of the Army 
and is the chief legal officer of the Department of the Army. In that 
capacity, the General Counsel exercises technical supervision over and 
provides professional guidance to the attorneys assigned to the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The General Counsel determines the 
Army's final legal position on all issues. I am aware that the Army 
General Counsel's office is divided into four functional legal practice 
groups: Acquisition, Civil Works and Environment, Ethics and Fiscal, 
and Operations and Personnel. Each practice group is led by a career-
appointed Deputy General Counsel. Each Deputy is a member of the Senior 
Executive Service. I understand that lawyers for the USACE have a close 
professional working relationship with attorneys in the Army General 
Counsel's office. I further understand that frequent and routine 
interaction occurs between USACE attorneys and attorneys in the General 
Counsel's office. I believe that the close working professional 
relationship the Army General Counsel's office has with The Judge 
Advocate General's office, and with subordinate legal offices, 
including the Office of the Command Counsel, Army Materiel Command, and 
the Office of the Chief Counsel, USACE, is one of the strengths of the 
Army's legal community.

    2. Senator Sessions. Mr. Cohen, what is the principal role of the 
General Counsel, and how does it compare or differ from lawyers for the 
U.S. Corps?
    Mr. Cohen. As noted above, the General Counsel of the Army is the 
legal counsel to the Secretary of the Army and is the chief legal 
officer of the Department of the Army. The General Counsel's 
responsibility extends to any subject of law and to other matters as 
directed by the Secretary of the Army. In addition to providing legal 
counsel to the Secretary of the Army, the General Counsel is also 
responsible for coordinating legal and policy advice, for determining 
the final Army legal position on any legal question or procedure, for 
establishing and administering the Army's policies concerning legal 
services, for providing technical supervision over and professional 
guidance to all attorneys and legal offices within the Army, and for 
providing professional guidance and general oversight with respect to 
matters in litigation.
    In contrast, the Chief Counsel of the USACE is the legal counsel to 
the Chief of Engineers, and Commander, USACE. The Chief Counsel 
coordinates legal and policy advice within USACE, determines the final 
USACE legal position on any legal question or procedure, establishes 
and administers policies concerning the delivery of legal services 
within USACE, provides technical supervision over and professional 
guidance to all attorneys and legal offices within USACE, and provides 
professional guidance and general oversight with respect to USACE 
matters in litigation.
    The General Counsel serves as intermediate rater in the performance 
evaluation rating chain for the civilian heads of subordinate legal 
offices. Thus, the General Counsel is the intermediate rater for the 
USACE Chief Counsel. The Chief Counsel, in turn, is the intermediate 
rater or senior rater for each subordinate legal office within USACE. 
All civilian heads of legal offices at any level of the Army (e.g. 
USACE Divisions, Districts, Labs, and Centers) are expected to support, 
promptly communicate with, and generally be responsive to Army 
headquarters. Moreover, each civilian head of a legal office is 
expected to comply fully with higher level legal office guidance. I 
have learned that this performance objective is contained in the 
performance plan of all civil heads of legal offices at any level of 
the Army.

    3. Senator Sessions. Mr. Cohen, if a matter arose regarding the 
Secretary of Army's discretion over U.S. Corps policy or execution of 
Corps regulation, who would typically advise the Secretary: his General 
Counselor U.S. Army Corps of Engineers lawyers? What is the reasoning 
for this practice?
    Mr. Cohen. Under these circumstances, it is my understanding that 
the General Counsel of the Army would advise the Secretary of the Army, 
as the Secretary of the Army looks to his or her General Counsel to 
provide authoritative and independent legal advice and counsel. On 
matters involving the USACE, such as the interpretation of an engineer 
regulation or internal USACE policy, it would be prudent and 
reasonable, in my opinion, for the General Counsel to consult fully 
with the USACE Chief Counsel prior to advising the Secretary of the 
Army. Ultimately, it is the General Counsel's responsibility to provide 
the final legal position to the Secretary of the Army.

                 corps of engineers ongoing litigation
    4. Senator Sessions. Mr. Cohen, in State of Alabama and State of 
Florida v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a case regarding the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, the judge issued a temporary restraining order to 
block implementation of a settlement agreement that had been entered in 
another case. On interlocutory appeal, the 11th Circuit vacated the 
order and remanded the case, holding that the plaintiff failed to 
``establish an imminent threat of irreparable harm'' nor a 
``substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the case.'' 
Based on your understanding of appellate law, what does it mean to have 
a case ``remanded?'' What is the status of such a case--does it 
conclude after the appeal or is it ``pending litigation'' subject to 
further action at the trial court level?
    Mr. Cohen. Generally speaking, it is my understanding that when a 
case is remanded, the case is sent back to the lower court for further 
proceedings. An appellate court usually directs the lower court to take 
specific action consistent with the opinion or ruling accompanying the 
remand. In some cases, the opinion or ruling accompanying the remand 
may actually dictate or result in final disposition of the case. In 
other instances, the opinion or ruling accompanying the remand may not 
dispose of the case but affirm or overrule a specific issue (or issues) 
in the case. In this instance, the lower court then proceeds with 
resolution of the case consistent with the appellate ruling.

                       updating operating manuals
    5. Senator Sessions. Mr. Cohen, 33 C.F.R. Sec. 222.5 pertains to 
the operating manuals that the Corps of Engineers uses to dictate 
waterflow at various locks and dams. The section, in pertinent part, 
provides: ``(3) Water control plans developed for specific projects and 
reservoir systems will be clearly documented in appropriate water 
control manuals. These manuals will be prepared to meet initial 
requirements when storage in the reservoir begins. They will be revised 
as necessary to conform with changing requirements resulting from 
developments in the project area and downstream, improvements in 
technology, new legislation and other relevant factors, provided such 
revisions comply with existing Federal regulations and established 
Corps of Engineers policy.'' Having reviewed that code section, do you 
interpret 33 C.F.R. Sec. 222.5 to create a hard and fast legal mandate 
that these manuals must be updated at a particular point in time, or do 
you understand the section to simply authorize the Secretary to update 
the manuals when he sees fit?
    Mr. Cohen. Based upon my initial review of 33 C.F.R. Sec. 225.5, it 
appears that this regulation is silent as to a specific time when water 
control plans and manuals must be updated. Accordingly, the Secretary 
of the Army must exercise sound discretion in determining when to 
update these documents. The Secretary's discretion, however, is not 
without constraints. In deciding when to commence the updating process, 
the Secretary of the Army, in my opinion, must give due consideration 
to all relevant factors. Unreasonably declining to update the water 
control plans and manuals in the face of changing requirements, or 
indefinitely delaying the updating process without cause, could be 
challenged legally as abuses of the Secretary's discretion in this 
area.
                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Senator Saxby Chambliss
                        acf and act river basins
    6. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Cohen, please comment on your 
understanding of the ongoing conflict over the Apalachicola-
Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa 
(ACT) River Basin in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. What role, if any, 
do you believe the Army, specifically the Army Corps of Engineers, 
should play in resolving this conflict?
    Mr. Cohen. I understand there is a longstanding dispute between 
Alabama, Georgia, and Florida over appropriate and equitable water 
allocation in two specific river basins, namely the ACF basin and the 
ACT basin. I am also aware of numerous lawsuits that have challenged 
various aspects of the USACEs' water control management of these two 
basins. I have been apprised that the Court in Alabama v. USACE 
recently ordered the three States and the Army to attempt resolution of 
the issues before the Court through mediation. I further understand a 
mediator has been appointed and the parties have begun the mediation 
process.
    I understand that the Secretary of the Army and the USACE have 
specific statutory responsibilities to manage and operate the ACT and 
ACF River Basins to meet the purposes authorized by Congress. With 
regard to the underlying water allocation dispute, it is my 
understanding that neither the Army nor USACE has the authority, or 
responsibility, to allocate water rights among the three States. The 
three States must determine an equitable allocation of water or 
litigate the dispute. When an allocation of water among the three 
States is agreed to, I understand that the Army, and specifically the 
USACE, would then accommodate, consistent with congressionally 
authorized purposes, the allocation formula into its management and 
operation of the two systems by making specific revisions to the 
basin's water control plans and manuals. I understand the Army has 
offered to provide technical and legal assistance to the three 
Governors, to help facilitate an agreement among the States. Resolution 
of the water allocation dispute, in my opinion, is, and should remain, 
a State issue.

    7. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Cohen, the Secretary of the Army stated 
that he will begin the process of updating the water control manuals 
for the ACF and ACT River Basins no later than January 2, 2007. What 
legal impediments, if any, stand in the way of beginning that process 
immediately?
    Mr. Cohen. I am not aware of any current legal impediments that 
would preclude the Army from immediately beginning the process of 
updating the water control manuals and plans for the ACT and ACF River 
Basins. I understand, however, the Secretary of the Army has carefully 
considered all relevant factors, including the recommendation of the 
Federal mediator appointed by the court to facilitate resolution of 
this matter, and, as a matter of discretion, elected to temporarily 
delay the updating process until 2 January 2007, having determined that 
this approach will promote the overall success of the mediation 
process.

    8. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Cohen, in a letter dated January 30, 
2006, from Assistant Secretary Woodley to myself, Senator Isakson, 
Senator Sessions, Senator Shelby, Senator Martinez, Senator Nelson, 
Governor Perdue, Governor Bush, and Governor Riley, he stated ``The 
relevant litigation, as contemplated in my April 26 correspondence, has 
concluded, as the Army presently is under no legal prohibition or 
injunctive order, and must therefore faithfully execute its Federal 
responsibilities in compliance with law and regulation. As the Army 
proceeds with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis 
associated with the interim storage contracts, required by the 
Southeastern Federal Power Customers, Inc. (SeFPC) settlement 
agreement, the Corps will by necessity have to update the operating 
procedures and manuals for the ACT and ACF basins.'' Please provide the 
statutory and regulatory responsibilities with which the Corps of 
Engineers must comply and to which Assistant Secretary Woodley referred 
in his January 30 letter.
    Mr. Cohen. I am advised that the responsibilities may be found in 
the Flood Control Act of 1944, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 709, which provides, in 
pertinent part: On and after December 22, 1944, it shall be the duty of 
the Secretary of the Army to prescribe regulations for the use of 
storage allocated for flood control or navigation at all reservoirs 
constructed wholly or in part with Federal funds provided on the basis 
of such purposes, and the operation of any such project shall be in 
accordance with such regulations. . .
    The statute is implemented in regulations found at 33 C.F.R 
Sec. 222.5. This regulation prescribes policies and procedures to be 
followed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in carrying out water 
control management activities, including establishment of water control 
plans and manuals for Corps and non-Corps projects, as required by 
Federal laws and directives. See section 222.5(a).
    Water control plans developed for specific projects and reservoir 
systems are to be clearly documented in appropriate water control 
manuals. Water control plans and manuals are required to be kept up-to-
date. Revisions to the plans and manuals are required, as necessary to 
conform to changing requirements resulting from developments in the 
project area and downstream, improvements in technology, new 
legislation and other relevant factors, provided such revisions comply 
with existing Federal regulations and established policy. See section 
222.5(f) (2) and (3).

    9. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Cohen, please explain how proceeding with 
the NEPA analysis associated with interim storage contracts does or 
does not, by necessity, require an update of the operating procedures 
and manuals for the ACT and ACF basins.
    Mr. Cohen. I understand the ACF and ACT basins are each a system of 
reservoirs and dams and not collections of independent projects and 
facilities. A change in project operations and allocation of pools in 
the reservoir at Lake Lanier would affect all the reservoirs downstream 
of Lake Lanier in the ACF system. Consequently, studying the 
environmental impacts of proposed interim water storage contracts at 
Lake Lanier will involve studying how that proposed interim storage 
affects releases from Lake Lanier on the downstream dams. In 
considering alternatives to water storage at Lake Lanier, water storage 
elsewhere or water from other systems may need to be considered. As the 
ACT system is some 50 miles from the ACF system at Atlanta, it may be 
an alternate source of water for consideration under NEPA.
    The ACF River Basin includes four USACE reservoirs and three locks. 
The only approved master manual for the ACF basin was prepared in 1958 
and does not include Federal facilities at West Point, Walter F. 
George, or George W. Andrews. Water control plans were developed for 
individual projects as they came on line, or as operations changed 
within the system. An Environmental Impact Statement for reservoir 
projects was prepared in the 1970s. Current water control plans and 
manuals do not address water supply operations. The ACF system is being 
managed and operated in accordance with the draft 1989 water control 
plans and manuals. The 1989 drafts have never been formally approved 
and are currently contested in the Alabama v. USACE lawsuit. 
Implementation of the SeFPC v. Secretary of the Army settlement 
agreement will require interim changes in project operations to reserve 
storage reallocated to water supply and to monitor use of storage. As 
mentioned above, water supply operations are not reflected in existing 
water control plans and manuals.
    In order to execute the interim water storage contracts 
contemplated by the SeFPC settlement agreement within 60 days after 
completion of the NEPA process (a condition of the settlement 
agreement), a revision to the ACF water control plans and manuals is 
required to account for the interim reallocated storage. The revised 
water control plans and manuals and the NEPA process associated with 
the interim water storage contracts contemplated by the SeFPC 
settlement agreement should both be completed before the interim water 
storage contracts can be executed.

    10. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Cohen, the Senate Energy and Water 
Appropriations report contains the following language: ``Apalachicola, 
Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers and Alabama, Coosa, and Tallapoosa 
Rivers, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. Prior notification of the House 
and Senate Appropriations Committees and affected congressional Members 
is required before any funding shall be reprogrammed or otherwise used 
for updating masterplans having to do with projects in these river 
basins.'' Likewise the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill 
contains the following language: ``Nothing in this act or any other act 
shall be construed to require a specific deadline for implementation of 
33 C.F.R. 222.5(f) (2) and (3).'' Please describe the effect you 
believe these provisions will have on the ability of the Army Corps of 
Engineers to move forward with updating the water control manuals for 
the ACT and ACF River Basins.
    Mr. Cohen. Upon initial review, I do not believe the report 
language or the general provision (section 112 of H.R. 5427) would 
negatively affect the ability of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to 
move forward with updating the water control plans and manuals for the 
ACT and ACF River Basins. I understand the Secretary of the Army has 
already been advised by the General Counsel's office that the 
regulation requiring updating of water control plans and manuals does 
not prescribe a specific deadline for when the updating process must 
commence. Therefore, if this general provision is enacted into law, it 
would not alter the current regulation, or cause the Army to modify its 
interpretation of 33 C.F.R. 222.5(f) (2) and (3), as presently 
codified.
    With regard to the report language included in Senate Report 109-
274, Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, 2007, I am confident the 
Army would timely notify Congress of expenditures or reprogrammed 
funding related to updates of water control plans and manuals in 
accordance with the language, and would document the rationale 
justifying any decision to proceed with updating the water control 
plans and manuals for the ACT and ACF River Basins.

    11. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Cohen, at what point in either the 
implementation of the SeFPC settlement agreement or the updating of the 
water control manuals for the ACF and ACT River Basins will the Corps 
of Engineers be able to process the pending permits for Gwinnett, 
Cherokee, and Forsyth counties in Georgia?
    Mr. Cohen. I understand these permit requests are currently being 
processed and are in various stages of review. I further understand 
these permit requests are not dependent upon the update of the water 
control plans and manuals, or the SeFPC NEPA process, and should not be 
delayed by those activities.

    12. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Cohen, what is the anticipated timeline 
for completing an update of water control manuals for the ACF and ACT 
River Basins?
    Mr. Cohen. I understand the current projected schedule has the 
SeFPC NEPA process concluding in early December 2008, and the NEPA 
process associated with updating the water control plans and manuals 
concluding in late March 2009.

    13. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Cohen, what are potential impediments to 
completing such an update on schedule?
    Mr. Cohen. The Army is committed to updating the water control 
plans and manuals for the ACT and ACF River Basins in accordance with 
its responsibilities under applicable law and regulation. As mentioned 
in a previous response, I am not aware of any current legal impediments 
precluding the immediate start of the updating process. Potential 
impediments, as always, could include judicial mandates issued by 
courts of competent jurisdiction, or legislative restrictions imposed 
by Congress.

    14. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Cohen, does updating the water control 
manuals for the ACT and ACF River Basins explicitly or implicitly 
create any legally binding water storage contracts between Georgia, 
Florida, and Alabama?
    Mr. Cohen. I understand that it does not. Management of the 
Nation's water resources is a major Federal responsibility. This 
responsibility, in significant measure, has been assigned to the USACE. 
It includes the planning, design, construction, and operation of water 
resource projects on a national basis. The USACE must direct these 
water management activities on the basis of sound engineering and 
science. The intricacies of water control management require the USACE 
to work out a specific management plan. This plan, defined and 
articulated in various water control plans and manuals, enables the 
USACE to balance a wide array of public interests, including such 
project purposes as flood control, navigation, hydropower, irrigation, 
water supply, recreation, and environmental conservation. A primary 
objective of efficient water control management, as reflected in water 
control plans and manuals, is to produce beneficial water savings and 
improvements in the availability and quality of water resulting from 
project regulation and operation.
                                 ______
                                 
             Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
                          military commissions
    15. Senator Akaka. Mr. Cohen, the Supreme Court recently issued a 
decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld which held that the special military 
commissions established by the administration to try detainees violated 
both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. 
As Congress begins the process of building a system of justice for 
prisoners captured in the global war on terror, it will rely on the 
input from legal experts in the Department of Defense (DOD). What role 
do you believe that the General Counsel should play in the development 
of this new judicial process and how should it be coordinated with your 
respective Judge Advocates General?
    Mr. Cohen. A system of justice for prisoners captured in the global 
war on terror is essential to our Nation's success in that conflict. 
Legal experts from across the Department of Defense must be available 
to consult with Congress as it undertakes to build such a system. I 
believe the Army best can assist in this endeavor by participating 
meaningfully with Congress in developing and implementing the 
legislation invited by the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. 
Rumsfeld. Continuing the close, professional cooperation and 
consultation that long have attended the relationship between the 
Office of the Army General Counsel and the Office of The Judge Advocate 
General, both the civilian and uniformed members of the Army's legal 
community have been working together over the past month to assess 
Hamdan's impact and to apply the Court's holdings in reviewing and 
commenting on preliminary drafts of legislation to constitute a new 
military commission system. Further, The Judge Advocate General has 
recently detailed the Chief of his Criminal Law Division to a 
Department of Justice working group charged with crafting such 
legislation for submission to Congress. Recognizing the special status 
of the Judge Advocate General as the guardian of the military justice 
system within the Department of the Army, and given that congressional 
efforts to develop a system of military commissions to try certain 
detainees likely will be grounded in the tenets of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice, I perceive Congress's extensive exchanges with the 
Service Judge Advocate Generals over the past weeks as particularly 
important and useful, and would support fully such continued 
consultation.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of Benedict S. Cohen follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                  February 6, 2006.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    Benedict S. Cohen, of the District of Columbia, to be General 
Counsel of the Department of the Army, vice Steven John Morello, Sr., 
resigned.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The biographical sketch of Benedict S. Cohen, which was 
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was 
referred, follows:]
                Biographical Sketch of Benedict S. Cohen
    Ben has 20 years of experience in high-level positions across the 
Federal Government, with a principal focus on national security and 
foreign policy. He is currently Senior Advisor to Chairman Cox at the 
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, where he has focused on legal 
issues facing the agency and enhancing the Commission's crisis-
management and homeland-security capabilities. Prior to taking this 
position, he served as staff director of the Committee on Homeland 
Security of the U.S. House of Representatives; where he managed the 
transition from select committee to full standing committee status and 
the passage of authorization legislation for the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) and of legislation reforming DHS's grant program. He has 
also served as Deputy General Counsel (Environment and Installations) 
for the Defense Department, in which capacity he spearheaded DOD's 
Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative, a multifaceted 
legislative, regulatory, and resource-management program to ensure 
sustainability of the military's test and training capabilities and 
foster better environmental stewardship. He also provided legal support 
for DOD's installation initiatives, and served as a principal spokesman 
for the Department on environmental and installations issues. He has 
also served in senior positions in the White House Counsel's Office, 
the congressional leadership staff, and the Department of Justice, as 
well as serving in two law firms.
Education
    Ben graduated from Yale magna cum laude in 1980 with a B.A. in 
history, and from the University of Chicago Law School in 1983, having 
served as an Associate Editor of the Law Review. He clerked for Judge 
Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
    He lives in American University Park in Washington, DC. His wife is 
an attorney in private practice. He has two children, ages 7 and 9.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals 
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a 
form that details the biographical, financial and other 
information of the nominee. The form executed by Benedict S. 
Cohen in connection with his nomination follows:]
                          UNITED STATES SENATE
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              Room SR-228
                       Washington, DC 20510-6050
                             (202) 224-3871
                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
      BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
    Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If 
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the 
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation 
of your answer applies.
                    Part A--Biographical Information
    Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in 
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for 
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in 
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.

    1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
    Benedict Simms Cohen.

    2. Position to which nominated:
    General Counsel, Department of the Army.

    3. Date of nomination:
    February 6, 2006.

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

    5. Date and place of birth:
    January 9, 1959; Nashville, Tennessee.

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

    7. Names and ages of children:
    Paul Mark Cohen, age 9; Mary Susannah Cohen, age 7.

    8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
    Montgomery Bell Academy, 1973-1977, high school diploma 1977.
    Yale University, 1977-1980, B.A. 1980.
    University of Chicago, 1980-1983, J.D. 1983.

    9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the 
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of 
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
    2005-2006: Senior Advisor to the Chairman, U.S. Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Washington, DC.
    2005: Staff Director, Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House of 
Representatives, Washington, DC.
    2002-2005: Deputy General Counsel (Environment and Installations), 
U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DC (Pentagon).
    1995-2001: Executive Director, Policy Committee, U.S. House of 
Representatives, Washington, DC.

    10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, 
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, 
or local governments, other than those listed above.
    1990-1993: Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
    1989-1990: Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department 
of Justice, Washington, DC.
    1987-1989: Associate Counsel to the President, White House 
Counsel's Office, Washington, DC.
    1986-1987: Attorney-Advisor, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
    1985-1986: Law Clerk to the Hon. Laurence H. Silberman, U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

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

    12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in 
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and 
other organizations.
    New York State Bar Association, District of Columbia Bar, 
Federalist Society.

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

    14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions 
for outstanding service or achievements.
    Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service.
    Attorney General's Special Commendation Award, January 1993.

    15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of 
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have 
written.
    Ben Cohen, ``Separation of Powers and Federalism in the 104th 
Congress,'' published in a Federalist Society publication in the mid-
1990s (either Engage or the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy); 
(b) Benedict Cohen and Dirk D. Haire, ``Environmental Citizen Suits: 
Standing and the Proper Scope of Relief,'' in Citizen Suits and Qui Tam 
Actions: Private Enforcement of Public Policy (National Legal Center 
for the Public Interest, 1996).

    16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal 
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have 
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have 
been nominated.
    During the past 5 years, I gave numerous speeches from notes to DOD 
audiences, State and Federal officials, and their representatives on 
the Defense Department's environmental program, and in particular DOD's 
environmental legislative and regulatory initiatives (January 2002-
February 2005, including several annual meetings of the Conference of 
Western Attorneys General and a panel on ``Protecting Living Marine 
Resources'' at the June 2004 American Bar Association Spring Conference 
on the Environment). These speeches were, however, given from summary 
notes.

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

                           Signature and Date
    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete.
                                                 Benedict S. Cohen.
    This 16th day of February, 2006.

    [The nomination of Benedict S. Cohen was reported to the 
Senate by Chairman Warner on August 1, 2006, with the 
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination 
was confirmed by the Senate on August 3, 2006.]
                              ----------                              

    [Prepared questions submitted to Frank R. Jimenez by 
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied 
follow:]
                        Questions and Responses
                            defense reforms
    Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense 
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have 
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have 
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain 
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant 
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
They have also clarified the responsibility of the military departments 
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment 
to the combatant commanders.
    Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act 
provisions?
    Answer. The Goldwater-Nichols Act strengthened the civilian 
leadership of the Department of Defense and improved the clarity of the 
chain of command. Implementation of Goldwater-Nichols has enhanced the 
ability of the Services to act quickly and jointly. Although I am 
currently unaware of any reason to amend Goldwater-Nichols, if 
confirmed, I will have the opportunity to assess the act and propose 
changes.
    Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to 
address in these modifications?
    Answer. Please see responses to previous question.
                                 duties
    Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of 
the General Counsel of the Department of the Navy?
    Answer. Section 5019 of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the General 
Counsel of the Department of the Navy shall perform such functions as 
the Secretary of the Navy may prescribe. The Secretary has done so 
through regulations, instructions, and memoranda. The General Counsel 
is the chief legal officer of the Department, and legal opinions issued 
by the General Counsel are the controlling legal opinions within the 
Department. The General Counsel provides legal advice, counsel, and 
guidance to the Secretary, the Under Secretary and the Assistant 
Secretaries, and their staffs. He is also responsible for providing 
legal services throughout the Department in a variety of fields, 
including business and commercial law, real and personal property law, 
fiscal law, civilian personnel and labor law, intellectual property 
law, environmental law, and litigation. In addition, the General 
Counsel serves as the Debarring Official and Designated Agency Ethics 
Official for the Department, and assists the Under Secretary of the 
Navy in overseeing the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.
    Question. What background and experience do you possess that you 
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
    Answer. The Office of the General Counsel in the Department of the 
Navy has an extraordinarily broad range of responsibilities, including 
litigation, contracts, acquisition, environmental, personnel, 
legislative, ethics, and other issues. Though it is not possible for 
any attorney to master them all, the General Counsel must possess sound 
legal and analytical skills, as well as sound integrity and judgment. 
The Office of General Counsel is also quite large, with more than 600 
attorneys in over 100 locations worldwide. Accordingly, the General 
Counsel must possess strong managerial qualifications and solid 
interpersonal and leadership abilities. I believe that my experiences 
and background have prepared me well to perform the duties of this 
office.
    I received my undergraduate degree from the University of Miami in 
1987 and my law degree from the Yale Law School in 1991, where I served 
as a notes editor of the Yale Law Journal and won the Harlan Fiske 
Stone Prize (Best Oralist) and Benjamin N. Cardozo Prize (Best Brief) 
in the Yale Moot Court of Appeals. After law school, I clerked for 
Judge Pamela Ann Rymer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit in Pasadena, California. I subsequently joined the Miami office 
of Steel Hector & Davis LLP, where I practiced general commercial 
litigation and white collar criminal defense in State and Federal 
courts. A year after becoming a partner of the firm, I was asked to 
join the staff of newly-elected Governor Jeb Bush as Deputy General 
Counsel. In my 3\1/2\ years on the Governor's staff, I also served at 
various times as Acting General Counsel and Deputy Chief of Staff, 
helping in the latter position to supervise executive agencies covering 
the environment, transportation, health, business regulation, land use, 
and emergency management. In 2002, I became Chief of Staff at the U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, assisting then-Secretary 
Mel Martinez in managing more than 9,000 employees and an annual budget 
surpassing $30 billion. For the last 2 years, I've served in the U.S. 
Department of Defense, first as Principal Deputy General Counsel of the 
Department of the Navy, then as Deputy General Counsel (Legal Counsel) 
of the U.S. Department of Defense. I recently graduated with an MBA 
from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
    This experience in both legal and managerial positions in the 
public and private sectors has prepared me to address the wide array of 
challenges and responsibilities faced by the General Counsel of the 
Department of the Navy. In particular, I believe my experience as 
Principal Deputy General Counsel for the Department of the Navy in 
2004-2005 will serve me and the Office of General Counsel (OGC) in good 
stead if I am confirmed. During my year in Navy OGC, I developed many 
relationships and a large volume of working knowledge that will allow 
me to assume the duties of General Counsel quickly and effectively.
    Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to 
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the General Counsel of 
the Department of the Navy?
    Answer. I believe that I possess the essential legal expertise and 
leadership skills to be the General Counsel of the Department of the 
Navy. As Deputy General Counsel (Legal Counsel) of the Department of 
Defense, I have enhanced my understanding of the relationships between 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the military departments, the 
Defense agencies, and their respective legal communities. During my 
service as Principal Deputy General Counsel of the Department of the 
Navy, I became very familiar with the Department's leadership and 
organization, its uniformed and civilian attorneys, and the legal 
challenges facing the Department. If confirmed as the General Counsel, 
I will continue to rely heavily on the wisdom and knowledge of those 
who have devoted themselves to service in the Navy and Marine Corps, as 
well as the career civil servants in the Department.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do 
you expect that Secretary Winter would prescribe for you?
    Answer. If confirmed, I expect that Secretary Winter will desire my 
candid and objective legal advice concerning issues, opportunities, and 
problems as they arise. I anticipate that my formal responsibilities as 
General Counsel of the Department of the Navy will remain largely as 
they are currently. I also anticipate that Secretary Winter will expect 
me to continue the exemplary relationship between the General Counsel, 
the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, and the Staff Judge Advocate to 
the Commandant of the Marine Corps, in order to ensure the faithful 
execution of the laws throughout the Department of the Navy and the 
successful accomplishment of the Department's mission. I expect to work 
closely with the General Counsels of the Department of Defense, other 
military departments, defense agencies and other Federal agencies, and 
with Congress, on matters of mutual interest or concern.
    Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the 
General Counsel of the Department of Defense?
    Answer. While the General Counsel of the Department of the Navy 
reports to the Secretary of the Navy, the General Counsel of the 
Department of Defense is the chief legal officer of the Department of 
Defense. If confirmed, I will work closely with the General Counsel of 
the Department of Defense on matters of mutual interest or concern.
              relationship with the judge advocate general
    Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the 
Judge Advocate General of the Navy and the Staff Judge Advocate to the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps?
    Answer. The General Counsel, the Judge Advocate General of the 
Navy, and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine 
Corps must have relationships marked by full consultation, open 
communication, close and collegial cooperation, and careful 
coordination. These relationships are essential to ensure the faithful 
execution of the laws throughout the Department. In my experience as 
Principal Deputy General Counsel, I found the existing relationships to 
be truly extraordinary, and of great benefit to our clients throughout 
the Department. If confirmed, I am confident that these close and 
collegial relationships will continue.
    Question. How are the legal responsibilities of the Department of 
the Navy allocated between the General Counsel, the Judge Advocate 
General, and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine 
Corps?
    Answer. The Department of the Navy is unique among the military 
departments, because it is served by three legal communities: the 
General Counsel and Office of the General Counsel, the Judge Advocate 
General of the Navy and Navy Judge Advocates, and the Staff Judge 
Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps and Marine Judge 
Advocates. The governance model for legal services within the 
Department of the Navy is founded upon close professional and personal 
relationships between the General Counsel, the Judge Advocate General 
of the Navy, and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps--relationships that emphasize communication, transparency, 
and mutual support. The General Counsel is the principal legal advisor 
to the Secretary of the Navy, the Assistant Secretaries, and their 
staffs, and is the head of the Office of the General Counsel. In 
addition, the General Counsel exercises other special authorities by 
delegation or direction from the Secretary of the Navy, or by law or 
regulation. For example, the General Counsel is the reporting senior 
for the Director of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, acts as 
the Designated Agency Ethics Official for the Department of the Navy, 
and administers the Department's alternative dispute resolution and 
acquisition integrity programs. The Office of the General Counsel's 
practice includes business and commercial law, environmental law, 
personnel and labor law, fiscal law, intellectual property law, and 
ethics, among other subjects. The Judge Advocate General of the Navy 
also reports directly to the Secretary of the Navy, and generally 
provides legal services in the areas of military justice, international 
law, matters associated with military operations, environmental law, 
military personnel law, administrative law, claims, and ethics. The 
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps is the 
senior military lawyer to the Commandant, and his responsibilities 
largely parallel those of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. The 
responsibilities of the General Counsel, the Judge Advocate General, 
and Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant will overlap from time to 
time. In such instances, the three legal communities address matters by 
working closely together for the benefit of the Department.
                            major challenges
    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will 
confront the General Counsel of the Department of the Navy?
    Answer. I believe that the General Counsel's greatest challenge 
will be to deliver timely, responsive, and accurate legal advice as the 
Department of the Navy addresses two fundamental, emerging issues: the 
conduct of global, asymmetric warfare, and the execution of strategic 
and commercial transformation initiatives. To meet the Department's 
needs in these areas, the General Counsel likely will address matters 
concerning acquisition reform, privatization, oversight of 
intelligence, environmental law and policy, and military and civilian 
personnel law and policy. If confirmed, I will work, in cooperation 
with the Judge Advocate General of the Navy and Staff Judge Advocate to 
the Commandant of the Marine Corps, to ensure that the legal 
communities of the Department of the Navy have the resources necessary 
to meet the diverse and changing needs of their clients.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for 
addressing these challenges?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will review the resources, organization, 
and operation of the Office of the General Counsel, and implement 
whatever changes may be necessary to enhance its ability to confront 
these challenges. I will work to maximize coordination and cooperation 
with all stakeholders. I will also continue or enhance the previous 
General Counsel's initiatives on career development and performance 
measurement.
                               priorities
    Question. The Navy and Marine Corps are engaged on a daily basis in 
combat and combat support in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring 
Freedom, restructuring and recaptalizing in accordance with the goals 
of the Quadrennial Defense Review, reducing Navy Active-Duty and 
Reserve end strengths, and transforming the Department of the Navy's 
Total Force to deal with a host of traditional and non-traditional 
threats to the security of the Nation.
    In what ways can you, if confirmed as General Counsel, contribute 
to military readiness and the success of the Navy and Marine Corps?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will strive to deliver effective and 
innovative legal services to assist the Secretary of the Navy in 
carrying out his statutory responsibility to recruit, organize, supply, 
equip, train, service, mobilize, demobilize, administer, and maintain, 
all in the interest of promoting readiness across the Navy and Marine 
Corps. In this regard, I would work closely with the Secretary and the 
senior leadership of the Department to ensure that the priorities of 
the Office of the General Counsel are aligned with those of its 
clients.
    Question. What broad priorities would you establish, if confirmed, 
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the Office of the General 
Counsel of the Department of the Navy?
    Answer. My foremost priority will be to ensure that the Department 
of the Navy receives the highest quality legal advice and services in 
the most efficient manner, and that uniformed and civilian attorneys 
work together to accomplish that goal. If confirmed, I will further 
explore and develop more defined priorities.
                attorney recruiting and retention issues
    Question. How do you assess your ability to hire and retain top 
quality attorneys and provide sufficient opportunity for advancement?
    Answer. I believe that the Department of the Navy continues to hire 
outstanding civilian attorneys. The Office of the General Counsel 
receives a large volume of applications, and competition for employment 
remains intense. Nonetheless, the increasing financial disparity 
between Government attorneys and privately employed attorneys is a 
challenge. If confirmed, I will work with the senior staff of the 
Office of the General Counsel to address these issues. I will also 
enhance the previous General Counsel's initiatives on career 
development.
    Question. In your view, does the Department of the Navy have a 
sufficient number of attorneys to perform its missions?
    Answer. I believe that the Department of the Navy has a sufficient 
number of civilian and military attorneys to perform its missions. The 
demand for civilian attorneys and judge advocates has grown 
significantly, however, both generally and in response to specific 
emerging issues. In this era of intense media scrutiny, complex 
national security questions in domestic and international law, 
environmental concerns, and the penchant of many to litigate, there is 
an increasing demand for sophisticated, specialized legal services. If 
confirmed, I will work with the Judge Advocate General of the Navy and 
the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps to 
ensure the Department has a sufficient number of lawyers to meet its 
needs.
    Question. In your view, what incentives to successful recruiting 
and retention of attorneys, if any, need to be implemented or 
established?
    Answer. The competition for legal talent is keen, and law students 
typically enter the job market burdened by substantial debt. 
Initiatives by Congress and the Department of the Navy have helped to 
alleviate some of the financial pressures facing our young judge 
advocates, and have improved retention. Similar incentives are not 
currently available to civilian attorneys, but the Department of the 
Navy Office of the General Counsel offers appointments to new attorneys 
at grade levels that are highly competitive with other Federal 
agencies. This may account, in part, for the Office of the General 
Counsel's continued success in recruiting and retaining highly 
competent attorneys. If confirmed, I will work with the senior staff of 
the Office of the General Counsel to address these issues.
                  base realignment and closure (brac)
    Question. In 2005, the Base Realignment and Closure process was 
concluded, and the BRAC Commission's recommendations enacted. These 
decisions will close or realign significant numbers of military 
installations, increasing the military value of our infrastructure, 
transforming certain common functions across the Department, and saving 
valuable resources.
    Now that those recommendations have the force and effect of law, 
how would you approach implementation of those recommendations if you 
are confirmed?
    Answer. I understand that the Department of Defense must fully 
implement the recommendations of the BRAC Commission within 6 years, as 
required by law. I also understand that the Department of the Navy, in 
order to execute its own BRAC 2005 recommendations and a number of 
joint, cross-service group recommendations as directed by the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), is 
developing implementation plans and associated budget materials. BRAC 
2005 is vitally important to the Department of the Navy, because it 
will allow the Department to reduce excess infrastructure (allowing 
scarce dollars to be moved to areas that result in improved readiness) 
and to transform the remaining infrastructure.
                        military justice matters
    Question. Article 6 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice gives 
primary jurisdiction over military justice to the Judge Advocates 
General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
    How do you view your responsibilities in the performance of 
military justice matters with regard to the Judge Advocate General of 
the Navy?
    Answer. In article 6, Congress gave the Judge Advocate General of 
the Navy or other senior members of his staff the responsibility to 
``make frequent inspections in the field in supervision of the 
administration of military justice.'' If confirmed, as the chief legal 
officer of the Department of the Navy, I will have an interest in the 
administration of military justice. I envision a close working 
relationship with the Judge Advocate General of the Navy and Staff 
Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, in which we share 
information and work collaboratively when necessary to resolve issues 
of policy and matters pertaining to specific cases. I believe that a 
close working relationship with the Judge Advocate General and Staff 
Judge Advocate to the Commandant, and reliance on their special 
expertise, will enable us collectively to avoid any potential issues of 
command influence.
                         treatment of detainees
    Question. What is your understanding of the definition of ``humane 
treatment'' of detainees?
    Answer. The President's Military Order, November 13, 2001, requires 
that detainees be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction 
based on race, color, religion, gender, birth, wealth, or any similar 
criteria; afforded adequate food, drinking water, shelter, clothing, 
and medical treatment; and allowed the free exercise of religion 
consistent with the requirements of detention.
    The recently enacted Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 requires that 
no individual in the custody or under the physical control of the 
United States Government, regardless of physical location, shall be 
subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
    The Deputy Secretary of Defense issued guidance on July 7, 2006 
stating that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,--S.Ct.----, 
2006 WL 1764793 (U.S.) (June 29, 2006) (``Hamdan''), determined that 
Article Three Common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (``Common 
Article Three'') applies as a matter of law to the conflict with al 
Qaeda.
    Congress may further define the responsibilities of the United 
States under Common Article Three in any future legislation adopted in 
response to the Hamdan decision.
    Question. What is the role of the General Counsel of the Department 
of the Navy in ensuring that all detainees in the custody of U.S. Armed 
Forces are provided humane treatment?
    Answer. Under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, any individual 
under the control of the Department of the Navy (or any other component 
of the Department of Defense) must be treated humanely and kept from 
being subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or 
punishment, including individuals held as a result of counterdrug 
operations (South/Central America), migrant operations, law enforcement 
operations, and armed conflict. In this regard, the role of the General 
Counsel is to provide guidance to the Department of the Navy regarding 
its obligations under the Detainee Treatment Act and all other sources 
of legal obligation toward detainees.
    Regarding current detention operations in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 
Afghanistan, and Iraq, the combatant commanders plan, execute, and 
oversee combatant command detention operations. The Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff provides oversight to the combatant commanders to 
ensure their detention operations, policies, and procedures are 
consistent with DOD policies and requirements.
    The Secretary of the Army is the Executive Agent for detention 
operations. The Army is in the process of revising AR 190-8, the ``tri-
service'' detainee regulation.
    The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)) is responsible 
for developing, reviewing, and coordinating all DOD policy pertaining 
to the DOD Detainee Program. In July 2004, the Secretary of Defense 
established the Office of Detainee Affairs under the USD(P) to serve as 
the focal point for all detention policy matters.
    Question. What is the role, if any, of the General Counsel of the 
Department of the Navy in ensuring that interrogation policies under 
the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogations, 
including any revisions to the current field manual, are consistent 
with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005?
    Answer. The Department of the Army is responsible for providing 
doctrinal guidance concerning the Army Field Manual 34-52, 
``Intelligence Interrogations.'' The revision to FM 34-52, FM 2-22.3, 
``Human Intelligence Collector Operations,'' is in the process of 
coordination throughout the Department of Defense. It is my 
understanding that the Department of Navy, including the Office of 
General Counsel, has had an opportunity to provide comments concerning 
this draft publication. The role of the General Counsel of the 
Department of the Navy is to advise officials of the Department of the 
Navy in their review of the draft Army Field Manual and in their 
efforts to ensure that all Department of the Navy personnel comply with 
the final version.
    Should any credible allegations of abuse during detainee 
intelligence interrogations come to the attention of the General 
Counsel of the Department of the Navy, he or she should immediately 
report such allegations to superiors and follow through until the 
matter is satisfactorily resolved.
          consolidation of military and civilian legal staffs
    Question. On September 10, 2001, Secretary Rumsfeld initiated a 
``war on bureaucracy'' stating that in order to make decisions more 
quickly, the Department must slash duplication, encourage cooperation, 
and start asking tough questions about redundant staff. He noted: 
``There are dozens of offices of general counsel scattered throughout 
the Department. Each Service has one. Every agency does, too. So do the 
Joint Chiefs. We have so many general counsel offices that we actually 
have another general counsel's office whose only job is to coordinate 
all those general counsels.''
    What is your understanding of actions that have been taken in the 
Department of Defense and Department of the Navy to address the 
Secretary's concerns?
    Answer. As a DOD Deputy General Counsel and as Principal Deputy 
General Counsel of the Department of the Navy, I have worked closely 
with my counterparts in the military departments and other components 
of the Department of Defense to ensure consistency of approach and 
eliminate duplication of effort. I share the Secretary of Defense's 
interest in the good stewardship of scarce legal resources.
    Question. In your judgment, what actions need to be taken, if any, 
in response to Secretary Rumsfeld's challenge?
    Answer. If confirmed, with the guidance of the Secretary of the 
Navy, and in close cooperation with the Judge Advocate General of the 
Navy and Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, I 
would work to achieve an efficient allocation of legal resources across 
the Department of the Navy. It is critical not only to avoid 
duplication of effort, but also to align legal organizations in a 
manner that best serves the changing needs of our clients.
    Question. Do you believe that the Department of the Navy has the 
legal resources necessary to carry out the missions that may be 
required of it in wartime? If not, what is needed?
    Answer. In wartime, the needs of the Department of the Navy place 
great demands on both uniformed and civilian attorneys. Although I 
believe that the Department of the Navy has the legal resources 
available to execute its missions, the increasing pressure to support 
the Department's operations, at home and abroad, demands careful 
attention. If confirmed, I will work with the Judge Advocate General of 
the Navy and Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps 
to ensure that the legal communities of the Department of the Navy 
continue to meet the needs of their clients.
                          religious guidelines
    Question. What is your legal assessment of the measures being taken 
by the Department of the Navy to provide religious guidelines aimed at 
ensuring that members of the chaplain corps of the Navy ensure 
religious tolerance and respect?
    Answer. It is my understanding that the Navy's guidelines on 
religion ensure religious tolerance and respect. If confirmed, I will 
continue to support the Navy's firm commitment to striking the proper 
constitutional balance between the two tenets of the ``free exercise'' 
and ``establishment'' clauses.
    Question. What is your legal assessment of Department of the Navy 
guidance regarding chaplain prayers during official functions other 
than worship services with respect to praying according to the manner 
and forms of the church of which the chaplain is a member?
    Answer. Military chaplains are trained to be sensitive to 
facilitate the ministry of members of their own faiths, the members of 
other faiths, and to care for all servicemembers. At command functions, 
other than for the purpose of religious worship, chaplains are 
encouraged to be especially sensitive to and inclusive of the diversity 
of faiths of persons attending the functions. Chaplains are not ever 
compelled to offer prayers inconsistent with their faith and, as such, 
are free to decline participation, with no adverse consequences, in a 
command event at which a commander determines the prayer should be 
inclusive. In my mind, this is an appropriate balance between the 
rights of the individual members, the chaplains, and the commander's 
need to preserve good order and discipline.
    Question. What is your legal assessment of the adequacy of 
departmental guidance to commanders and other leaders regarding free 
exercise of religion in the Navy and Marine Corps?
    Answer. I am informed that departmental guidance provides 
commanders and other leaders ample guidance regarding the free exercise 
of religion in the Navy and the Marine Corps. Secretary of the Navy 
Instruction 1730.7C, Religious Ministry Within the Department of the 
Navy, ``The Department of the Navy Guidelines on Religious Ministry,'' 
and DOD Directive 1300.17, Accommodation of Religious Practices Within 
the Military Services, provide detailed guidance on the important 
responsibilities of commanders and leaders in this regard. It is my 
understanding that these policies are consistent with the First 
Amendment.
                  general and flag officer nominations
    Question. Under DOD Instruction 1320.4, adverse and alleged adverse 
information pertaining to general and flag officers must be evaluated 
by senior leaders in the Services and in the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense prior to nomination.
    If confirmed, what role, if any, would you play in the officer 
promotion system, particularly in reviewing general and flag officer 
nominations?
    Answer. If confirmed, my role will be as directed by the Secretary 
of the Navy. I will work closely with the Secretary of the Navy, the 
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), the 
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, the Staff Judge Advocate to the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps, and other senior Department of the Navy 
leaders to ensure that the Department of the Navy's military personnel 
policies are formulated and applied uniformly, fairly, and in 
accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Generally, legal 
review of military personnel matters is under the cognizance of the 
respective service judge advocates. I understand that officer promotion 
matters in the Department of the Navy (both Navy and Marine Corps) are 
under the purview of the Secretary and that the Judge Advocate General 
has cognizance over legal review of promotion plans, precepts that 
govern the conduct of promotion selection boards, subsequent promotion 
selection board reports, and review of adverse information.
    Question. What is your understanding of the role of the General 
Counsel of the Department of the Navy in ensuring the legal sufficiency 
of statutory selection board processes?
    Answer. Under chapter 36 of title 10, U.S.C., the Secretary of the 
Navy is responsible for the proper functioning of the Department of the 
Navy's promotion selection process. If confirmed, my role will be as 
directed by the Secretary of the Navy. Generally, military personnel 
matters are under the cognizance of the respective service judge 
advocates. I envision a close working relationship with the Judge 
Advocate General of the Navy and Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant 
of the Marine Corps, and Office of Counsel for the Commandant, an 
office under my supervision, in which we work collaboratively, when 
necessary, to resolve issues of policy and matters pertaining to 
specific cases.
    Question. What is the role, if any, of the General Counsel of the 
Department of the Navy in reviewing and providing potentially adverse 
information pertaining to a nomination to the Senate Armed Services 
Committee?
    Answer. It is my understanding that within the Department of the 
Navy, the Judge Advocate General reviews each situation where adverse, 
or potentially adverse, information involving an officer may exist 
prior to the nomination of such officer being presented to the Senate, 
in order to ensure that any reports and communications comply in form 
and substance with law and regulation. When requested, the General 
Counsel's office will provide advice on cases of Department of the Navy 
nominees with adverse, or potentially adverse, information, in order to 
ensure that such information is reported to the Senate Armed Services 
Committee.
                  military personnel policy and cases
    Question. In your view, what role, if any, should the General 
Counsel play in military personnel policy and individual cases, 
including cases before the Board for Correction of Naval Records?
    Answer. If confirmed, my role will be as directed by the Secretary 
of the Navy. I will work closely with the Secretary of the Navy, the 
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and 
other senior Department of the Navy leaders to ensure that the 
Department of the Navy's military personnel policies are formulated and 
applied uniformly, fairly, and in accordance with applicable laws and 
regulations. In the event I become aware of individual cases in which 
military personnel policies were not fairly and lawfully applied, and 
it is proper for me to intervene, I will take appropriate action. If 
confirmed, I will coordinate with the Assistant Secretary of the Navy 
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs), who exercises overall supervision of 
the Navy Board for Correction of Military Records, to ensure the Board 
receives full and comprehensive legal support.
             sexual assault prevention and response policy
    Question. Numerous cases of sexual misconduct have been reported 
within the armed services over the last several years. Many victims and 
their advocates contend that they were victimized twice: first by 
attackers in their own ranks and then by unresponsive or inadequate 
military treatment. They asserted that the military failed to provide 
basic services available to civilians who have been raped, including 
proper medical attention, adequate criminal investigations of their 
charges, and timely prosecution.
    What is your view of the systems and programs the Navy and Marine 
Corps have in place in deployed locations to offer victims of serious 
sexual assaults the medical, psychological, and legal help they need?
    Answer. Proper care of victims of sexual assault is a top priority 
for the Department of the Navy, and I understand the Department has 
made significant strides in improving assistance to all victims of 
sexual assault, including those in deployed locations. The Department 
of the Navy has implemented the DOD confidentiality policy and the 
restricted and unrestricted reporting options including the Collection 
of Forensic Evidence. Navy victim advocates now have the option of 
informing commanders of restricted cases of sexual assault for Active-
Duty victims without providing identifying personal information. 
Victims of restricted cases of sexual assault are offered advocacy, 
medical, and counseling services without triggering an investigation 
through law enforcement or command. I understand the Department of the 
Navy now provides 24/7 response capability for sexual assaults on the 
installation and during deployment by activating watchbills for victim 
advocates. If confirmed, I will continue to ensure the Department of 
the Navy remains committed to maintaining policies that ensure the 
proper care of sexual assault victims.
    Question. What is your view of the steps the Navy and Marine Corps 
have taken to prevent additional sexual assaults on female soldiers at 
their home stations and when they are deployed?
    Answer. I am advised that the prevention of sexual assault has been 
a key issue for the Department of the Navy for some time. The 
Department of the Navy was a pioneer in the Sexual Assault prevention 
arena when it developed the Sexual Assault Victim Intervention (SAVI) 
and Marine Corps' Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) 
in 1994. Both programs are designed to support the victim, investigate 
fully and fairly, and continually evaluate and improve the programs. I 
understand that the Department of the Navy has uncompromisingly 
promoted victim assistance, awareness and prevention education, and 
reporting of sexual assaults.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 
required implementation of a standardized DOD Sexual Assault Prevention 
program. I am told that the Department of the Navy is working closely 
with the DOD Joint Task Force for Sexual Assault Prevention and 
Response to standardize sexual assault prevention and identification 
responses across DOD. If confirmed, I will continue to support all 
efforts along the solid path of change followed by the Joint Task Force 
for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, and continue to provide 
oversight in all areas under my authority to ensure the prevention of 
sexual assaults and protection of victims of sexual assault.
                        whistleblower protection
    Question. Section 1034, title 10, U.S.C., prohibits taking 
retaliatory personnel action against a member of the Armed Forces as 
reprisal for making a protected communication. By definition, protected 
communications include communications to certain individuals and 
organizations outside of the chain of command.
    If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure that senior 
military leaders understand the need to protect servicemembers who 
report misconduct to appropriate authorities within or outside the 
chain of command?
    Answer. The Department of Defense implements the Military 
Whistleblower Protection Act through Department of Defense Directive 
7050.6, and the Department of the Navy further highlights the act 
through its own instruction at SECNAVINST 5370.7C that sets forth the 
protections afforded to military whistleblowers. If confirmed, I will 
act to ensure that military members whose actions are protected by the 
act are not subject to illegal reprisals or retaliation. If a case of 
illegal reprisal comes to my attention, I will work to ensure that it 
is addressed in accordance with the law. I am advised that the 
Department of the Navy currently provides great emphasis on compliance 
with the act by ensuring that all prospective commanding officers and 
executive officers are briefed on the act's requirements, and 
addressing the act's protections in the curriculum of eight separate 
courses of instruction for Navy and Marine Corps personnel. If 
confirmed, I will work to ensure that this emphasis on the act in 
formal Department training courses continues.
          support to navy and marine corps inspectors general
    Question. What role, if any, do you think the General Counsel of 
the Navy should have in reviewing the investigations and 
recommendations of the Naval Inspector General and the Deputy Naval 
Inspector General for Marine Corps Matters?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will establish a close and productive 
relationship with the Naval Inspector General and Deputy Naval 
Inspector General for Marine Corps Matters. As in other instances, I 
will cooperate with the Judge Advocate General of the Navy and Staff 
Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps as I cultivate 
that relationship. Independence is essential to the mission of the 
Inspector General, particularly with regard to the findings and 
recommendations that result from investigations. I believe that the 
General Counsel has an obligation, without infringing upon the 
Inspector General's independence, to provide independent and objective 
legal advice concerning the Inspector General's duties and 
responsibilities. Further, as part of his responsibility to review 
legal and policy issues arising from the Department of the Navy's 
intelligence and counterintelligence activities, the General Counsel 
should advise the Inspector General concerning proper reporting of the 
Department's intelligence oversight activities.
                           civilian attorneys
    Question. Judge Advocates in the Armed Forces benefit from an 
established career ladder, substantial training opportunities, and 
exposure to a broad spectrum of legal areas and problems. By contrast, 
civilian attorneys in the military departments normally do not have 
established career programs and may do the same work for many years, 
with promotion based solely upon longevity and vacancies.
    In your opinion, does the personnel management of civilian 
attorneys need changing? If so, what do you see as the major problems 
and what changes would you suggest?
    Answer. During my time as Principal Deputy General Counsel, I found 
that the Department of the Navy offered unique opportunities to its 
civilian attorneys. The Office of the General Counsel, which is 
composed almost entirely of civilian attorneys, occupies a distinct 
place in relation to the Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps and the 
community of Marine Judge Advocates. Certain areas of practice--for 
example, business and commercial law--are reserved to the Office of the 
General Counsel as a matter of departmental policy. In areas of 
practice that are common to the Office of the General Counsel and the 
military legal communities, civilian and uniformed attorneys generally 
represent different organizations within the Department. Thus, while 
the civilian and uniformed legal communities work together closely and 
constructively, there are unique professional opportunities available 
to civilian attorneys. The opportunities for advancement to leadership 
positions within the Office of the General Counsel are substantial. 
There are a number of positions in the Senior Executive Service within 
the Office of the General Counsel, and numerous supervisory positions 
in organizations of all sizes around the globe. Competition for these 
positions, as for entry-level positions, remains robust. The Office of 
the General Counsel values a diversity of experience as a foundation 
for advancement to positions of leadership, and offers a range of 
practice sufficiently broad that attorneys may acquire that experience. 
Although I believe that the Office of the General Counsel offers rich 
opportunities for professional development, if confirmed, I will make 
sure that the Office of the General Counsel will continue to look for 
further ways to assist in the development of its civilian attorneys.
                          environmental issues
    Question. A number of major environmental statutes include national 
security exemptions. For example, section 7(j) of the Endangered 
Species Act states: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
chapter, the committee shall grant an exemption for any agency action 
if the Secretary of Defense finds that such exemption is necessary for 
reasons of national security.''
    If confirmed as General Counsel, what role would you expect to play 
in determining whether it would be appropriate to exercise a national 
security exemption in connection with an activity or function of the 
Department of the Navy?
    Answer. If confirmed as the General Counsel of the Navy, I would 
view my role as one of informing both the decision as to whether a 
national security exemption is necessary and appropriate and, in those 
few exceptional circumstances where it may be determined that an 
exception is appropriate, assisting the processing of the exemption to 
approval.
    Where essential Navy operations or military readiness activities 
may be significantly compromised by application of the requirements of 
environmental law, it would be my role to advise senior decisionmakers 
on their legal options, including the possibility of pursuing available 
national security exemptions. Before recommending that an exemption be 
invoked or sought, however, I believe it would be imperative to look at 
the environmental requirement in light of the operation or military 
readiness activity being affected and to determine whether legal 
alternatives to an exemption may be available.
    Question. Under what circumstances do you believe that the use of 
such an exemption would be necessary and appropriate?
    Answer. In crafting the exemptions that currently exist in 
environmental law, Congress has appropriately established a high 
hurdle, often requiring a presidential determination, based on the 
highest possible standard: that the exemption is necessary in the 
``paramount interest of the United States.'' Such is the case, for 
example, under section 313(a) of the Clean Water Act, section 6001(a) 
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and section 118(b) of 
the Clean Air Act. From this standard, and from the limited duration 
for which exemptions may be granted, it is clear that Congress intended 
that exemptions should be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances. 
Such circumstances, I believe, include those where a particular 
environmental restriction poses a significant threat to military 
readiness or national security and no effective alternative exists that 
will allow compliance with the environmental requirement and still 
permit the critical military readiness activity to proceed.
    In seeking an exemption, I believe the proponent must shoulder the 
burden of identifying not only the restriction imposed and its effect 
on military readiness, but also why the military training, testing, or 
operational activity cannot be modified to avoid a conflict with the 
environmental requirement without diminishing readiness. Moreover, 
where an exemption is invoked, I believe the proponent must identify 
what measures it is prepared to take to mitigate the environmental 
consequences of its actions.
    Although I believe it is important that the existing environmental 
exemptions be used only in exceptional circumstances, the focus of most 
exemptions on individual activities, facilities, or pollution sources 
makes them of limited suitability for some ongoing military readiness 
activities. To date, the Department of Defense has worked well and 
cooperatively with the regulatory community and other stakeholders to 
avoid impacts on these activities, which individually might not be 
significant, but which cumulatively could have large impacts on 
military readiness.
    Question. Please describe the circumstances that led to the 
decision to invoke the national security exemption of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act (MMPA).
    Answer. The Secretary of Defense, after conferring with the 
Secretary of Commerce, recently invoked a National Defense Exemption 
(NDE) to the MMPA for a period of 6 months.
    Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) proficiency--a highly perishable 
skill--requires quarterly qualification. Sustaining skill levels 
requires individual operator, unit, strike group, and coalition 
training. Thirty-five exercises, on average, are conducted annually to 
achieve and maintain ASW proficiency. The current process for obtaining 
an authorization under the MMPA is inconsistent with realistic planning 
timeframes for several dozen exercises annually. My understanding is 
that it can take more than 2 years to plan and obtain an authorization 
for a single exercise.
    As an alternative approach to an exercise-by-exercise process, we 
have discussed with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 
programmatic approaches that would provide authorizations on a 
geographic level or for use of specific types of sonar. Navy remains 
cooperatively engaged with regulators in aggressively working toward 
full compliance. The NDE was necessary to address challenges to 
specific exercises in the near-term, and to serve as a bridge to full 
compliance. It allows Navy to ensure near-term ASW proficiency while 
cooperatively developing new processes for the long-term. Application 
of the exemption was limited initially to 6 months to incentivize 
continued progress.
    In addition to process issues, the National Resources Defense 
Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit challenging Navy and Commerce Department 
compliance with the MMPA and sought a temporary restraining order 
against the Navy's Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise near Hawaii. 
The lawsuit alleged that, despite the lengthy and detailed process 
followed by Navy and NMFS to reach an Incidental Harassment 
Authorization under the MMPA, Navy and NMFS efforts failed to fully 
analyze impacts to marine mammals from the use of mid-frequency sonar. 
The Navy and NRDC settled the lawsuit the same week that the NDE was 
invoked.
    A full report on the need for and scope of the exemption will be 
provided to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees as required 
under the MMPA.
    Question. How will invocation of the national security exemption 
alleviate those concerns?
    Answer. An exemption will reduce but not eliminate all risk from 
lawsuits. It provides the Navy with the opportunity to resolve issues 
within the regulatory authorization process, enabling it to complete 
the analyses and regulatory steps necessary to obtain authorizations 
under the MMPA.
    Question. What does the Navy plan to do to ensure compliance with 
the MMPA in the future?
    Answer. I understand that Navy is executing a prioritized program 
of environmental analyses to obtain regulatory authorization where 
necessary and to otherwise comply with applicable laws. During the 
exemption period, the Navy will continue to employ mitigation measures 
recommended by NMFS.
    Question. What impact did the NRDC lawsuit over MMPA compliance for 
the RIMPAC exercise have on the decision to invoke the MMPA's national 
security exemption?
    Answer. The NDE executed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense on 30 
June 2006 exempted all military readiness activities that employ mid-
frequency active sonar during major training exercises or within 
established maritime ranges or operating areas from the requirements of 
the MMPA for 6 months. During this 6-month period, all exempted 
activities are required to employ a suite of comprehensive mitigation 
measures. For RIMPAC 06, the NDE further specifies that the exercise 
will comply with the Incidental Harassment Authorization provisions 
approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service on 27 June 2006. The 
scope of the NDE, therefore, includes RIMPAC 06, but is not limited to 
RIMPAC 06. The then-pending litigation was only one factor in the 
signing of the NDE. It is important to note that the NDE is designed to 
assist the Navy with its long-term MMPA compliance efforts and was not 
focused on the NRDC lawsuit alone.
    Question. What is the impact of the settlement of the RIMPAC 
lawsuit on future training exercises and military testing and 
evaluation using Navy sonar?
    Answer. In October 2005, the NRDC brought a programmatic challenge 
against the Navy's use of mid-frequency active sonar, challenging all 
past, present, and future use of the sonar system. That case is still 
pending. The RIMPAC 06 lawsuit was a separate legal challenge brought 
by the NRDC on the eve of the training exercise. The settlement 
agreement with NRDC makes clear that the agreement is not to be 
construed as a concession by either party as to the potential impacts 
of sonar on marine mammals, the validity of either party's factual or 
legal positions, or the extent of measures required to comply with 
environmental laws.
                        congressional oversight
    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information.
    Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before 
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as the General Counsel of the 
Department of the Navy?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
             Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
                          military commissions
    1. Senator Akaka. Mr. Cohen and Mr. Jimenez, the Supreme Court 
recently issued a decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld which held that the 
special military commissions established by the administration to try 
detainees violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the 
Geneva Conventions. As Congress begins the process of building a system 
of justice for prisoners captured in the global war on terror, it will 
rely on the input from legal experts in the Department of Defense 
(DOD). What role do you believe that the General Counsel should play in 
the development of this new judicial process and how should it be 
coordinated with your respective Judge Advocates General?
    Mr. Jimenez. With respect to communications with Congress, the 
General Counsel of the Department of the Navy--as well as the other 
members, both civilian and uniformed, of the DOD's legal leadership 
team--should be available to consult closely with Congress as it 
undertakes the important mission post-Hamdan of crafting a military 
commission structure that comports with the Nation's highest principles 
and traditions, and accounts for the exigencies of armed conflict and 
the safety of our servicemembers. With respect to communications within 
DOD, responsibility for detention and trial by military commission of 
enemy combatants rests with combatant commands and not with military 
departments. Accordingly, within DOD, the role of the General Counsel 
of the Department of the Navy should be to provide opinions and advice 
in the course of any comprehensive effort by DOD to gather informed 
legal judgments from civilian and military legal leadership across the 
Department about the establishment of a fair, legal, and sustainable 
military commission process.
    The Department of the Navy prides itself on close, collegial, and 
collaborative working relationships between the General Counsel, Judge 
Advocate General of the Navy, and Staff Judge Advocate to the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps. If confirmed, I plan to do everything 
within my power to see that this tradition continues. Accordingly, I 
would work closely with my uniformed counterparts to provide 
coordinated opinions and advice concerning military commissions to 
Congress and within DOD.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of Frank R. Jimenez follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                     June 29, 2006.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    Frank R. Jimenez, of Florida, to be General Counsel of the 
Department of the Navy, vice Alberto Jose Mora, resigned.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The biographical sketch of Frank R. Jimenez, which was 
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was 
referred, follows:]
                Biographical Sketch of Frank R. Jimenez
    As the Deputy General Counsel (Legal Counsel) for the U.S. 
Department of Defense, Frank R. Jimenez manages key litigation matters 
covering the entire Department and coordinates with the White House 
Counsel's Office, Department of Justice, and other agencies on pressing 
legal issues. He also advises senior Defense officials on a wide 
variety of legal questions and supervises the Office of Legislative 
Counsel and the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals. Mr. Jimenez was 
most recently the Principal Deputy General Counsel for the Department 
of the Navy, where he served as the alter ego to the General Counsel of 
the Navy in managing over 600 attorneys worldwide and overseeing the 
Naval Criminal Investigative Service. He also advised senior Navy 
officials on litigation, acquisition, environmental, personnel, 
legislative, and ethics issues.
    Mr. Jimenez was previously the Chief of Staff at the U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As Chief of Staff, 
he assisted Secretary Mel Martinez in managing more than 9,000 
employees and an annual budget surpassing $30 billion. He helped 
supervise HUD's many homeownership and affordable housing programs for 
low-income Americans, as well as programs supporting the homeless, 
elderly, people with disabilities, and people living with AIDS. Mr. 
Jimenez's responsibilities also included supervising the Department's 
interactions with the White House, public officials, industry groups, 
and the general public.
    Prior to arriving at HUD, Mr. Jimenez served for nearly 4 years in 
the Executive Office of Florida Governor Jeb Bush, beginning with his 
gubernatorial transition in 1998. For two of those years, Mr. Jimenez 
served as Deputy Chief of Staff, with oversight duties at various times 
for the Departments of Transportation, Business and Professional 
Regulation, Environmental Protection, Community Affairs, Elder Affairs, 
and Health, as well as the Agency for Workforce Innovation and the 
Division of Emergency Management. Mr. Jimenez also served as Acting 
General Counsel and as Deputy General Counsel to the Governor.
    Prior to entering public service, Mr. Jimenez practiced at the 
Miami law firm of Steel Hector and Davis L.L.P. (now Squire, Sanders 
and Dempsey L.L.P.), specializing in complex commercial litigation and 
white collar criminal defense, including Federal class action, 
antitrust and product liability litigation, and representation of 
clients under Federal grand jury and government agency investigation. 
He joined the firm in 1992 and became a partner in 1998. Previously, 
Mr. Jimenez served a 1-year clerkship in the chambers of Judge Pamela 
Ann Rymer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 
Pasadena, California; Mr. Jimenez is admitted to the Bars of Florida 
and the District of Columbia.
    Mr. Jimenez graduated with honors in 1987 from the University of 
Miami, where he majored in biology. He received his law degree in 1991 
from the Yale Law School, where he was Notes Editor of the Yale Law 
Journal and won the Harlan Fiske Stone and Benjamin N. Cardozo Prizes 
for best oral argument and best brief, respectively, in the school's 
moot court competition. He also received an M.B.A. degree in 2005 from 
the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Jimenez, who is proficient in Spanish, resides in Alexandria, 
Virginia.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals 
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a 
form that details the biographical, financial, and other 
information of the nominee. The form executed by Frank R. 
Jimenez in connection with his nomination follows:]
                          UNITED STATES SENATE
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              Room SR-228
                       Washington, DC 20510-6050
                             (202) 224-3871
                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
      BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
    Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If 
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the 
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation 
of your answer applies.
                    Part A--Biographical Information
    Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in 
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for 
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in 
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.

    1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
    Frank Ruben Jimenez.

    2. Position to which nominated:
    General Counsel, Department of the Navy.

    3. Date of nomination:
    June 29, 2006.

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

    5. Date and place of birth:
    November 8, 1964; San Juan, Puerto Rico.

    6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
    Single, never married.

    7. Names and ages of children:
    None.

    8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
    Miami Christian School, 1973-1982, High School Diploma (June 1982).
    University of Miami, 1982-1987, B.S. (December 1987).
    Florida State University, 1987-1988, no degree.
    Yale Law School, 1988-1991, J.D. (June 1991).
    The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, M.B.A. (May 2005).

    9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the 
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of 
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
    Deputy General Counsel (Legal Counsel) (2005-2006), U.S. Department 
of Defense, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B688, Washington, DC.
    Principal Deputy General Counsel (2004-2005), U.S. Department of 
the Navy, 1000 Navy Pentagon, Room 4E635, Washington, DC.
    Chief of Staff (2002-2004), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC.
    Deputy General Counsel (1999), Acting General Counsel (2000), 
Deputy Chief of Staff (1999-2000, 2001-2002), Executive Office of the 
Governor, PL05 The Capitol, Tallahassee, FL.
    Associate (1992-1998), Partner (1998-1999), Steel Hector & Davis 
LLP (now Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP), 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, 
40th Floor, Miami, FL.

    10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, 
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, 
or local governments, other than those listed above.
    Member, President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status (2003-2005).
    Member, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (2002).
    Chairman, Jimmy Ryce Act Enforcement Task Force (1999-2000).
    Member, City of Miami Blue Ribbon Committee on Single Member 
Districts (1997).

    11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an 
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, 
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other 
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
    Director, Missions Reaching Out Compassionately International, Inc. 
(501(c)(3) application pending), P.O. Box 144401, Coral Gables, FL.

    12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in 
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and 
other organizations.
    Member, The Florida Bar.
    Member (inactive), The District of Columbia Bar.
    Member, University Baptist Church, Coral Gables, FL.
    Member, Missions Reaching Out Compassionately International, Inc.

    13. Political affiliations and activities:
    (a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or 
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
    None.
    (b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered 
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5 
years.
    None.
    (c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign 
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar 
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
    Danae Roberts for State Representative ($100), December 2001.
    Bush-Brogan 2002 ($250), September 2002.
    Bush-Cheney 2004 ($2,000), September 2003.
    Mel Martinez for Senate ($1,000), January 2004.
    Mel Martinez for Senate ($1,000), September 2004.
    Charlie Crist for Governor ($200), June 2005.
    Robert Fernandez for State Representative ($100), May 2006.
    Adam Hasner for State Representative ($100), May 2006.

    14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, military medals, and any other special 
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
    Department of the Navy Superior Public Service Award (2005).
    Wharton Graduate Fellowship (2003).
    Named among ``The 100 Most Influential Hispanics'' in U.S. by 
Hispanic Business magazine (2002).
    Harlan Fiske Stone Prize (Best Oralist) and Benjamin N. Cardozo 
Prize (Best Brief), Yale Moot Court of Appeals (1991).
    Iron Arrow Honor Society (University of Miami) (1987).
    Omicron Delta Kappa Honor Society (University of Miami) (1985).
    Mortar Board National Honor Society (University of Miami) (1985).
    Henry King Stanford Scholarship (University of Miami) (1982).

    15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of 
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have 
written.
    Note, ``Beyond Mergens: Ensuring Equality of Student Religious 
Speech Under the Equal Access Act,'' 100 Yale Law Journal 2149 (1991).
    Rebekah J. Poston, Frank R. Jimenez & Kimberly K. Dunn, ``Feds Urge 
Businesses to Cough Up Health Fraud,'' National Law Journal, Sept. 18, 
1995, at B12.

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

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

                           Signature and Date
    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete.
                                                  Frank R. Jimenez.
    This 12th day of July, 2006.

    [The nomination of Frank R. Jimenez was reported to the 
Senate by Chairman Warner on August 1, 2006, with the 
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination 
was confirmed by the Senate on September 21, 2006.]
                              ----------                              

    [Prepared questions submitted to David H. Laufman by 
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied 
follow:]
                        Questions and Responses
                            defense reforms
    Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense 
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have 
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have 
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain 
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant 
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
They have also clarified the responsibility of the military departments 
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment 
to the combatant commanders.
    Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act 
provisions?
    Answer. The Goldwater-Nichols Act represents landmark legislation. 
Although I do not have the benefit of first-hand experience in the 
act's implementation, it is my understanding that the act has succeeded 
in fulfilling its mandate to enhance jointness, increase readiness, and 
create a higher standard of warfighting efficiency. If confirmed, I am 
committed to working with Congress to determine if any legislative 
modifications are needed in the future.
    Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to 
address in these modifications?
    Answer. Please see my response to question above.
                                 duties
    Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of 
the Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG)?
    Answer. The duties and functions of the Inspector General of the 
Department of Defense are those specified in sections 4 and 8 of the 
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. Additional duties and 
responsibilities of the Inspector General are specified in Department 
of Defense Directive No. 5106.01, which was signed by Deputy Secretary 
of Defense Gordon England on April 13, 2006. (A copy of that directive 
is attached hereto for the committee's convenience.) [Nominee responded 
and the information is contained in the committee's executive files.]
    By statute, the Inspector General conducts and supervises audits 
and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the 
Department of Defense. The Inspector General also provides leadership 
and coordination, and recommends policy, for activities designed to: 
(1) promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the 
administration of Department of Defense programs and operations; and 
(2) combat fraud and abuse. In addition, the Inspector General is 
responsible for keeping both the Secretary of Defense and Congress 
fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies in defense 
programs, the need for corrective action, and the status of such 
action.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do 
you expect that the Secretary of Defense would prescribe for you?
    Answer. If confirmed, I expect that the Secretary of Defense will 
prescribe for me the full range of duties and functions set forth in 
the Inspector General Act, as amended, as well as the additional duties 
and responsibilities specified in Department of Defense Directive No. 
5106.01.
    Question. Section 2 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 states 
that its purpose is to create independent and objective units to 
conduct and supervise audits and investigations; to provide leadership 
and coordination, and recommend policies for activities designed to 
promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness; to prevent and detect 
fraud, waste, and abuse; and to provide a means for keeping Congress 
fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies relating 
to the administration of programs and operations and the necessity for 
and progress of corrective action.
    Are you committed to maintaining the independence of the DOD IG, as 
set forth in the Inspector General statute?
    Answer. The ability of the Inspector General to fulfill his or her 
statutory duties and responsibilities depends on establishing and 
maintaining both the appearance and reality of independence. If 
confirmed, I will be strongly committed to maintaining the independence 
of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) consistent with the 
provisions of the Inspector General Act.
    Question. Are you committed to keeping the Committee on Armed 
Services ``fully and currently informed,'' and, if so, what steps will 
you take, if confirmed, to ensure that this responsibility is carried 
out?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will keep the Committee on Armed Services 
``fully and currently informed.'' I will do so through the 
dissemination of OIG products such as the Semiannual Report to 
Congress, audit reports, and inspection/evaluation reports. In 
addition, I will provide briefings for members and staff, and testimony 
at hearings when requested
    Question. Section 3 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 provides 
that the head of an agency shall exercise ``general supervision'' over 
an IG, but shall not ``prevent or prohibit the Inspector General from 
initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or investigation, or 
from issuing any subpoena during the course of any audit or 
investigation.'' Section 8 of the act, however, states that the DOD IG 
shall ``be under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary 
of Defense with respect to certain audits or investigations which 
require access to information concerning sensitive operational plans, 
intelligence matters, counterintelligence matters, ongoing criminal 
investigations by other administrative units of the Department of 
Defense related to national security or other matters, the disclosure 
of which would constitute a serious threat to national security.
    What is your understanding of the supervisory authority of the 
Secretary of Defense over the DOD IG with respect to audits and 
investigations, in view of the independence provided by section 3?
    Answer. Section 3(a) of the act states that ``[e]ach Inspector 
General shall report to and be under the general supervision of the 
head of the establishment''--here, the Secretary of Defense. Although 
the statute does not define ``general supervision,'' that term may 
reasonably be construed to mean such supervision as does not infringe 
on the Inspector General's independence.
    Section 3(a), however, must be read in conjunction with section 8, 
which contains specific provisions regarding the DOD IG and (in section 
8(b)(1)) modifies the last two sentences of section 3(a). Given this 
statutory framework, my understanding is that the Secretary of Defense 
may exercise general supervisory authority over the Inspector General 
and may prohibit the Inspector General from conducting audits and 
investigations that implicate matters specified in section 8(b)(1) of 
the act. I am advised, however, that the Secretary has never exercised 
his statutory authority to preclude the Inspector General from 
conducting any audits or investigations. I am also advised that the 
Secretary has not exercised direct supervision over audits and 
investigations.
    Question. What is your understanding of the procedures in place to 
effect the authority and control of the Secretary of Defense over 
matters delineated in section 8 of the act?
    Answer. Under section 8(b)(2) of the act, the Secretary of Defense 
has the authority to ``prohibit the Inspector General from initiating, 
carrying out, or completing any audit or investigation, or from issuing 
any subpoena . . . if the Secretary determines that such prohibition is 
necessary to preserve the national security of the United States.'' It 
is my understanding that the Secretary has never exercised that 
authority, and I am presently unaware of any procedures in place to 
effect that authority. In the event that the Secretary exercised this 
authority, I would submit an appropriate statement within 30 days to 
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress, as 
required under section 8(b)(3).
    Question. Sections 4 and 8 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 set 
forth various duties and responsibilities of Inspectors General beyond 
the conduct of audits and investigations.
    What is your understanding of the supervisory authority exercised 
by the Secretary of Defense with regard to these issues?
    Answer. In addition to directing the Inspector General to conduct 
audits and investigations, section 4 directs the Inspector General to 
``review existing and proposed legislation and regulations'' and make 
related recommendations in semiannual reports; recommend policies to 
promote economy and efficiency in the administration of Department 
programs and operations and to prevent and detect fraud and abuse; keep 
the Secretary of Defense and Congress fully and currently informed 
about fraud and other serious problems, abuses, and deficiencies; 
recommend corrective actions for such problems, abuses, and 
deficiencies; and report on the progress made in implementing such 
corrective actions. Section 8(c)(1) adds that the Inspector General 
shall ``be the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense for 
matters relating to the preventing and detection of fraud, waste, and 
abuse.''
    It is my understanding that the Inspector General's duties and 
responsibilities specified in section 4 and 8 come within the general 
supervisory authority of the Secretary of Defense established under 
section 3(a). It is also my understanding that the Secretary exercises 
that authority by means of weekly updates on ongoing issues that the 
OIG provides, through monthly meetings between the Inspector General 
and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and through quarterly briefings 
that the Inspector General provides to the Under Secretaries of 
Defense. I am advised that the Secretary of Defense is not involved in 
the day-to-day operations of the OIG.
    Question. The previous DOD IG has been accused of slowing or 
blocking investigations of senior government officials, improperly 
spending appropriated funds on pet projects, and accepting gifts that 
may have violated ethics guidelines.
    Do you believe that these accusations have undermined confidence in 
the integrity of the OIG?
    Answer. I do not have first-hand knowledge regarding the substance 
of these allegations, or whether the allegations have, in fact, 
undermined confidence in the integrity of the OIG. If confirmed, 
however, I am committed to doing everything possible to ensure that all 
personnel in the OIG--including the Inspector General--uphold the 
highest ethical and legal standards, and that the OIG has the full 
trust and confidence of the Secretary of Defense, Congress, and the 
American people.
    Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to restore 
confidence in the integrity of the OIG?
    Answer. Please see my answer to previous question.
    Question. What is your understanding of the methods currently in 
use by the Secretary of Defense to exercise supervision over the 
performance of the DOD IG?
    Answer. It is my understanding that the OIG keeps the Secretary of 
Defense and his senior staff informed, to the extent appropriate, of 
audits and investigations through briefings and the dissemination of 
reports.
    Question. Based on your experience as an Assistant United States 
Attorney and former investigative counsel of the House Standards of 
Official Conduct (Ethics) Committee, do you believe that the current 
systems in place for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness and 
conformance by Inspectors General with the requirements of law are 
sufficient?
    Answer. It is my understanding that the principal mechanism for 
assessing compliance by Inspectors General with law and ethical 
standards is the Integrity Committee, a body that was established in 
1996 by the Chairperson of the President's Council on Integrity and 
Efficiency and the Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency. As a 
nominee, I do not yet have a sufficient basis to evaluate whether this 
mechanism is effective.
    Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that it 
is appropriate for the DOD IG to consult with officials in the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense (or other DOD officials outside the Office 
of the Inspector General) before issuing a report regarding the 
findings and recommendations in the report?
    Answer. It is essential to maintain not only the actual 
independence of the Inspector General in accordance with the act's 
mandate, but the appearance of independence as well.
    With respect to audits and inspections, I believe it is appropriate 
to provide officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (and 
other appropriate officials outside the Office of the Inspector 
General) with an opportunity to review a draft report to ensure that 
the report is factually accurate and to identify any areas of 
disagreement concerning conclusions, findings, and recommendations. 
Whether any changes are made to a report as a result of such a review 
remains within the sole discretion of the Inspector General.
    With respect to noncriminal investigations such as senior official 
investigations and reprisal investigations, prior consultations 
generally should occur only if such consultations would not compromise 
the Inspector General's independence or the integrity of the ongoing 
investigation. In this regard, it should be noted that in section 
8(b)(1) of the act, Congress expressly provided that ``the Inspector 
General shall be under the authority, direction, and control of the 
Secretary of Defense with respect to audits or investigations, or the 
issuance of subpoenas, concerning: (A) sensitive operational plans; (B) 
intelligence matters; (C) counterintelligence matters; (D) ongoing 
criminal investigations by other administrative units of the Department 
of Defense related to national security; or (E) other matters the 
disclosure of which would constitute a serious threat to national 
security.'' Given this congressional directive, I believe that the 
Inspector General has a statutory obligation to consult with the 
Secretary of Defense regarding the findings and recommendations of 
investigations of matters specified in section 8(b)(1) prior to issuing 
a report concerning such matters.
    Except with respect to appropriate communications with other 
investigative or law enforcement entities, it would be inappropriate to 
discuss criminal investigations with individuals outside the OIG while 
such investigations are ongoing.
    Question. If you believe that such consultation is appropriate, 
what steps, if any, do you believe the Inspector General should take to 
keep a record of the consultation and record the results in the text of 
the report?
    Answer. I believe it is appropriate for the OIG to create and 
maintain a record of consultations with any official outside the OIG 
regarding findings and recommendations contained in a draft report. If 
such consultations result in changes to the findings and 
recommendations in the report, the substance of the consultations 
should be disclosed in the report together with an explanation by the 
Inspector General as to why the changes were made.
                             qualifications
    Question. Section 3 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 provides 
that IGs shall be appointed on the basis of their ``demonstrated 
ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management 
analysis, public administration, or investigations.''
    What background and experience do you possess that you believe 
qualifies you to perform the duties of the DOD IG?
    Answer. I have extensive experience in ethics and public corruption 
investigations. In 1992-1993, I served as Senior Associate Minority 
Counsel to the Task Force to Investigate Certain Allegations Concerning 
the Holding of American Hostages by Iran in 1980 ``October Surprise 
Task Force'', a special bipartisan panel of the U.S. House of 
Representatives. Subsequently, I served as Associate Independent 
Counsel to Joseph E. diGenova in the Investigation Concerning the 
Search of William J. Clinton's Passport Files During the 1992 
Presidential Election Campaign. From 1996-2000, I served as 
Investigative Counsel to the House Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct (``House Ethics Committee''), where I conducted several ethics 
investigations. In 1997, I played a central role in drafting and 
negotiating changes to the ethics rules of the House of Representatives 
in my capacity as Assistant to the Special Counsel to the Ethics Reform 
Task Force. I also conducted professional misconduct investigations for 
the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Department of Justice 
from January to May 2001.
    I also have extensive experience in national security affairs. From 
1980 to 1984, I served as a military and political analyst in the 
Directorate of Intelligence at the Central Intelligence Agency. In 
1990-1993, I was Deputy Minority Counsel to the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives. In 2000-2001, I served as 
Staff Director and Deputy Chief Counsel to the Judicial Review 
Commission on Foreign Asset Control, a congressionally mandated body 
that examined U.S. laws governing the imposition of economic sanctions 
by the U.S. Department of Treasury. Since March 2003, I have served as 
Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, where I 
have specialized in prosecutions of terrorism and other national 
security cases.
    If confirmed, I would also bring administrative experience to the 
position of Inspector General. In addition to the senior positions 
noted above, I served as Chief of Staff to the Deputy Attorney General 
from May 2001 to February 2003. As Chief of Staff, I coordinated 
oversight of the offices and bureaus of the Department of Justice and 
helped to oversee responses to the extraordinary challenges that 
confronted the Department in the period after the terrorist attacks on 
September 11, 2001.
    Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to 
take to enhance your expertise to perform these duties?
    Answer. If confirmed, I plan to become more familiar with statutes 
and regulations applicable to government contracting in general and 
defense procurement in particular. I also plan to meet with a broad 
cross-section of officials and personnel within the Department of 
Defense, including members of the Armed Forces overseas, to listen to 
their concerns and identify issues that might merit action by the OIG.
    Question. Based on your background and experience, are there any 
changes that you would recommend with respect to the current 
organization or responsibilities of the DOD IG?
    Answer. If confirmed, I plan to examine how the OIG is organized to 
determine if any structural changes in the office are appropriate. I 
also plan to examine whether the office is meeting the full range of 
its statutory responsibilities within the context of the resources 
available. It would be premature to offer any recommendations for 
change in these areas, however, until I have an adequate opportunity to 
conduct the necessary evaluations.
                             relationships
    Question. If confirmed, what would your working relationship be 
with:
    The Secretary of Defense?
    Answer. Section 8(c) of the act states that the Inspector General 
shall ``be the principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense for 
matters relating to the prevention and detection of fraud, waste, and 
abuse in the programs and operations of the Department . . . .'' In 
addition, section 2(3) provides for Inspectors General to ``keep[] the 
head of the establishment and Congress fully and currently informed 
about problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of . . . 
programs and operations and the necessity for and progress of 
corrective action . . . .''
    If confirmed, I will seek to establish a strong and effective 
relationship with the Secretary of Defense that enables me to carry out 
my statutory duties with the independence required under the act, while 
enabling the Secretary to exercise his statutory supervisory authority. 
I will consult directly with the Secretary as necessary and 
appropriate, particularly with respect to matters governed by section 
8(b)(1) of the act. I also expect to continue the current practice of 
providing weekly updates on ongoing issues to the Special Assistants 
for the Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense, meeting 
on a monthly basis with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and providing 
quarterly briefings to the Under Secretaries on matters warranting 
their attention.
    Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense?
    Answer. Section 3(a) of the Inspector General Act states that 
``[e]ach Inspector General shall report to and be under the general 
supervision of the head of the establishment involved or, to the extent 
such authority is delegated, the officer next in rank below such 
head.'' Department of Defense Directive 5106.01, dated April 13, 2006, 
states that `` the Inspector General of the Department of Defense shall 
report to and be under the general supervision of the Secretary of 
Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense. . . .'' (Emphasis added.) 
Accordingly, if confirmed, I would expect my relationship with the 
Deputy Secretary of Defense to mirror my relationship with the 
Secretary of Defense.
    Question. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller/Chief 
Financial Officer) (USD(C/CFO)?
    Answer. It is my understanding that the USD(C/CFO) is responsible 
for financial management within the Department of Defense by 
establishing and enforcing requirements, principles, standards, 
systems, procedures, and practices necessary to comply with financial 
management statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to the DOD. 
The USD directs financial management requirements, systems, and 
functions for all appropriated, nonappropriated, working capital, 
revolving, and trust fund activities. In addition, the USD directs 
statutory and regulatory financial reporting requirements.
    It is my further understanding that the Inspector General of the 
Department of Defense is subject to all rules and regulations 
established by the USD(C/CFO).
    I am advised that the Inspector General advises and counsels the 
USD(C/CFO) on areas of concern within the financial management arena to 
include acquisition management, financial statement audits, and 
contracting issues. To accomplish this, I will continue the acting IG's 
current practice of providing quarterly briefings to the USD(C/CFO) on 
current audits and investigations that have fiscal implications.
    I am also advised that the Inspector General provides the USD(C/
CFO) information to develop and defend the concurrent Program Objective 
Memorandum/Budget Estimate Submission to document the OIG's extended 
resource requirements to OSD and OMB. In that regard, I would expect to 
continue to work with the USD(C/CFO) to formulate the OIG's portion of 
the annual President's budget for submission to OSD/OMB, and to request 
required resources to conduct the Inspector General's mission.
    Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics?
    Answer. The OIG has identified ``acquisition processes and contract 
management'' as a major challenge for the Department of Defense. It is 
therefore essential for the Inspector General to maintain an effective 
working relationship with the Under Secretary for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics. If confirmed, I expect to work particularly 
closely with the Under Secretary concerning the allocation of OIG 
resources in the acquisition area, and how best to implement audit 
recommendations pertaining to acquisition processes.
    Question. The General Counsel for the Department of Defense?
    Answer. The Office of the General Counsel has extensive legal 
expertise and resources that are valuable to the OIG. It is therefore 
in the best interests of the DOD IG and the General Counsel to work as 
closely as possible without compromising the independence of the 
Inspector General or creating the appearance that the Inspector 
General's independence has been compromised. If confirmed, I would 
expect to work with the General Counsel on proposed legislation and 
regulations, ethics issues, and legal issues associated with audit 
findings and departmental policies.
    According to information provided to me in preparation for my 
confirmation hearing, an action memo governing the relationship between 
the Inspector General and General Counsel was approved by former Deputy 
Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz on September 27, 2004. This action memo, 
titled ``Provision of Legal Services to the Inspector General of the 
Department of Defense,'' apparently superseded a previous memorandum of 
understanding between the Inspector General and the General Counsel 
that was executed in 1985 but was terminated in February 2004.
    The September 2004 action memo contains the following provisions:

         Consistent with DOD Directive 5145.4, the Office of 
        General Counsel of the Office of Inspector General of the 
        Department of Defense (OIG/OGC) shall be established as an 
        element of the Defense Legal Services Agency (DLSA). The Office 
        of Deputy General Counsel (Inspector General) in the Office of 
        the DOD General Counsel shall be disestablished.
         The legal staff of the Office of the Deputy General 
        Counsel (Inspector General) will transfer from the Office of 
        the DOD General Counsel to the OIG/OGC as part of DLSA.
         One SES resource, position, and associated funding 
        will transfer from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to 
        OIG.
         Eight non-SES attorney positions, with associated 
        funding, will transfer from the Office of the Secretary of 
        Defense to OIG. The employees encumbering these positions will 
        move with their positions.
         Budgeting, managing of ceiling spaces, personnel 
        services, and other administrative support for OIG/OGC shall be 
        the responsibility of the Inspector General. The Inspector 
        General shall be the appointing authority for OGC/OIG, the 
        other attorneys, and staff assigned to OIG/OGC.
         The selection of the OGC/OIG and other attorneys 
        assigned to OGC/OIG shall require the approval of the Inspector 
        General and the General Counsel of the Department of Defense. 
        The OGC/OIG and other attorneys in OIG/OGC may not be 
        transferred, reassigned, provided additional duties, 
        disciplined or terminated without the approval of the Inspector 
        General and the General Counsel of the Department of Defense.
         The OGC/OIG shall be a member of the Senior Executive 
        Service. The rater and senior rater of the OGC/OIG shall be the 
        Principal Deputy General Counsel and General Counsel of the 
        Department of Defense, respectively. The Inspector General 
        shall sign the performance plan and evaluation of the OGC/OIG 
        as the appointing authority.
         The Inspector General shall include the OGC/OIG in the 
        Senior Executive Service bonus pool for the OIG.

    Question. The Director of Operational Tests and Evaluation?
    Answer. I am advised that the Inspector General and the Director of 
Operational Tests and Evaluation have a common interest in ensuring 
that equipment and weapons systems allocated to the warfighter perform 
effectively and as planned. If confirmed, I would expect to consult as 
appropriate with the Director concerning the initiation of audits in 
these areas.
    Question. The Inspectors General of the military departments, 
defense agencies, and the Joint Staff?
    Answer. Section 8(c)(2) of the act states that the DOD IG ``shall . 
. . initiate, conduct, and supervise such audits and investigations in 
the Department of Defense (including the military department) as the 
Inspector General considers appropriate. . . .'' Section 8(c)(9) adds 
that the Inspector General ``shall . . . give particular regard to the 
activities of the internal audit, inspection, and investigative units 
of the military departments with a view toward avoiding duplication and 
ensuring effective coordination and cooperation. . .'' In addition 
Department of Defense Directive No. 5106.01, dated April 13, 2006, 
directs the Inspector General, ``unless precluded by the matter, [to] 
notify the Secretaries of the Military Departments concerned before 
conducting audits, evaluations, inspections, or investigations of 
matters normally under the jurisdiction of the Military Department.''
    I am advised that as a matter of practice, the Inspectors General 
of the Military Departments, who report directly to their respective 
Secretaries, have conducted audits and investigations of matters 
particularly germane to the military departments, including 
investigations of violent crime occurring in operational theaters. In 
contrast, I am advised that the DOD IG traditionally has focused on 
more systemic matters that cross Service lines. Department of Defense 
Directive No. 5106.01 also provides that ``unless precluded by the 
nature of the matter,'' [the DOD IG must] notify the Secretaries of the 
Military Departments concerned before conducting audits, evaluations, 
inspections, or investigations of matters normally under the 
jurisdiction of the Military Departments.''
    I am advised that the DOD IG has a close working relationship with 
the Inspectors General of the Military Departments. Personnel from the 
OIG meet regularly with staff from the Inspectors General of the 
Military Departments in order to keep each other advised of planned and 
ongoing work, coordinate activities and avoid unnecessary duplication, 
and discuss other issues of mutual interest. In addition, Department of 
Defense directives governing certain programs in which the Inspectors 
General of the Military Departments participate also give the Inspector 
General policy and oversight roles with respect to those programs. 
These include the Department of Defense Hotline, whistleblower reprisal 
investigations, and investigations against senior officials. The 
Inspectors General of the Defense Agencies report to their respective 
agency heads. However, in areas such as inspections, audits, and the 
operations of hotlines, they come under the policymaking authority of 
the DOD IG. The Defense Agencies' Inspectors General also serve as the 
contact with the Department's Inspector General in facilitating proper 
implementation of Inspector General recommendations.
    Question. The Criminal Investigative Services of the Military 
Departments?
    Answer. Under the act, the Inspector General has the authority to 
initiate, conduct, and supervise criminal investigations relating to 
any and all programs and operations of the Department of Defense. In 
addition, the Inspector General is statutorily authorized to develop 
policy, monitor and evaluate program performance, and provide guidance 
regarding all criminal investigative programs within the Department. As 
noted above, however, section 8(c)(9) of the act provides that the 
Inspector General ``shall . . . give particular regard to the 
activities of the internal audit, inspection, and investigative units 
of the military departments with a view toward avoiding duplication and 
insuring effective coordination and cooperation. . .'' In addition, 
Department of Defense Directive No. 5106.01 provides that ``unless 
precluded by the nature of the matter,'' [the Department of Defense 
Inspector General must] notify the Secretaries of the Military 
Departments concerned before conducting audits, evaluations, 
inspections, or investigations of matters normally under the 
jurisdiction of the military departments.''
    I expect to work closely with each of the Military Criminal 
Investigative Organizations (MCIOs) to ensure that investigative 
resources are utilized effectively. It is my understanding that the IG 
is more heavily involved in investigations that affect major Department 
programs or that involve or affect more than one military service. I 
also understand that the DOD IG frequently works in close coordination 
with one or more of the MCIOs on joint investigations, particularly in 
the fraud area.
    Question. The audit agencies of the military departments?
    Answer. If confirmed, I expect to work closely and collegially with 
the audit agencies of the military departments to ensure that necessary 
audits are conducted without duplication of effort.
    Section 4(a) of the act establishes broad jurisdiction of the 
Inspector General to conduct audits and investigations within the 
Department of Defense, and section 8(c)(2) states that the Inspector 
General ``shall . . . initiate, conduct, and supervise such audits and 
investigations in the Department of Defense (including the military 
departments) as the Inspector General considers appropriate.'' The 
audit agencies of the military departments, however, have particular 
expertise in a range of matters within the purview of their 
departments, and separate resources available to commit to audits of 
their departments. In addition, section 6.3.1 of Department of Defense 
Directive No. 5106.01 directs the Inspector General, ``unless precluded 
by the matter, [to] notify the Secretaries of the Military Departments 
concerned before conducting audits, evaluations, inspections, or 
investigations of matters normally under the jurisdiction of the 
military departments.''
    It is my understanding that the audit agencies of the military 
departments have worked with the OIG on Hurricane Katrina relief 
efforts and other projects. I further understand that the OIG and the 
military audit agencies work together to train personnel and oversee 
the conduct of peer reviews of the military audit organizations to 
ensure that their work is in compliance with Government Auditing 
Standards.
    Question. The Defense Contract Audit Agency?
    Answer. Section 8(c)(6) of the act directs the Inspector General to 
``monitor and evaluate the adherence of Department auditors to internal 
audit, contract audit, and internal review principles, policies, and 
procedures. . .'' In accordance with this directive, it is my 
understanding that the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and other 
OIG components work collaboratively with Defense Contract Audit Agency 
(DCAA) auditors on audits and investigations involving Department of 
Defense contractors. I also understand that the Director of the DCAA, 
along with other Department Audit Chiefs, meet at least quarterly with 
the Inspector General to discuss and coordinate audit activities. If 
confirmed, I expect to continue these practices.
    Question. The Defense Acquisition Regulatory Council?
    Answer. It is my understanding that the DOD IG provides comments to 
the Defense Acquisition Regulatory Council on proposed changes to the 
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement. I also understand 
that the Council occasionally requests assistance from the Inspector 
General with factfinding on especially complex issues. If confirmed, I 
expect to continue these practices.
    Question. The Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition 
Policy?
    Answer. It is my understanding that the Director of Defense 
Procurement and Acquisition Policy is responsible for a large segment 
of Department operations and, accordingly, is a major recipient and 
user of services and reports provided by the OIG. I am advised that the 
Director's involvement has been especially valuable to the Inspector 
General in audit planning efforts, particularly in the acquisition 
area. If confirmed, I expect to continue the Inspector General's 
practice of soliciting the Director's input where appropriate.
    Question. The Comptroller General and the Government Accountability 
Office?
    Answer. The OIG works closely with the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to coordinate planned and ongoing audits and inspections 
and avoid duplication of efforts. If confirmed, I expect to continue 
these practices.
    Department of Defense Directive No. 7650.2, dated July 13, 2000, 
directs the DOD IG to: (1) serve as the DOD central liaison with the 
Comptroller General on all matters concerning GAO surveys, reviews, 
reports, and activities; (2) designate appropriate DOD components to 
work with GAO during the conduct of reviews within the Department of 
Defense, and to prepare responses to GAO reports when required; (3) 
develop and provide guidance, as needed, to facilitate the handling of 
GAO surveys and reviews, and to review and respond to GAO reports and 
requests for security reviews on GAO reports; (4) facilitate resolution 
of disagreements between DOD components concerning the appropriate of 
proposed responses to GAO reports; and (5) arrange and facilitate 
meetings, as necessary, with representatives of DOD components and/or 
the GAO regarding GAO surveys, reports, or other GAO activities within 
the Department of Defense.
                     major challenges and problems
    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges and problems 
facing the next DOD IG?
    Answer. In its semiannual report to Congress, the OIG lists the 
most serious management and performance challenges faced by the 
Department of Defense based on the findings and recommendations of 
audits, inspections, and investigations conducted during the year. The 
most recent semiannual report, covering the period of October 31, 2005, 
through March 31, 2006, identified the following challenges:

         Joint Warfighting and Readiness
         Homeland Defense
         Human Capitol
         Information Technology Management
         Acquisition Processes and Contract Management
         Financial Management
         Health Care
         Infrastructure and Environment

    In the context of meeting these challenges, the OIG will continue 
to provide extensive oversight in support of the global war on 
terrorism in the areas of readiness, logistics, force management, 
contracting, and financial management. The OIG also will continue its 
audit operations related to Hurricane Katrina.
    It is difficult as a nominee to identify specific problems I will 
confront if confirmed. Based on the information provided to me thus 
far, however, I am concerned that existing audit resources may be 
insufficient to meet the Inspector General's statutory responsibilities 
with respect to defense acquisitions and contract oversight. I am also 
concerned that the OIG may lack sufficient resources to conduct 
necessary in-theater audit and investigative activity in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for 
addressing these challenges and problems?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will focus audit, investigative, and 
inspection efforts on the challenges identified in the semiannual 
report, while working to identify new issues in consultation with 
senior Department of Defense officials and Congress. I will also work 
with senior Department officials and Congress to determine what 
additional resources the OIG needs to fulfill its statutory 
responsibilities.
    Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish 
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the DOD IG?
    Answer. It is difficult as a nominee to formulate priorities 
because I have not had access to the full range of information and 
considerations that should inform the setting of priorities. Promoting 
efficiency and preventing fraud in defense acquisitions will obviously 
be a high priority--as will force protection for the men and women of 
our armed services serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will also 
aggressively pursue oversight of defense contracts, particularly those 
relating to major weapons systems and the war in Iraq. If confirmed, I 
look forward to consulting with senior officials of the Department of 
Defense and Congress to identify priorities for the OIG.
                     senior officer investigations
    Question. The Office of the DOD IG plays a key role in the 
investigation of allegations of misconduct by senior officers and 
civilian employees of the Department of Defense. The Committee on Armed 
Services has a particular interest in investigations concerning 
officers who are subject to Senate confirmation, and relies upon the 
DOD IG, as well as the Office of the Secretary of Defense, to ensure 
that these investigations are accurate, complete, and accomplished in a 
timely manner.
    If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that the 
investigations relating to senior officials are completed in a timely 
manner and that the results of investigations are promptly provided to 
this committee?
    Answer. I have spent much of my career as a government attorney 
promoting the integrity of our institutions of government, including 
service as an Investigative Counsel on the House Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct. If confirmed, investigations of alleged misconduct 
by senior officers and civilian officials of the Department of Defense 
will receive the highest priority by the OIG. Misconduct by senior 
government officials is a breach of the public trust, and individuals 
found to commit such misconduct must be held fully accounta